The protecting children from abusive games act

So, this has been on my radar for a bit, thanks to YongYea, and.... that title ALONE immediately sends up some red flags. But I figure to worry about it once ink is on a page. Well....now I can worry about it.



The way that this is worded sounds like it would annihilate the free to play market. Firstly, that anything M rated and below would not allow microtransactions, meaning that if you didn't want to pay fines and go to jail, you'd have to have your game registered as AO, and that's a death knell. Consoles won't even look at you, and I don't think Steam would either (unless I'm mistaken. Please correct me if I am)

Second, there's this. "The Term pay to win microtransaction means an add-on transaction to a interactive digital entertainment product that (I) eases a user's progression through content otherwise available within the game without the purchase of such transaction"

Like how we could use DB cash to buy weapons instead of certs. ****.

"(IV) permits a user to continue to access content of the game that had previously been accessible to the user but has been made inaccessible after the expiration of a timer or number of gameplay attempts"

Double dammit. The new NS robots might count for this since they're only available to those who subscribe.

"provides a user with a competitive advantage with respect to the game's competitive aspects over users who do not make such a transaction"

The increased nanites to subscribing members might count for this. And that's 3 strikes, we're done. And not just us. Warframe? Dead and gone. League of Legends? Incarcerated. Smite? See ya buddy. I mean, the only way I could really see past this is if they removed the DB cash cost to everything across the boards, meaning no income, studio goes under, PS2 vanishes. Or they could try and charge $60 for the game, and try and abide by the bill, releasing expansions for added cash transfusions to stay afloat which.....might work??? I'd pay for access to the new continent.

All this is really speculation and I'm not really saying anything about the game except that I've loved my time spent here. I'd really rather this not all go away because EA couldn't behave themselves. I warned them. I warned that once the government got involved and we gave them an inch, how do we keep them from taking the mile they feel entitled to? So I ask this...

Any developer or executive of Daybreak studios.... is planetside going to be okay?

The focus of attention will be games as Star Wars, Fortnite, and other games obviously targeting a young demographic.

Other than that, I'm sure EA, and others like them, will figure out a new way of manipulating players and the law.

That honestly just makes me even more concerned. The likes of EA, Activision, Bethesda, and Blizzard can fight this until they are blue in the face but a smaller company, like Daybreak or Digital Extremes, cannot.

The gall of this just gets me too. I mean, because someone can’t keep their demon spawn away from their credit card, they think they can tell us what to do? Here we are, nearly two decades into the new millennium and we are still desperately trying to legislate anything and everything potentially hazardous or dangerous away, because WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!

Here’s an idea. How about the people putting this garbage forward actually man up and be a parent? Little Timmy steals your card and put $200 down on Fortnite? Give him the beating of his life and make him mow lawns every weekend to pay it all back, but leave me out of it. I’m sick of people who think they can boss me around just because they have a little sentient accident while chasing 5 minutes of pleasure.

You know there are people above the age of 18 that would like to see an end to the RNG ******** lootbox system that's all the rage? I know having to actually shower and go to the casino puts a huge inconvenience on you, but that's where most people gamble.

What an idiotic thing to say, and ad hominem at that. Tell me, genius, now that we've given the government an inch, how do we keep them from taking the mile they feel entitled to posses? Everyone is all "Hurr durr, EA is evil! they deserve it!" but what about all the people that don't? I know that Digital Extremes had removed a microtransaction feature because it was TOO successful and was raking in too much cash in an exploitative way.

And, for the record, I've never gambled on lootboxes. It's on my agenda to start farming the implant packs at some point, but so far, I've been using the 2x xp time to grind for base construction blueprints, both of which involve massive amounts of certs, not DB cash. However, if you look at what is gaining popularity in politics, look at the track record that politicians, who neither play games nor understand the economy around them, have with this kind of thing, and you think that this is going to have a happy ending, you clearly haven't been paying attention.

Even if some games like Planetside 2 went down, that would be a small price to pay in my opinion.

Pay2Win games and games relying mainly or solely on microtransactions are not good for the industry. I'm sure games like Warframe will be fine, as primarily they only sell cosmetics with almost no paywalls, while the premium currency can be bought from other players with the various bits of junk that come through gameplay.

Gambling is a major issue, but most people don't see it as such because no one ever dies because of it directly. It's an addiction like nicotine or alcohol or the numerous other illicit drugs prevalent in our societies. Not only children are affected by loot boxes either.

Regardless, we as consumers should not ever allow major corporations to exploit people's weakness and abuse their customers as they have shown their willingness to do time and time again. I for one support the proposed bill, though as pnkdth said I'm sure the effectiveness of the laws passed would be limited, if it is able to be passed at all.

Standard stuff; introduce more government controls and legislation because parents don't want to parent.

It started in the 1920's when pinball machines were smashed up because they were 'gambling' and responsible for school truancy. Then the 70's & 80's with people treating games like they promoted Satanism. Then in the 90's - 00's they were responsible for mass shootings. After 2010 it's about turning boys into 'misogynists'. Now we are back to gambling, the acronym says it all...
P rotecting
C hildren
f rom
A busive
G ames

Well put, Gibber. You also forget about prohibition, a piece of government legislation that gave birth to the freaking mafia because they forget that, just because the legal supply of something dries up, the demand for it does not. A good reminder that government action 1) rarely yields anything good and 2), the ones putting ink to page have precious little idea of what they are talking about.

But let's entertain the narrative for just a moment. I would never defend anything that EA has done. I think every single person in America who has ever played a video game has been effected by them; had some studio that produced a cherished childhood game crashed into the ground because of them. Maxis, Ultima, Westwood, Dead Space, Bullfrog, Wing Commander, the list goes on and on and on... And the idea of seeing their company go out of business, no longer able to abuse us with anti-consumer BS, and is utterly CRUSHED under the full weight of the legal system is one that does delight me just a bit.

But... is that ALL that the government will be doing? Are you sure? How do we know? Since when, in the great history of our land, has government action ever NOT been about CONTROL? What to think, how to spend your time, what ideals to hold, what to spend your money on, what you are and are not allowed to do. These are the things that those in power consider for you.

This also sets a precedent. Need I remind you all that it was only a scant few decades ago that violence in video gaming was what was considered harmful to the children, and we got those delightful chucklemongers in the ESRB because of it. What's to stop them now? It's just another objectionable thing in those pesky video games to be edited, tidied up, and made family friendly for all.

THEY WILL NEVER BE DONE FIXING YOU. LET THAT SINK IN.

This lets the genie out of the bottle and while I will scream my rage against EA for the rest of my days, they are but small cuddly teddy bears compared to the United States government, an entity that has just been handed the ability to do anything it so pleases with us.

Honestly, I pray that I am wrong. I pray that this is just paranoia brought on by dodging snipers on Hossin all night. I hope that the gaming industry is made better by this, not an unrecognizable politically correct melted mess of slag and a reminder of something that used to be great.

clearly you have no understanding of this generation or any idea of parenting.

in this day and age it is impossible for parents to keep an eye on their children's online activity, especially if they have more then one kid, they have other things to do which are important in keeping said kids fed and clothed.

the reason why this regulation is necessary is because game companies are using weasel wording to evade calling their practices of preying on vulnerable children to generate money and creating gambling addictions in said children as gambling.

if companies wanted to they could put in parental controls in their games or on the platforms the games use, except they don't because it would eat into their immoral practices.

with this legislation they will only be able to use suck tricks on adults who should know better.

it's called they have to change their profit model from a preying on kiddies model to a subscription to play game w/ every unlockable unlocked through gameplay

that would only mean they would have to remove the ability to purchase weapons for day break cash, certs would still be fine since certs have no real world value and that can't be legally called a transaction.

this will remove cheesey ticket mechanics where in order to access a game mode you need to buy a limited time season pass and when it expires you can't access that game mode until they cycle through other themed season passes

the purpose of competitive games is to compete using your skill with the game (positioning, knowledge of the map, weapons etc. how people react in different situations etc)

the amount of wealth you have in the real world shouldn't give you an advantage in a competitive game.

they could probably get away with keeping ps2 free to download but require a subscription to log in and play.

besides if people don't like a specific aspect of how it is enforced (like DLCs for single player games) they can try to get exemptions put into the bill.

Do the words "Not my business, not my problem" mean anything to you? I do not care if you have difficulties disciplining your children within your own home, nor would I attempt to micro-manage your parenting style to prevent things like this. Yet, parents feel entitled to use legislation as a cudgel to restrict the behavior of everyone else? And to a useless end as well.No matter what you do, no matter what you try, children ARE going to see and do the things you censor from their eyes eventually. All you are doing is creating another generation that has no idea how reality works, and they can do things like, say... throwing a temper tantrum when things don't go their way, and thinking they can do anything they so please so long as they do it in the name of social protest. Honestly, you're just disadvantaging your own children by trying to hide them from things like this, and the only thing you're going to get from me by trying to tell me what to do and what to think is resistance and spite.

You do realize that the free to play model is a pretty big selling point for PS2, right? There are a few whales, to be sure, but how many people do you see running around with basic equipment and no aesthetic add-ons? Folks try it for free, see that they like it, and become consistent players to the game. They drop a few dollars on it at some point, but likely significantly less than most AAA titles. The population right now is the best that it has ever been, and I like the big fights with the tons of new comers. We have a good system right now that works.

Okay, you said a buncha things here, and I'm going to respond to each of them right down the list.

I do use my skill in that facet. It's how I've ground out thousands of certs for construction schematics without paying a cent for them.

My wealth irl DOESN'T grant me advantages. Only my aim, reactions, and quality of reactions does that.

Oh you mean like how Planetside 1 attempted to do that same thing back in the day and their player base tanked HARD from it?

And it's really rich that you're using the "if you don't like it, we can get the rules changed for it" approach, because my whole argument is "if you don't like the microtransactions, don't buy them, and don't tell me what to do".

Honestly, this entire exchange has made me really glad that you aren't the one in charge for the future of this game.

... so aside from implants what does PS2 have that could be abused?
because i don´t see there being much else at all ...

MW:O threw its puchaseable RNG boxes out long ago (as did warframe to my knoledge)
in MW:O you get supplyboxes only after played enough games to fill a progressionbar but they are otherwise no longer purchaseable ..

yea guess what primarily EA did .. they made subscription or pay to play games WITH predatory microtransactions most notably in their sportsgames with selling playercards with better stats ...

i don´t see anything in PS2 that would be anywhere near the case ..

if you now would limit access to a supscriptionmodel only to this game i´ll tell you 2/3 to 3/4 of the playerbase if not more would be gone the next day .. ... remember how PS1 went?

also no just because games have a subscriptionmodel or even pay2play model doesn´t mean you have all content unlocked ..
in fact it is more likely that companies like EA, Bethesda or activision and similar would even further limit accessible content and give it out piece by piece to milk you dry that way .. purchaseable RNG boxes while in themselves being shi tty aren´t the only problem with this industry ...

the other way companies go on "unlockable content" is to increase the grinding to infuriting levels to then offer the option to pay for unlocking it .. best example capcom´s street fighter 5 .. hey there is this skin i want for this character but it cost so much ingamecurency that it would take days to unlock but it can be quickly unlocked for 5 bucks ..
and while that may not affect the persons susceptible to gambling it may affect the wales as well as children that simply want the shiny ... in other words companies that focus on profit will exaust any way to milk the last penny out of you, your principles be damned ...

All very good points. Something one always has to remember when dealing with big companies like this: it is NEVER screw them, but always screw you. The writer of this bill has even gone on record as saying that these companies are clever and find a way to get by. Well... they will, and politicians will fade into the background, patting themselves on the back for a “job well done” while the rest of us are left desperately wishing they kept trying to find Russian collusion. Least that wasn’t doing any damage.

The more I read and learn about this, the more solidified I become in the stance that this bill MUST fail.

were is the game realy pay 2 win though?
we may argue that a couple areas seem unballanced or underperforming but for the most part at least from what i feel there isn´t much were i would say XY is super OP ...
even then any "power"option you can pay for you can also get with certs or otherwise HAVE TO unlock through gameplay
(directiverewards and alertrewards)
so in that case PS2 is very much on the pay-to-skip-side imo ...
how much power do implanst realy give? and ouside from few level 5 implants all others have to be upgraded with iso which iirc you also rather get through playing the game ..
so there is at the very least no poweroption you only can get for cash

I wasn't strictly referring to Planetside 2, but there are parts of the game which I would consider Pay2Win. Though, overall PS2 is a very fair game in this respect.

• Subscription benefits: Bonus EXP means more certs for the same work. Extra nanite production means an even more excessive use of force-multipliers is possible as well as an absurd level of consumable spam.
• Weapons unlockable with DBC: Certs can be spent on the many cert-sinks in this game at a much faster rate by simply not certing weapons. Buying them unlocks them account-wide where applicable and costs nothing as far as in-game costs are concern. This also allows for a wider array of armaments for a single player and allows said player to own weapons sooner than others may be able to.
• Construction: The cert costs for even simple things in construction is ludicrous. It doesn't have to cost a single cert though.
• Camos: Most are cosmetic, some players swear by others saying they help them blend in. Then there are things like the infamous Giraffe camo.

Et cetera.

Implants give a lot more power than one might realize. Going from a character with pretty much everything the player wants to a fresh character with nothing really gives a shock. At least it did for me!

It's anti-capitalism disguised as moral imperative. Let EA sue the gubment and take it to the supreme court, which is now more business friendly.

PS2's model isn't that bad, it's monetary model is actually pretty decent (for the most part) compared to other games that offer a vastly unfair field of game-play for those who can't afford it... Sure, sub's can get more exp and what not, but exp isn't the end all of the game. You don't have to be level 100, maxed on certs, with every weapon in the game to have a good time, or, to have an advantage. There's a lot of skill involved in PS2, situational awareness, ability to aim etc.
Almost.
The implants gambling is a bit of a worry on how even the best games are starting to head in the wrong direction, as there is a clear (+/- time) advantage there if you have the cash for some highly functional gear, on obtaining and leveling said implants... It's a red flag to be sure, and like most other companies that throw these red flags, it's not long before someone tries to push out even more radical and inappropriate micro-transactions with the next 'big feature'.

For many other games it's a lot worse, it can skew the game-play experience horribly... Where kids are encouraged to gamble to the point that there isn't a day that goes by when someone isn't complaining how their gambling addicted child obtained their card and caused massive purchases, caused by these monetary scheme's they're exposed to - This isn't something any online gaming company should be encouraging, period.

A lot of these problems are down to the management, HR, the CEO's, their lack of knowledge, understanding or skill in the roles they so occupy and even worse failings in understanding what their "core players" want.

If they banned all micro-transactions completely, the game companies would need to evolve (or de-evolve at the same time) and return to their previous models, where sub counts were the measure of a good game (Don't confuse good with AAA graphics and high production costs. Actually enjoyable, a challenge and fun), and the games got tons of free advertising through their players.
And when I mention the quality of the game, I mean not just graphics and performance, but the community too, as F2P toxic (yes, not all are, but an awful lot) players won't gamble with their account ownership as often if they put their hard earned cash into it.
F2P is handling things badly, it's causing big issues to the gaming industry on soo many levels, just so companies can exploit the high rollers and the gullible (often kids), it needs to be addressed and games need to return to their core values; challenging (fun) and level playing field.
One of the biggest games in history fell so hard in 2014 and didn't stop falling to this day, after they introduced F2P and started catering to F2P players. and I'm absolutely astounded that the company didn't learn, until 5 years later, even then, their reputations fallen badly and the veterans won't even touch them again. These were minor semi-cosmetic/cosmetic transactions with no real advantage too.

I'd honestly welcome a ban on all micro-transactions, I sit on the edge of my seat in anticipation of it.
NOTE: If PS2 became sub-only, I would ask they add a 'gifting' system for subs, because I know quite a few people who can't afford it, but, I also know quite a few people who will dish out 2+x the sub to play with their friends.

Just gonna float a few concepts out there relevant to the topic.

Operant Conditioning.

This is the classic pavlov stuff. There are a couple variants based on how a reward/punishment is dished out. The idea being that a rat in a test box (or a human in front of a game) does an action and then does or does not get a reward.

Fixed interval. You get a reward after a fixed period of time. (See: Daily cert rewards at login)
Variable Interval. You get a reward after some varying amount of time.
Fixed Ratio. You get a reward for each action (See kills, leveling up, many other game activities)
Variable Ratio. You get a reward after a random number of actions... (Hossin Camo, entire implant system, loot crates)

These schedules of reinforcement are well studied. They measure how long it takes the behavior to die off if the reward is shut off, and how long it takes the behavior to reappear when the reward is turned on.

The one you need to watch closely is the Variable Ratio. It takes a while to begin, but once done behavior dies off slowly, and resumes quickly. This is the operant conditioning that makes little old ladies pee themselves instead of getting up from the Slot machine in Vegas.

It's also the one our implant system is based on.

The reason I mention all this.

You can make good money if you have a good idea for a game. You give me fun, I give you money...gladly. Easy Peasy.

You can also make good money by putting out a mediocre game then lacing it with operant conditioning and some in-game purchase system.

Thanks for reading. Hope this sparks some thought

this is exactly the problem which caused the bill to be formed.

games can make by without gambling mechanics by:

DLCs
cosmetic purchases
subscriptions (seriously if you can't as a kid afford $5-15 a month on a sub your family is homeless)

gambling mechanics are just a way to get rich quick by preying on children and people who are vulnerable keeping gambling to adult only games will prevent decent parents from buying said game for their kids.

it's not the end of the world if gambling mechanics are restricted to adult only games, a parent should be able to look at a game to see if it has in game purchases and/or gambling mechanics except the ESRB lumps those two terms together on their labeling to obscure games that have gambling from parents from purely DLC games.

Maybe... but government involvement in free market economies is like spilling Captain Crunch under the fridge. I don't like the idea of what it might lead to. TBH, I don't trust ANY government, and it raises my hackles any time they proclaim some protective measure to be "for the children". Rarely is this good.

And besides, man... we live in the era of information! There is no topic or field of study that one can't gain at least a passing cursory knowledge of in a few minutes of an internet search. Why should the ESRB be involved when a parent could easily look up exactly what Fortnite is and learn plenty about it? I don't even play it, and my father knows what Fortnite is. The responsibility of the child's well being should be on the parent and parent ALONE. I stubbornly REFUSE any involvement in their lives, to their benefit or their detriment. Their business is not mine, and neither are their problems and woes.

because they are a game rating organization which is responsible for what labels go on the game's rating along with relevant tags like violence etc.

it's not unreasonable to have accurate labeling on a game's box or store page

how hard would it be for them to have two more tags "may contain online purchases" and "contains RMT gambling"
those should be right on the box for the game just like when you go to buy a game like GTA it's labeled R with "simulated violence"

except they don't because if they split up the tags like that their donors (the GAME companies implementing gambling) would stop donating them as much money.

when you go to buy a product in a store or log on to a website to buy something, you shouldn't have to go to another independent source for information that should be right there on the box or details page from the official retailer source.