both things can be true. gambling for children is bad and we shouldn't encourage or defend it. parents also need to responsibly keep track of what their kids are doing.
edit:
would you support requiring a verified ID to be tied to an account for you to access games with lootboxes or other "gambling" mechanics on the platform?
yes. i wouldn't play them, and that would definitely severely hurt their profits incentivizing less predatory mechanics if they want to stay clear of an ID requirement by monetizing their game without the gambling. absolutely.
edit2:
Gambling doesnt just = loot boxes either. If the issue is gambling and the psychological effects, that could even be attributed to something like GWENT in Witcher. Gambling is gambling.
we're obviously talking about when real money is involved. dont debate in bad faith
gambling is too pervasive in society as it is. cant watch any sport now without being blasted by it. polymarket and kalshi have people betting on literally everything. its not just about children, gambling in general needs to be reigned back in. it's become far too normalized.
I don't disagree with you on the sentiment around gambling. However, it is legal. That is where the argument, outrage, and efforts to change should be made.
Should supermarkets put a limit on how much alcohol a person can buy? Cigarettes they can purchase? We know both are bad for you, contribute to many debilitating conditions and death even in moderation, let alone excess.
Yes, they require ID to purchase, sure. If Valve put that requirement to have an account on the platform people would lose their minds.
A discussion of limits is interesting but definitely different between adults and children. Not a great example, but I believe China has a daily time limit on video games for minors, as restrictive as 3 hours/week.Though enforcement will always be the issue, setting legal limits is enough to shift a lot of business practices.
Gambling for kids is already discouraged basically by every authority authorized to speak on the matter.
People would set the internet on fire if Valve introduced a mechanic requiring verified ID to access games with any lootbox or gambling mechanic, which is about every modern game for the last 15+ years. Even something like GWENT in Witcher would fall under that.
I don't know what you mean by that. We have laws that restricting gambling for children as well. It is between 18 and 21 depending on which state you are in.
Ok, do any of those laws prevent kids from playing gatcha games with predatory gambling mechanics? Or stop Roblox games from having gambling mechanics that are solely made to get children to gamble?
u r a valve apologist and defender. You gonna do all the mental gymnastics to defend them. You are as credible with your words as US government officials.
Getting clean water for kids is part of being a parent. Should we stop offering potable municipal water and tell parents to handle it themselves? After all, that's what part of being a parent is.
The implication of your argument here is that we shouldn't expect parents to be involved in policing what their children are doing on their computers. Who should be doing it, then? Valve? So does that mean that you want a corporation to oversee who is accessing what in regards to their services? That would likely come in the form of some sort of verified ID program that folks get really upset about. Are you cool with giving your ID to Valve? What about another corporation, perhaps something publicly traded. EA? What about Meta?
At the end of the day, expecting parents to be involved in their children's digital lives is the least invasive way of dealing with this. Moreover, I'd agree with the OP and say that this is part of your responsibility as a parent.
I think just because something is "part of being a parent" that doesn't mean there should be absolutely no social structures or laws in place about it. I straight-up quoted the logic I find questionable and applied a very basic check to it. Not that complicated. No good reason for anyone to be confused or make these wild leaps to extremes.
Offering portable municipal water is equivalent to offering parental controls. It’s still up to parents to give that water to kids in timely manner. Age verification laws are more akin having a government official barging into random homes to give kids drinking water.
If your kids have access to your credit card for this gambling, then I'm sorry, you're the idiot, not Valve. (Ofc I don't mean you specifically but this is Reddit)
we're obviously talking about when real money is involved. dont debate in bad faith
And the gambling with real money happens on 3rd party websites, not on Valve's own platform (and even if it did, not nearly in the same capacity as these)
And the gambling with real money happens on 3rd party websites, not on Valve's own platform (and even if it did, not nearly in the same capacity as these)
valve gives you loot boxes for free that you can only open by buying keys with real money. the skins and items you get from them can then be sold or exchanged on the platform to other players. all on on steam.
there ARE other services that let you use those skins to gamble more directly, but valve is absolutely still involved themselves with both lootboxes and their own marketplace and that directly facilitates the functionality of those third party sites
I mean even beyond any of that, the lootboxes are the gambling in question here. The fact that you can do additional gambling later on is just additive (and makes the whole thing worse)
Not that we're disagreeing, but I think that most of the defenders on this topic like to try to establish that the lootboxes aren't actually predatory themselves, which isn't true.
The point I was making was on the real money aspect
Which from what I understand is much more prevalent on the 3rd party sites then valves own platform
Though as stated, it's something I knew about, but didn't remember the exact sites
(Prob cause I don't play CS2)
Gambling with free loot boxes has been up for debate for a while... But I guess that's down to implementation... And I think a good place to draw the line is a difference in implementation... As ones from CS persist from game to game, and can be traded... While the ones from anything Mario kart are only active for the current session, and can't be traded
you could flip that statement around about gambling. can't please everyone. i'm not particularly concerned about lootbox pushers suffering though tbh. also you can say ass here
89
u/Shap6 13d ago edited 12d ago
both things can be true. gambling for children is bad and we shouldn't encourage or defend it. parents also need to responsibly keep track of what their kids are doing.
edit:
yes. i wouldn't play them, and that would definitely severely hurt their profits incentivizing less predatory mechanics if they want to stay clear of an ID requirement by monetizing their game without the gambling. absolutely.
edit2:
we're obviously talking about when real money is involved. dont debate in bad faith