It’d be different if games were a necessity - then the idea of “predatory” behavior would be relevant, since we’d be talking about someone taking advantage of the fact that the consumer has to buy the thing in question.
But games aren’t a necessity - not even close - so any consumer is at any time entirely free to say no to any transaction without suffering any meaningful ill effects.
And any consumers who, in such a situation, do not say no to a bad deal have nobody to blame but themselves.
While I, to some extent, agree with you; it is predatory behaviour by those companies and I don’t like it.
And some people are weak to such practices. Customers have to be protected from themselves to some extent, as has been shown in other industries.
Exactly. It’s not like internet service where you may only have 2 options, and both are predatory. If a AAA is predatory, you can pick another, or play AA and indie games. Hit them where it counts: in the player count.
That said, there may be room to step in if they change the terms of the deal later on. That’s a fraudulent transaction, and they should be punished for it.
No, that’s quite the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.
I just think that, in general, we should refrain from making laws unless it’s to protect victims. I don’t think, in general, people choosing to waste money on stupid games qualifies as being a victim, you can’t victimize yourself. However, changing the terms after the sale certainly qualifies as a bait and switch, and should be illegal and strictly prosecuted.
If we just make laws for every problem we see, we’ll get incredibly inconsistent enforcement. If we have a narrower set of laws, we should see more effective enforcement. That’s where I’m coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things and follow up on enforcement.
That’s where I’m coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things
I don’t disagree, but I feel you’re kind of assuming everyone is capable of rationally engaging with these stupid games. It’s the irrational ones I worry about. Loot boxes and gambling addicts, for instance.
That said, though, the validity of blaming companies for the bad decisions they make knowing they’ll catch so many fish in their net is all I’m really here for. I’ve no idea how I’d “regulate early access” or if that’s even worth doing.
If someone is looking for an addiction, they’ll find it, whether it’s mobile games, live service PC/console games, or actual online gambling. Banning addictions isn’t going to work, the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are. Gambling is illegal in my area, yet people find all kinds of creative ways to get their fix.
The solution isn’t to ban addicting things, but to teach people to avoid them. This is a behavioral problem, not a legal problem.
the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are
This is why I asked if you think laws are useless.
And yeah, casinos and whatever will skirt the laws (if they’re able), but the point of regulating a practice is to keep things from getting out of hand.
Predatory gambling games are basically just fancy theft. You create games that are unwinnable, and then you goad suckers into taking the bet. It’s regulations that keep a lot of them even marginally fair.
This is a behavioral problem,
And what of the business’ behavior? Should we not teach them to be better?
I would say that there’s almost nothing that demonstrates more contempt for one’s fellow man than decreeing that they shouldn’t even be allowed to make their own choices.
It’s amusing and revealing that at no point here have you actually directly addressed anything that I’ve actually said. Instead, you’ve just used what I’ve said as a jumping off point for a ludicrously exaggerated, barely relevant and deliberately insulting strawman.
Here’s a challenge for you - instead of leaping from strawman to strawman in this vain effort to somehow prove that I’m a horrible person and therefore wrong, go all the way back to the beginning here and frame a positive argument for your position. Tell me exactly why and on what basis (as appears to be your position) publishers should be prohibited from charging extra for early access, and what nominal public good that would serve.
As a bonus, you might also try to explain how the position that publishers should be allowed to charge extra for early access is in any way “a very anti-covid-vaccine argument.” I’m especially curious about that one.
I mean, I think that this is contentious enough to be worth picking apart.
I can’t imagine calling someone an idiot unless I thought they kind of deserved what was coming to them. It’s this schadenfreude you seem to feel that I take issue with.
I’m especially curious about that one.
Oh, that would be this, actually:
demonstrates more contempt for one’s fellow man than decreeing that they shouldn’t even be allowed to make their own choices.
You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that.
Presuming, for the moment, that this laughable, trite and terribly cliched rejoinder is in any way true, how would it be relevant to anything?
Never mind though - that was a rhetorical question. I know, and I suspect you do as well, that it’s not. It’s just a casual, and at this point entirely predictable, bit of disparagement tossed out to give yourself what you erroneously believe to be an edge.
the real problem is the idiots who are paying.
I mean, I think that this is contentious enough to be worth picking apart.
Feel free. I’m more than willing to explain in as much detail as you want exactly why it is that I think that people who pay extra for early access to games are “idiots.”
(Just, by the bye, as I think that people who don’t wear seat belts, tahe the guards off their table saws or don’t get covid vaccines are “idiots.”)
I can’t imagine calling someone an idiot unless I thought they kind of deserved what was coming to them.
Which is exactly what I do in fact think.
It’s this schadenfreude you seem to feel that I take issue with.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
I don’t feel any sort of pleasure or sense of fulfillment at their idiocy - I simply note it.
I’m especially curious about that one.
Oh, that would be this, actually:
demonstrates more contempt for one’s fellow man than decreeing that they shouldn’t even be allowed to make their own choices.
You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that.
In response to my statement that:
any consumers who, in such a situation, do not say no to a bad deal have nobody to blame but themselves
you wrote:
Do you suppose that choosing not to wear a seatbelt, a very bad deal, should be left entirely up to individuals, um, “stupid” enough to take it?"
Clearly, with that, you established that the point you wished to dispute was whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” That was the exact point of contention you stipulated.
So this:
You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that
is blatant bullshit. In point of fact, with the example above, that’s the specific focus you introduced. Curiously, you said nothing at all about the “contentious” phrasing of my original post or my supposed “schadenfreude.” That only came along now, in this desperate bit of backing and filling in which you’re vainly engaged. Rather, your immediate and exclusive focus was on whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” The clear, and in fact only, alternative to that is that it should not be left up to individuals, so that’s the position you’ve taken, and the position in support of which I’m still waiting for you to provide an argument.
Now - if that’s truly not what you intended to say or imply, that would be another matter. And in fact, in any other situation, I’d be willing to simply grant that that wasn’t your intent and amend my responses accordingly. We could simply cooperate to find the exact point of our disagreement and focus on that (and could both enjoy this exchange much more).
But you blew that chance a long time ago.
So that was in fact the position you took, whether intentionally or not. And I’m still waiting for an argument in support of it.
Nobody is arguing that seatbelts shouldn’t be installed, just that they shouldn’t be required. Choosing to not wear a seatbelt doesn’t endanger your fellow man, it only endangers yourself. You should always be free to make bad choices for yourself, and we should have a sufficient safety net that your stupid choices don’t unduly impact those who rely on you (e.g. the family you’re leaving behind).
If we bring this back to the original argument, paying for pre-release doesn’t hurt anyone but your own wallet. It’s stupid, and we should be telling people to not do that, but you should always be free to make stupid decisions. Laws shouldn’t be crafted to reduce my ability to harm myself, as an adult, I can make my own choices. I can absolutely see things related to FOMO being locked behind age gates or something, but a consenting adult should be able to make poor choices.
And that goes for everything. You talked about plastic protections on table saws further down, as a consenting adult, I should be able to easily remove them. You talked about vaccines, as a consenting adult, I should be able to refuse getting them. As a responsible adult, I personally keep safety equipment equipped and get every vaccine my doctor recommends, but I must have the ability to make an alternate decision as a free individual.
So no, we shouldn’t be banning predatory practices from companies, we should be making them more transparent and perhaps putting them behind an age gate if they prove particularly problematic for children. If you want to make a stupid decision, that’s fine, provided you know the consequences going in.
Nobody’s safety is at risk here, it’s just people who can’t wait 3 days paying more money. It’s bullshit that companies will have a completed game but delay releasing it so people can pay extra for " early on release access" but the solution is simple: don’t pay for it.
Yes - it really is the customers’ fault.
It’d be different if games were a necessity - then the idea of “predatory” behavior would be relevant, since we’d be talking about someone taking advantage of the fact that the consumer has to buy the thing in question.
But games aren’t a necessity - not even close - so any consumer is at any time entirely free to say no to any transaction without suffering any meaningful ill effects.
And any consumers who, in such a situation, do not say no to a bad deal have nobody to blame but themselves.
While I, to some extent, agree with you; it is predatory behaviour by those companies and I don’t like it.
And some people are weak to such practices. Customers have to be protected from themselves to some extent, as has been shown in other industries.
Exactly. It’s not like internet service where you may only have 2 options, and both are predatory. If a AAA is predatory, you can pick another, or play AA and indie games. Hit them where it counts: in the player count.
That said, there may be room to step in if they change the terms of the deal later on. That’s a fraudulent transaction, and they should be punished for it.
Regulations also hurt them.
Nah, it just encourages them to find clever ways around it. Or just pay the fines as a cost of doing business.
Is it your view then that all laws are useless?
What if the fine was… one billion dollars.
No, that’s quite the extreme opposite end of the spectrum.
I just think that, in general, we should refrain from making laws unless it’s to protect victims. I don’t think, in general, people choosing to waste money on stupid games qualifies as being a victim, you can’t victimize yourself. However, changing the terms after the sale certainly qualifies as a bait and switch, and should be illegal and strictly prosecuted.
If we just make laws for every problem we see, we’ll get incredibly inconsistent enforcement. If we have a narrower set of laws, we should see more effective enforcement. That’s where I’m coming from. Save the legislation for truly important things and follow up on enforcement.
I don’t disagree, but I feel you’re kind of assuming everyone is capable of rationally engaging with these stupid games. It’s the irrational ones I worry about. Loot boxes and gambling addicts, for instance.
That said, though, the validity of blaming companies for the bad decisions they make knowing they’ll catch so many fish in their net is all I’m really here for. I’ve no idea how I’d “regulate early access” or if that’s even worth doing.
If someone is looking for an addiction, they’ll find it, whether it’s mobile games, live service PC/console games, or actual online gambling. Banning addictions isn’t going to work, the people making these things will just innovate around whatever the regulations are. Gambling is illegal in my area, yet people find all kinds of creative ways to get their fix.
The solution isn’t to ban addicting things, but to teach people to avoid them. This is a behavioral problem, not a legal problem.
This is why I asked if you think laws are useless.
And yeah, casinos and whatever will skirt the laws (if they’re able), but the point of regulating a practice is to keep things from getting out of hand.
Predatory gambling games are basically just fancy theft. You create games that are unwinnable, and then you goad suckers into taking the bet. It’s regulations that keep a lot of them even marginally fair.
And what of the business’ behavior? Should we not teach them to be better?
Do you suppose that choosing not to wear a seatbelt, a very bad deal, should be left entirely up to individuals, um, “stupid” enough to take it?
Yes.
Wow. I wasn’t expecting so much contempt for your fellow man.
I would say that there’s almost nothing that demonstrates more contempt for one’s fellow man than decreeing that they shouldn’t even be allowed to make their own choices.
A plastic casing over a table saw “limits what choices a person can make.” This is a very anti-covid-vaccine argument you’re making.
But that’s fine. I suppose being victim to an unregulated casino means you deserve to rot in Rancho Charleston or whatever.
It’s amusing and revealing that at no point here have you actually directly addressed anything that I’ve actually said. Instead, you’ve just used what I’ve said as a jumping off point for a ludicrously exaggerated, barely relevant and deliberately insulting strawman.
Here’s a challenge for you - instead of leaping from strawman to strawman in this vain effort to somehow prove that I’m a horrible person and therefore wrong, go all the way back to the beginning here and frame a positive argument for your position. Tell me exactly why and on what basis (as appears to be your position) publishers should be prohibited from charging extra for early access, and what nominal public good that would serve.
As a bonus, you might also try to explain how the position that publishers should be allowed to charge extra for early access is in any way “a very anti-covid-vaccine argument.” I’m especially curious about that one.
Feel free to take your time
Oh wow, I really riled you up.
I mean, I think that this is contentious enough to be worth picking apart.
I can’t imagine calling someone an idiot unless I thought they kind of deserved what was coming to them. It’s this schadenfreude you seem to feel that I take issue with.
Oh, that would be this, actually:
You are, for some reason, arguing against the concept of rules. I never asked you to do that.
Presuming, for the moment, that this laughable, trite and terribly cliched rejoinder is in any way true, how would it be relevant to anything?
Never mind though - that was a rhetorical question. I know, and I suspect you do as well, that it’s not. It’s just a casual, and at this point entirely predictable, bit of disparagement tossed out to give yourself what you erroneously believe to be an edge.
Feel free. I’m more than willing to explain in as much detail as you want exactly why it is that I think that people who pay extra for early access to games are “idiots.”
(Just, by the bye, as I think that people who don’t wear seat belts, tahe the guards off their table saws or don’t get covid vaccines are “idiots.”)
Which is exactly what I do in fact think.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
I don’t feel any sort of pleasure or sense of fulfillment at their idiocy - I simply note it.
In response to my statement that:
you wrote:
Clearly, with that, you established that the point you wished to dispute was whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” That was the exact point of contention you stipulated.
So this:
is blatant bullshit. In point of fact, with the example above, that’s the specific focus you introduced. Curiously, you said nothing at all about the “contentious” phrasing of my original post or my supposed “schadenfreude.” That only came along now, in this desperate bit of backing and filling in which you’re vainly engaged. Rather, your immediate and exclusive focus was on whether or not “choosing… a very bad deal should be left entirely up to individuals.” The clear, and in fact only, alternative to that is that it should not be left up to individuals, so that’s the position you’ve taken, and the position in support of which I’m still waiting for you to provide an argument.
Now - if that’s truly not what you intended to say or imply, that would be another matter. And in fact, in any other situation, I’d be willing to simply grant that that wasn’t your intent and amend my responses accordingly. We could simply cooperate to find the exact point of our disagreement and focus on that (and could both enjoy this exchange much more).
But you blew that chance a long time ago.
So that was in fact the position you took, whether intentionally or not. And I’m still waiting for an argument in support of it.
Nobody is arguing that seatbelts shouldn’t be installed, just that they shouldn’t be required. Choosing to not wear a seatbelt doesn’t endanger your fellow man, it only endangers yourself. You should always be free to make bad choices for yourself, and we should have a sufficient safety net that your stupid choices don’t unduly impact those who rely on you (e.g. the family you’re leaving behind).
If we bring this back to the original argument, paying for pre-release doesn’t hurt anyone but your own wallet. It’s stupid, and we should be telling people to not do that, but you should always be free to make stupid decisions. Laws shouldn’t be crafted to reduce my ability to harm myself, as an adult, I can make my own choices. I can absolutely see things related to FOMO being locked behind age gates or something, but a consenting adult should be able to make poor choices.
And that goes for everything. You talked about plastic protections on table saws further down, as a consenting adult, I should be able to easily remove them. You talked about vaccines, as a consenting adult, I should be able to refuse getting them. As a responsible adult, I personally keep safety equipment equipped and get every vaccine my doctor recommends, but I must have the ability to make an alternate decision as a free individual.
So no, we shouldn’t be banning predatory practices from companies, we should be making them more transparent and perhaps putting them behind an age gate if they prove particularly problematic for children. If you want to make a stupid decision, that’s fine, provided you know the consequences going in.
Nobody’s safety is at risk here, it’s just people who can’t wait 3 days paying more money. It’s bullshit that companies will have a completed game but delay releasing it so people can pay extra for "
earlyon release access" but the solution is simple: don’t pay for it.Correct. Very astute.
Sure. But of course, the point of doing that is to suggest to companies that this is naughty behavior. This is naughty behavior, isn’t it?
I do believe I did call it bullshit in the post you’re replying to. However, people paying for it implies acceptable behavior, doesn’t it?
Nooooo-ho-ho-ho, no it does not. You can justify a lot of evil shit with that line of thinking.