bearrock Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 19 minutes ago, Predicto said: Gotta admit, I'm a gamer and someone who recognizes the value of consumer protection regulation, but I'm having trouble caring about this. When my daughter asks, "Daddy, why can't Mario jump without me buying another stupid jump loot box?", I'll say because Predicto didn't care enough. Side question, is there anyway to edit an existing post and insert a quote into an existing post? I was trying to edit my post above to respond to Predicto's post, but I can't figure out how to embed a quote into an existing post. I guess I could use the generic quotebox tool, but that wouldn't show whose post I'm responding to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, bearrock said: In terms of the parenting aspect, I don't think that is the main thrust of the gambling prohibition laws. Minors can't contract anyway. If a minor runs up credit card charges on a parent's card, that is handled by the Truth in Lending Act and the respective card's unauthorized charge policy. At max, it's going to be $50 liability. The TILA part is wrong, the card's policy is correct. The $50 max is for unauthorized use (i.e., your card gets stolen). However: "If a cardholder furnishes a credit card and grants authority to make credit transactions to a person (such as a family member or coworker) who exceeds the authority given, the cardholder is liable for the transaction(s) unless the cardholder has notified the creditor that use of the credit card by that person is no longer authorized. Reg. Z, (which implements TILA), comment 12(b)(1)(ii)-3. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/eregulations/1026-12/2016-14782_20160627#1026-12-b-1-ii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: The TILA part is wrong, the card's policy is correct. The $50 max is for unauthorized use (i.e., your card gets stolen). However: "If a cardholder furnishes a credit card and grants authority to make credit transactions to a person (such as a family member or coworker) who exceeds the authority given, the cardholder is liable for the transaction(s) unless the cardholder has notified the creditor that use of the credit card by that person is no longer authorized. Reg. Z, (which implements TILA), comment 12(b)(1)(ii)-3. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/eregulations/1026-12/2016-14782_20160627#1026-12-b-1-ii But we're not talking about situations where the parent gives the credit card to the child and says yeah go nuts. Even if I have my credit card info on my phone and I don't lock my phone (which is of course an insanely stupid thing to do), my kid coming along and using my phone for a shopping spree isn't authorized use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, bearrock said: But we're not talking about situations where the parent gives the credit card to the child and says yeah go nuts. Even if I have my credit card info on my phone and I don't lock my phone (which is of course an insanely stupid thing to do), my kid coming along and using my phone for a shopping spree isn't authorized use. Yes, but the authorized use regulation states that, on top of the use being unauthorized, you also get no benefit. Quote Definition of unauthorized use. For purposes of this section, the term “unauthorized use” means the use of a credit card by a person, other than the cardholder, who does not have actual, implied, or apparent authority for such use, and from which the cardholder receives no benefit. If your kid bought a bunch of ****, the card company would have a very strong argument that you got some benefit out of the shopping spree. After all, the goods are now in your house and you can use them (or return them for cash). https://www.consumerfinance.gov/eregulations/1026-12/2016-14782_20160627#1026-12-b-1-i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted December 8, 2017 Author Share Posted December 8, 2017 31 minutes ago, Predicto said: Then maybe in 5 to 7 years we will have a better handle on what regulation, if any, would be appropriate? Why do we need to see it happen at a super mass scale to see that it is a straight up predatory industry tactic and practice. Scaling won’t really give us any extra insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 8 minutes ago, bearrock said: One could work multiple jobs and overtime to make more money instead of gambling too. Paywall and pay to win may be related concepts, but not always the same. In terms of the parenting aspect, I don't think that is the main thrust of the gambling prohibition laws. Minors can't contract anyway. If a minor runs up credit card charges on a parent's card, that is handled by the Truth in Lending Act and the respective card's unauthorized charge policy. At max, it's going to be $50 liability. While it may be easy to say that responsible adults should be responsible for their behavior, the law recognizes and curtails various seedy behaviors. Why have false advertising laws? People should research the advertised claims and double check the fine prints of a contract. Why have mandatory warranties? People should research product quality, take out insurance, and protect themselves against the possibility of faulty product. What's the point of drug laws? Gambling laws? You can take the position that gambling laws are unnecessary, bad, should be personal responsibility, etc. That's a different discussion altogether. Companies are not defending loot boxes saying that gambling should be legal and therefore nothing is wrong with it. They are saying that loot boxes aren't gambling. They are intentionally trying to prey on the gambling impulses of the consumers, while saying that it is not gambling. I believe it is gambling as defined in many states, including Virginia and it's time to call them out on it. If people want to say "oh this should be a permissible form of gambling", that's fine. I would argue that the exact odds should be disclosed, but whatever. But let's not pretend that it's not gambling. Again, you are simply paying for extra loot boxes (that can be obtained in the game through regular gameplay) to increase your changes of getting a high value item, which can also be obtained without purchasing extra loot boxes. When you go to a casino to gamble, you are putting money up front on what ever game (Blackjack, slots, craps, etc.) in hopes of winning more money. You lose and walk away with nothing, unlike the game where you can still continue to play the game in hopes of eventually winning that special item/gear you want. I've stated that it is a gamble by definition, simply because one is paying out money for loot boxes and taking a gamble on getting great loot or crap loot. You can't walk into a casino, not gamble and walk away with free money. You can play the game, not buy loot boxes and still walk away with the same items though, just not as fast as paying for extra loot boxes. That's the difference. I should go on record and say that I personally don't like micro-transactions, especially loot boxes, however, I understand why companies/developers have chosen this model. Partial blame goes on fellow gamers willing to pay real money for digital items/gear/accounts years ago on PC mmorpgs and it caught the eye of developers. So they ran with that idea. Not taking up for developers, but it is about making money for them. Want to hurt them, hurt their pockets and don't buy their products or don't purchase any micro-transactions in game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said: If your kid bought a bunch of ****, the card company would have a very strong argument that you got some benefit out of the shopping spree. After all, the goods are now in your house and you can use them (or return them for cash). https://www.consumerfinance.gov/eregulations/1026-12/2016-14782_20160627#1026-12-b-1-i Kinda feel like we're getting off topic a bit, so I'll just point out this bit and let you have final say on it if you'd like. If presence of the goods in my house is a benefit that disqualifies me from unauthorized use, wouldn't that pretty much cover every unauthorized use by a household member? I could also hate video games and derive no benefit from the presence of those games in my house (The hypothetical me. Not the real me. Real me wants more games in the house even though I have a backlog a mile long and will probably never finish all the games I do have in the house). The argument for lack of benefit grows stronger if the shopping spree consists of virtual items connected to the child's game account. Responding to @Dont Taze Me Bro's post below Quote Again, you are simply paying for extra loot boxes (that can be obtained in the game through regular gameplay) to increase your changes of getting a high value item, which can also be obtained without purchasing extra loot boxes. When you go to a casino to gamble, you are putting money up front on what ever game (Blackjack, slots, craps, etc.) in hopes of winning more money. You lose and walk away with nothing, unlike the game where you can still continue to play the game in hopes of eventually winning that special item/gear you want. I've stated that it is a gamble by definition, simply because one is paying out money for loot boxes and taking a gamble on getting great loot or crap loot. You can't walk into a casino, not gamble and walk away with free money. You can play the game, not buy loot boxes and still walk away with the same items though, just not as fast as paying for extra loot boxes. That's the difference. The fact that a casino offers a non-gambling method to obtain the desired prize doesn't make their gambling part of the operation to be no longer gambling. I could set up a place where patrons can walk in and either play traditional house games like slots, poker, etc to make money by gambling or scrub the dishes and get paid $7.50 an hour. I may say that well you don't have to engage in a game of chance at Bearrock's Funhouse to make money, you can grind your way to it at $7.50 an hour washing dishes. I doubt it'll pass muster with the gaming authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 Just now, bearrock said: Kinda feel like we're getting off topic a bit, so I'll just point out this bit and let you have final say on it if you'd like. If presence of the goods in my house is a benefit that disqualifies me from unauthorized use, wouldn't that pretty much cover every unauthorized use by a household member? I could also hate video games and derive no benefit from the presence of those games in my house (The hypothetical me. Not the real me. Real me wants more games in the house even though I have a backlog a mile long and will probably never finish all the games I do have in the house). The argument for lack of benefit grows stronger if the shopping spree consists of virtual items connected to the child's game account. Agree we are getting a bit off topic. So I'll reply to this below and just add that I think you've made excellent posts in this thread, even if I disagree with some of them. So yes, I do think that it would be very tough for a parent to claim unauthorized use in almost any situation involving their kids. Here are the scenarios I can think of: 1. Parent gives kid his card and says go nuts. - This is clearly authorized use. 2. Parent gives kid his card and doesn't say anything about restrictions - This is implied use. 3. Parent give kid his card and says you can buy one (1) thing that is a real tangible thing. Kid then buys 10 tangible things. - This is the scenario where the parent gets the benefit; at minimum they can return the items. 4. Parent give kid his card and says you can buy one (1) video game thing and the kid racks up a bunch of microtransactions - This still is going to be on the parents because the rule says "If a cardholder furnishes a credit card and grants authority to make credit transactions to a person (such as a family member or coworker) who exceeds the authority given, the cardholder is liable for the transaction(s) unless the cardholder has notified the creditor that use of the credit card by that person is no longer authorized." So in order for the parent to not be liable, they'd have to call the card company and probably need to have them block all transactions through the game's payment processor. 5. Kid steals the card and makes a bunch of transactions. Parent NOT liable, kid could potentially get prosecuted depending on his age if the parents report it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 1 hour ago, bearrock said: Responding to @Dont Taze Me Bro's post below The fact that a casino offers a non-gambling method to obtain the desired prize doesn't make their gambling part of the operation to be no longer gambling. I could set up a place where patrons can walk in and either play traditional house games like slots, poker, etc to make money by gambling or scrub the dishes and get paid $7.50 an hour. I may say that well you don't have to engage in a game of chance at Bearrock's Funhouse to make money, you can grind your way to it at $7.50 an hour washing dishes. I doubt it'll pass muster with the gaming authorities. This is just a silly comparison. Bottom line, people (most) go to a Casino to gamble their money with hopes of coming out ahead and taking home more money than they arrived with. Gamers paying money for extra loot boxes in hopes of gaining the best items and coming up short is not the same as betting all your money and losing it all. Because they could get that same loot over time by just playing the game. It is merely an easier option than investing tons of hours to get the stuff. You cannot go to a Casino, not gamble and sit there for hours on end and leave with free extra money. That is why its different, specifically speaking of having two ways to obtain what you want (money at a casino, best items in a game). Only one provides you with two options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 17 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said: This is just a silly comparison. Bottom line, people (most) go to a Casino to gamble their money with hopes of coming out ahead and taking home more money than they arrived with. Gamers paying money for extra loot boxes in hopes of gaining the best items and coming up short is not the same as betting all your money and losing it all. Because they could get that same loot over time by just playing the game. It is merely an easier option than investing tons of hours to get the stuff. You cannot go to a Casino, not gamble and sit there for hours on end and leave with free extra money. That is why its different, specifically speaking of having two ways to obtain what you want (money at a casino, best items in a game). Only one provides you with two options. The fact that game developers offer a free way of obtaining the item has no bearing on whethet loot box system constitutes gambling. They are receiving money from players in exchange for a loot box, which provides players with a chance at obtaining their desired prize and such chance is based on uncertainty. Using Virginia's definition of gambling, it checks all the boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, bearrock said: The fact that game developers offer a free way of obtaining the item has no bearing on whethet loot box system constitutes gambling. They are receiving money from players in exchange for a loot box, which provides players with a chance at obtaining their desired prize and such chance is based on uncertainty. Using Virginia's definition of gambling, it checks all the boxes. It's gambling, but it's still different. Because it is a short cut for people willing to pay extra money to obtain more loot boxes in hopes of getting said items instead of earning them through gameplay. And because they have an option of either grinding for hours to get loot boxes (for free - only time investment) that offer them the same outcome (as far as the odds of opening the loot box) or spending extra money in exchange for a larger quantity of loot boxes and getting them immediately is most likely the reason that it hasn't and won't be held to the same regulations as standard gambling. I hate the whole loot box model and never spend any extra money on those, never will. But at the end of the day, while the developers know it will bring them a ton of revenue, the loot box model is a lot closer to keeping the game somewhat fair across the board as those participants still have the same odds of getting the same items. They are just increasing their chances based on quantity/attempts. Play enough and you eventually will hit the jackpot. If they just sold the best items as is through micro-transactions (i.e. the best gear and weapons in the game), then everyone would just buy those and the ones that didn't would be complaining that it's not fair they can't afford to pay say $50 for the best gear and they have to spend 200 hours grinding it out. At least with the loot boxes, there is a chance that the person paying $50 for extra loot boxes gets absolute garbage items. Me personally, I'd rather the landscape change back to the good ole days, but its not going to. This is what we are stuck with. I play plenty of games with micro-transactions and don't spend extra money on that crap and still have fun and hold my own. I get the hatred for it, but one has a choice, they don't have to buy anything extra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 I play DBZ Dokkan Battle. Help meeeeeeeeeeeeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted December 9, 2017 Share Posted December 9, 2017 Its definitely gambling in the literal sense of the word. I absolutely hate micro transactions and to this day have never spent a dime on any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.