Hawaii Government Introduces 4 Bills Regulating The Sale Of Games With Micro-transactions.

hawaii lootboxes.jpg

The Hawaiian government has introduced 2 house bills and 2 senate bills which aim to regulate the sale of video games containing microtransactions under the pretenses of them being manipulative and exploitative, resulting in harm to those with addictive predispositions, such as children. The first 2 bills, House Bill 2686 and Senate Bill 3024, attempt to limit the sale of games with these mechanics to those under 21, stating that
It shall be unlawful for any retailer to sell to any person under twenty-one years of age a video game that contains a system of further purchasing:

(1) A randomized reward or rewards; or

(2) A virtual item which can be redeemed to directly or indirectly receive a randomized reward or rewards.
In the body of the bill, it compares the current micro-transaction structure to gambling, saying that they're "psychology to compel players to keep spending money in the same way that casino games are so designed." It goes on to then call them "predatory", and claim that they pose the same risks to consumers as gambling. It also mentions the somewhat controversial proposition of the American Psychological Association in classifying internet gaming disorder as a psychological condition to illustrate what they see as the dangers of this mechanism.

The last 2 bills, House Bill 2727 and Senate Bill 3025, then go on to propose that all those who utilize these mechanics in their games should be required to disclose the probability of acquiring each item a player could receive, as well as to include a prominently featured warning on/in the game which reads "Warning: contains in-game purchases and gambling-like mechanisms which may be harmful or addictive."

This is an effort spearheaded by Hawaii state Rep. Chris Lee of Oahu after the massive backlash against the mechanic of lootboxes, primarily brought about by the large controversy of EA's Star Wars: Battlefront II's lootboxe and micro-transactions. Chris criticized the current attitude of the games industry, saying "I grew up playing games my whole life. I’ve watched firsthand the evolution of the industry from one that seeks to create new things to one that’s begun to exploit people, especially children, to maximize profit." It's important to note that these bills still need to pass through both the House and Senate before they reach the governor for consideration, meaning the regulations detailed in these bills are, as of yet, not in effect.

:arrow:House Bill 2686
:arrow:House Bill 2727
:arrow:Senate Bill 3024
:arrow:Senate Bill 3025
:arrow: Source
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,815
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,768
Country
Poland
I suppose we then have to figure out what harms are being done.
If we start with the premise that it is causing harms then in this case 21 seems outrageously high an age, especially if we do a relative comparison to other potentially dangerous or at least seriously consequential things (driving, marriage, military type stuff, weapons, dealing with credit, various drugs) within the same legal system, some of those also being financial in nature. Never mind elsewhere in the world (I still find 21 being the legal age for booze to be mind boggling). The follow on consequences to that as far as people being able to make them, advertise them (I presume game devs/pubs don't just piss away the sorts of advertising budgets many games get just for fun or because they are feeling charitable to advertising companies) and such like also warrant some consideration -- the US quite famously having no other legal age enforcement on media and there being many hard fought cases to avoid it.

Assuming said premise is true is rather strong from where I sit though and Foxi4's position of "maybe people should be allowed to make their own fuckups" is not without merit (indeed it would be a fundamental underpinning of most legal systems that get considered free). If there is an epidemic of some form (society wide or some notable group within it) then there might stand to be an enforced thing, however that would be the sort of thing someone has to qualify.

On the matter of the rules at hand there were also discussions in previous threads on the differences between purely cosmetic, game altering equivalents* and pay to win. Should we resolve my age problems above, and also figure out the issues of parental responsibility, there may also be room for further nuance as far as having it be an opt in service or specialist version of the game, whether you can grind your way there (and the time investments required) and similar things. Straight banning of things is then often seen to be rather heavy handed, and I dare say history would also demonstrate that as well.

*be it something equivalently powerful (maybe half damage, double speed fire from the existing two points sort of thing) or a totally different way to play (health restore gun or something).

Equally you may have misread Foxi4 as one of the taxation = theft set where I very much doubt he would fall into that one. The reverse equivalent for you would be accusing you are being one of the "think of the children" set.

From a practical aspect it is unlikely to bother me as you will never catch me paying for such things, and indeed if it is dropped then less distasteful systems may return. To that end I am mostly left with the debate on whether it is a justified removal of liberties, the other part being whether this age enforcement might be a back door of some form.
I mean, we already have a term for when someone takes something that belongs to you without your consent, that's all I'm saying. :V
 

jt_1258

Ella
Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Messages
3,051
Trophies
2
Age
24
XP
4,838
Country
United States
Only reasonable restrictions in instances where there are externalities involved. You can't drive drunk because you're endangering others, nobody cares about whether you live or die. As for ruining games, markets are self-regulating - if people didn't want lootboxes ,they wouldn't buy them in droves. Stop protecting people from themselves, that's not your job.
Just because I bought Overwatch doesn't mean I like loot boxes. I can love an aspect enough in a game to play it despite some shitty systems in it. Granted, Overwatch is one of the lesser offenders when it comes to horrible loot boxes but non the less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,815
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,768
Country
Poland
Just because I bought Overwatch doesn't mean I like loot boxes. I can love an aspect enough in a game to play it despite some shitty systems in it. Granted, Overwatch is one of the lesser offenders when it comes to horrible loot boxes but non the less.
Easy fix - don't buy them. If the boxes don't sell, you won't see them in games. Since they do sell, your argument is moot.
 

AbyssalMonkey

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
363
Trophies
1
Location
Prox
XP
2,599
Country
Antarctica
choosing not to buy them doesn't make them not shitty and not something that can't be criticized.
Foxi isn't saying they can't be criticized (or if he is, it's incredibly naive). He is saying that regulating them through the government is a stupid thing to do, at least when you are considering the free market ideology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,815
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,768
Country
Poland
choosing not to buy them doesn't make them not shitty and not something that can't be criticized.
"I don't like something, so it should be banned or heavily restricted", said every aspiring authoritarian ever.
Foxi isn't saying they can't be criticized (or if he is, it's incredibly naive). He is saying that regulating them through the government is a stupid thing to do, at least when you are considering the free market ideology.
Thank you. You can criticise whatever you want, that's free speech, but you're crossing the line the moment you try to curb people's freedom to make independent decisions, this includes bad ones.
 

KingVamp

Haaah-hahahaha!
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
13,472
Trophies
2
Location
Netherworld
XP
7,874
Country
United States
Only reasonable restrictions in instances where there are externalities involved. You can't drive drunk because you're endangering others, nobody cares about whether you live or die. As for ruining games, markets are self-regulating - if people didn't want lootboxes ,they wouldn't buy them in droves. Stop protecting people from themselves, that's not your job.
Let me ask you this, should gambling be legal for all ages?

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.

Good :lol: I hope microtransactions and loot crates end up being banned :creep:
Welcome back to endless DLC and Season Passes.

Thank you. You can criticise whatever you want, that's free speech, but you're crossing the line the moment you try to curb people's freedom to make independent decisions, this includes bad ones.
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?

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

the_randomizer

The Temp's official fox whisperer
Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
31,284
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Dr. Wahwee's castle
XP
18,967
Country
United States
Let me ask you this, should gambling be legal for all ages?

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.


Welcome back to endless DLC and Season Passes.


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?

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.

Hey, at least those don't cause unfair advantage.
 

KingVamp

Haaah-hahahaha!
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
13,472
Trophies
2
Location
Netherworld
XP
7,874
Country
United States
Hey, at least those don't cause unfair advantage.
How does having some characters and weapons behind a paywall, not cause a disadvantage?

Using Overwatch as an example, you get every single new hero, mode and map without paying anything extra. Sure, you either got to play or pay for cosmetic stuff, but you aren't disadvantaged by not paying anything extra.
 

the_randomizer

The Temp's official fox whisperer
Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
31,284
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Dr. Wahwee's castle
XP
18,967
Country
United States
How does having some characters and weapons behind a paywall, not cause a disadvantage?

Using Overwatch as an example, you get every single new hero, mode and map without paying anything extra. Sure, you either got to play or pay for cosmetic stuff, but you aren't disadvantaged by not paying anything extra.

Why can't they just ban those too? Screw the companies that do this, I hope they all get fined.
 

TotalInsanity4

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord
Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
10,800
Trophies
0
Location
Under a rock
XP
9,813
Country
United States
Easy fix - don't buy them. If the boxes don't sell, you won't see them in games. Since they do sell, your argument is moot.
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: KingVamp

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,815
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,768
Country
Poland
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.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

Recent Content

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: Sorry for accidentally bending over