Topic: Gambling in Gaming

Posts 61 to 64 of 64


@Tasuki I think you are misinterpreting what I've been saying, it isn't games causing gambling problems, but instead it is the fact people develop gambling problems for a variety of reasons and the games prey upon these people. For instance there is a strong link between people with depression and gambling which shouldn't be a shock since we often link depression with addictions such as alcoholism. To put it another way a kid could grow up in the most caring and sensible family, but still have issues in their adult life despite their parents never putting a foot wrong.

It is sad you seem to have such a closed mind though and will not even consider all the research that has been done on the subject of mental health over the past few decades. Your stance kind of reminds me of Victorian Britain, leave anyone who exhibits mental problems in the asylum to rot and damn those liberals who say it's wrong. I grew up mainly in the 80s when things like racism and homophobia were still rampant and people who were against changes in the general perception of the public would say it was sad that society could not put up with a bit of name calling any more (of course there was more than this going on, but by the 80s words were usually the worst of the hate). I feel that perception to mental health is going through a similar change now with a push to remove the stigma attached to it so people who suffer with mental issues don't feel embarased and shamed and seek out help. It is a shame these days some people can't accept society changing towards a more compassionate direction.



@Tasuki Is it any wonder why I maybe much 'quicker' to anger with some of the posts, the hypocrisy of people and their 'fanboyism' clearly governing their 'responses' towards myself. I am of course not referring to just this thread either and this is not the only forum or website I visit. As you can imagine, with the X coming out, as a passionate gamer with NO particular affinity to either Sony or MS, there are a lot of ignorant fanboys and a lot of 'hypocrisy' circulating around gaming at the moment.

I am also 'fed up' with the 'argument' over pre-owned games - especially as I know you buy pre-owned - whether the game is 'new' or decades old and no longer in production is immaterial but I strongly believe that Devs have to take 'responsibility' if their game ends up flooding the 2nd hand market within 'weeks' of release. I also believe that they can be more 'pro-active' into enticing people to buy new and keep their engagement over a longer time frame so that those that buy are more inclined to buy new AND keep the game longer - thus not trading it in and flooding the market. If people were more tempted by New and felt more inclined to keep it, there is no (or at least limited) pre-owned options - without ripping off those that have supported the Devs by buying new, by being fans of their game. I bet those that spend hundreds, if not thousands on 'Loot crates' are also the ones that are most likely to have pre-ordered or at the very least bought New in the first place. If 'Micro-transactions' are 'subsidising' the 'losses' due to the 2nd hand users, that too is incredibly wrong.

I am NOT suggesting that 'new' games should come with all content but Pre-owned locks you out of some of that content - like the 'online pass' system but they could offer a 'download' code for say 10 loot crates or some exclusive cosmetic items that 'can' be bought by 2nd hand users but the 'entire' game is still freely available. I also think that 'retailers' should be restricted by not selling any 'pre-owned' copies for a set time after launch - like 1-2months - giving the 'devs/publishers' a window to sell without being under-cut by the 2nd hand market. Individuals, not businesses, though can sell on or trade with retailers - but those retailers cannot sell that 2nd hand game until a certain time has elapsed. I have no issues with Loot boxes offered as a 'reward' for playing - like we see in CoD by earning enough 'credit' to buy them. I also think that IF they wish to sell cosmetic only items, they sell these not the random chance to get these. For example if a complete set of armour/camos etc are in 'loot crates', you have an opportunity to play the game and earn loot crate rewards but if you get fed up waiting to earn the set, you can buy the complete set for a fixed 'fee' via micro-transactions. The 'random' draw is still there BUT you have to play to earn a chance at getting these items - not spend 'real' money for a very slim chance. The only 'real money transaction should be to buy the 'set' of gear you want so you know 'exactly' how much that 'armour set' or weapon camo set costs. In BO2, if you liked a gun Camo set - a Set that worked on EVERY gun in the game and included a set of themed reticles, emblem and player-card too, you could buy just that set for £2. By the time we reached BO3, those 'Camos' were individual to a specific gun and reticles were also separate. You cannot get the full set of Camo's for every gun and reticles, emblem and player card too for under £2 - although you could play hundreds and thousands of hours to eventually get the full set if you are lucky.
I think that they should go back to the BO2 method and maybe, at most, offer 'random' loot boxes as a reward for playing the game. Its the way they have specifically targeted the 'vulnerable' and employing the same philosophy that 'gambling' utilises to make these 'addictive' and to make those more vulnerable to keep spending.

As I said, the losses from the 2nd hand market cannot be as 'significant' as they once were with more and more sales coming from the Digital market were 2nd hand/trading is NOT an option. Instead of say 4m copies being sold with the possibility that 4m games could find their way to the pre-owned market again and again is dramatically cut down if 1.5m of those are sold digitally. If they also added 'bonuses' - not just 'pre-order' bonuses but bonuses that every new copy has, and did more to keep gamers interest over a longer time-frame, then the likelihood of people wanting the 2nd hand version would be minimised as well as the chance of finding a copy. Also, with a lot of games, 4m copies is enough to be 'profitable' but they could still make 'more' money by selling the extra digital items. If I buy new and get all those items, then sell the game on and the next person buys all those items/DLC before selling it on to the next person who buys those digital items/DLC - that 'one' copy has the potential to generate more revenue/profit than a 'new' game has in theory.

Its also not like the 'music' industry where I could buy a CD, copy that to my 'digital' library and then sell that CD on to someone else and keep listening to the CD quality audio. If I sell my game, I sell my access to that game too. I cannot 'duplicate' it and sell the original and still keep accessing that game. I know you can't always compare with Film as they have a window to generate income (cinema only), then again with Bluray/digital sales before TV companies buy up the rights to show these. But gaming has no more rights than 'books' or 'Music' or any other other physical item. Like trading in my Book, trading in my licence to play the game no longer gives me access but I still have my consumer right to sell that book, that game licence etc

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne


@kyleforrester87 I agree.

I think we have all said our piece and some see harm in it and some don't. Point is all we are doing is going in circles here so before this thread totally gets out of hand, I will end it here.

Thanks for understanding.

Push Square Moderator and all around retro gamer.

My Backlog

PSN: Tasuki3711


Sorry, this topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.