It takes virtually nothing to develop a loot box system, so ANY transactions made because of them are pure profit. Even if only a handful of gamers used them and the majority boycotted them, they'd still show up in the next iteration because they won't lose any money on it. You can't "vote with your wallet" on something that costs neither the time nor the money of the person making it
Of course you can. Hosting these items on gaming networks costs money per SKU, not to mention that the presence of lootboxes necessitates the constant creation of new content that you could *put* in the boxes, so it's not pure profit. Thinking otherwise is just silly and shows a lack of familiarity with the subject, distributing this stuff isn't easy. Besides, why are you buying the games that feature lootboxes at all? Your moral preening is cute, but ultimately hypocritical. The argument that you can like certain parts of the game, just not the lootboxes is equivalent to saying that a burger is vegan as long as you remove the meat, cheese and the bun. You're supporting a company that so egregious tries to sell you products, if you had any moral fortitude you would boycott them. Fact of the matter is that you don't, nor do you really care, you just want to use the long arm of the government to enact what you think is justice, by which you mean ensuring that you pay less for content. Deep down you're motivated by self-interest - you want the content of the boxes, you just don't want to pay for a 100 boxes to get it, which is fair enough, but don't pretend that there's any form of righteousness behind what you're saying or you might actually start believing that there is.
Let me ask you this, should gambling be legal for all ages?
This would be a good argument if it didn't have straw sticking out of its boots. When you're a little bit older, or a little bit smarter, one of the two, you'll start noticing that people will often ask you to confirm things you've never said in order to justify an unrelated statement they've made. That's fallacious, but it works. Now, the average person will either fall for it or point it out and feel offended by the trickery, but what you'll also learn is that what can be attributed to malice can also be attributed to stupidity, or ignorance, whichever term you prefer. I like to think that ignorance is much more common than malice, so I give people the benefit of the doubt. The difference between arguing with me and arguing with a normal person is that unlike a normal person, I like to be bad. I will happily respond to your absurd proposals, and I will win, because I have more experience in the realm of the absurd, so that's not a game you want to play.
Lootboxes aren't gambling, they lack multiple pre-requisites to be classified as gambling. Firstly, you can't lose - looyboxes are never empty and even duplicate items reward the player with currency, so there is no loss condition, and a game that you can't lose isn't much of a gamble. Secondly, players know what they're getting prior to spending money. This might seem counter-intuitive, but it's true - they're purchasing a virtual good that contains a random subset of elements from a list, much like a blind bag figurine. Unless you're willing to argue that blind bags are gambling, you cannot argue that lootboxes are. Lastly, there is no reciprocal exchange of money - you purchase from the distributor, the distributor can't give you money or take money away from you depending on the result of the draw. What you call gambling is what is normally called commerce, you just don't happen to like the goods that are sold.
Clearly the effectiveness of the self-regulation is breaking down, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Just because some people are buying into every single moneymaking scheme, doesn't make them good nor does everyone want them.
Precisely the opposite is true. Lootboxes were introduced to gaming, gamers responded by buying the lootboxes and the system spread. It's not mandatory, you can opt out.
As for minors and gambling, by your definition it's already legal, it's just not called gambling. Ever took part in a raffle? Do you like collectibles? While we're regulating lootboxes, let's regulate TCG's, blind bags, mystery gifts and other assorted random elements of commerce. In fact, let's eliminate randomness altogether - enemies in games should always drop the same items. Actually, let's take it to the extreme logical conclusion, since apparently we're okay with fallacies, and reject the notion that children can own any private property since all of their decisions are inherently flawed. Naturally you will be opposed to that because it's absurd, it's only okay when the government curtails freedom to your benefit, not to your detriment.
Welcome back to endless DLC and Season Passes.
Buy GOTY and definitive editions.
Except even if you didn't care about what other people do, they are affecting the people around them. Why is it OK for them to affect us with their decisions, but not OK for us to affect theirs?
Because they are exercising their freedom and you want to diminish their freedom with threats by using the government as a crutch. As I said before, governing externalities is perfectly fine. Me making a financial decision you disapprove of does not create externalities, I don't force you to buy anything, you use the government, a proxy for force, to prohibit me from making purchases that don't affect your bottom line simply because they offend your sensibilities. Fortunately, I don't care about your feelings.
Not sure why you are even treating reducing bad decisions while trying to have some resemblance of what gaming use to be as a bad thing.
I object to your methods, not the goal. I'm perfectly fine with you making independent decisions and not buying into practices you find reprehensible, I'm not okay with using government coercion to enforce your idea of fairness onto others. The notion that an 18 year old is not old enough to smoke, drink, gamble or make independent financial decisions, but is old enough to enlist, receive heavy ordinance and kill terrorists in the middle of a desert is asinine. It fully understand that you may not like something, but that does not give you the authority to control people's lives. I'm saying you, because you're not a passive actor here - your vocal approval of the bill puts you in the villain team.