all 2 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 7 months ago

Why 16!? It is straight gambling 21 is more appropriate. Having the age so low is some kind of perverse gift to the industry. I think they should just be banned at this point because it is clear money is talking not the health of our youth.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    0 parental enforcement

  • source
  • 26 comments in c/games@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 73 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    As long as parents don't give a fuck, this won't change much.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

    Furthermore, this only theoretically protects kid, but fuck people with gambling addictions i guess...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Some things are preventative. There's plenty of studies that show that the likelihood of developing a gambling addiction is higher for kids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I think the problem is less that the legislation is targeted at children and more that it is very easy to circumvent. Unless they start enforcing mandatory age verification for every game / gaming service that is, but even then you could just buy an account or game keys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 49 points 8 months ago
    [–] 17 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    Currently the new ratings will only apply to games released after June. "Without applying the rules to current games the policy will do little to protect the children who are already playing them," Tofield said.

    Overall I think the changes are positive but I think they definitely should apply to all and not just new releases.

    Games lacking any way for users to report or block players online will receive a PEGI 18 rating.

    Also this is interesting. I'm not sure how common it is to have no controls for this in a game but it should certainly make devs/publishers think seriously about it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    I can see how it becomes difficult to implement for already-released games that already have boxed copies in stores.

    I wonder if this loophole will make all games currently out MUCH more valuable to investors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The UK government decided in 2022 not to amend the Gambling Act 2005 to include loot boxes, saying no evidence showed a "causative link" to harms.

    Since when has that been something that stopped the UK government from trying to regulate technology and curtail its citizens' digital freedoms?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    This won't affect Germany I think. We use the cursed USK bullshit..

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    wasnt the idea to completely ban loot boxes and real money gambling like that?

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago
    [+] -8 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I don't see how that would be the case.

    PEGI is used as a way of informing buyers (parents) about the contents of the game.

    It doesn't prohibit them from allowing their kids to play, say, an R-18 game. The agency's still there. It's not like a mandatory age verification where your kids are disallowed from using the service completely even when you yourself allow them to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [+] -5 points 8 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    "Paid random items".

    I've played many RPGs. I don't remember one making me pay for every random battle. No, using a random number gemerator in a game isn't the same as lootboxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    What about lootboxes you can optionally pay for, but the game constantly gives you free currency for it? Like, you can buy more currency, and one of the ways you can spend that currency is lootboxes, but you also get that same currency for free and that same currency can be used on lootboxes (and cosmetics, for example)?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

    I don't know how that'll fit in PEGI ratings, but, IMO, this is just a shady tactic to hide the same exploitation of gambling issues.

    Then you just make it technically possible but completely impractical to get some stuff, and go hunt for whales while pretending it's just about giving players choice. You know, for their convenience.

    Just cosmetic is also not the defence game publishers want it to be.These are games. There is no vital need here, everything you do in these is to get some satisfaction from it. Including, yes, collecting cosmetic elements. They know this works, and they don!t want regulators to know that they know.

    What's wrong with just letting players know how much they!re spending and exactly what they are buying? Other than, you know, it would not be manipulative enough and thus probably makes less money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I get what you're saying, and agree that just showing the money prices is better, but I was just wondering if you knew how this would be considered by PEGI.

    Also, deleting currency probably would make it harder to give players free currency, because it might look like the developers/publisher is giving money to the player account and people would demand a way to withdraw money from the account, which I believe should not be allowed. Maybe a hybrid where the currency is free and you can split the difference with a real world cost? IDK. Game devs and publishers gotta make money to pay their bills and the developers, and being Free2Play makes getting money pretty hard without mTX/MTX.

    At the end of the day it doesnt really matter that much because parents don't know or don't care. Its the same in the US with ESRB. Sure, some stores would refuse to sell M rated games to minors, but most of the time parents would just buy GTA for little 8 year old Timmy and they didnt event know the game content, or didn't care. So this isn't really going to do much of anything to publishers in reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • 4 comments in c/gaming@lemmy.zip view that post
    [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    PEGI? The same organization that classified Balatro as 18+ because it contains Playing cards so it must be gambling?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    It was about time! But they should make them 18+, like real life casinos.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago*

    Why not +18 and add some real regulations?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    "In reality, it will largely be down to parents to educate themselves on why these changes have been brought in and decide for themselves if they deem the games (and their loot box mechanics) suitable for their child," she said.

    For now ...
    Until you have to send in your ID, instead.

  • source