I'm honestly surprised that that kinda crap hasn't been outlawed or at least harshly regulated by governments yet.

A couple of studies that are relevant here. :) Even though this is a small sample (150 people), it seems credible.

But also consider: I have a couple of others, too, but this helps to answer your implied question. :)

Did anyone answered me in this thread? I had a notification, but there is no comment that would be answer to mine.

Did you view in the thread before you logged in?
That's usually the reason why this happens to me.

I look in the forums without being logged in, then log in (to reply, etc.) and I'll still see the purple dot i the header, but no comment marked anymore.

No, I almost always use Galaxy.

Ah, ok...I never use Galaxy, so I'm not in the position to comment on its possible flaws and/or quirks.

This 100%

1. Many times, though the content is duplicate items(which make them useless to one's self in the case of items you can only use/equip one of at one time, or useless overall if they cannot be traded later on) and the better items have such low chances of being obtained they may as well be zero.

Also, and this is a bit key here(imo): Lootboxes are more desirable/addictive because one can simply buy them/"open" them instead of something similar like you described(buying dungeons/etc with loot drop chances). In those cases, one has to traverse the areas to get the loot drops, making it take longer to consume such before buying more(and thus lessening the chance one will want to buy another go at the area to try again due to time/effort needed).

2. Less choices can be good, such as less choices of how one can be injured due to someone else's negligence or less choices of ways for one to harm one's self. So, yes, sometimes less is better(it's subjective).

Also slippery slope is a logical fallacy/bad counterpoint and bad at trying to argue a point. It's not totally bad perse, just a poor rebuttal method.

3. In many criminal cases, many things are weighed(same with making laws): This includes intent behind one's actions/the law being proposed, whether or not the person/group/corp has a prior past of bad deeds/etc.

1. So you'd rather bring up my past comments on other topics rather than debate/disprove my points? How does that prove me wrong on this, exactly?

2. We all do hypocritical things/say such from time to time. This is in our nature as human beings. This doesn't mean one can't call someone out on such things/arguments simply because they might do/use them, or that they're arguments are any less valid.

Again: Disprove my point/argument(that lootboxes for irl money should be banned/regulated) with counterpoints/evidence again st this stance-idea/etc. Don't try to use(i'm not saying you have used all these here/before, these are examples of poor debating methods for the most part) weasel words/character assassination or smearing attempts/misconstruing what I type or being "purposefully dense" on what I advocate for or against.

If you can do all that i'll gladly debate you on whatever(within rules/reason, oc). If you can't then, we're done talking.

It is in some european countries, afaik, and others are trying to follow suit. I say good....heck, if I could i'd have randomized card packs that are mainly bought by children(yu-gi-oh/pokemon/magic/etc) regulated(not banned) or labelled with addiction warnings like with cigarette packs.

Sometimes I click the reply symbol next to a replied thread(to take me to the replied post) and it takes me to the wrong post. The forums have bugs, it seems(well more than I thought).

1. So what about "locked boxes"? It's lootboxes that you get in the game as a drop from monsters (so, in-game efforts are involved) but than you have to buy keys (with irl money effectively). Do they cross the line? Again, this is just one of many existing examples that I've took from the top of my head. If you ban lootboxes, you can be sure that game companies will invent much much more that will try to go around your definition of "objectively bad lootbox". And you even haven't that definition yet!

2. If something CAN be bad, it doesn't mean it IS ALWAYS bad. Do you understand it? 3. And? Have you heard of criminal cases where people were judged for a crime that they didn't commit?

1. If someone must go through game content to get to those locked boxes(even if one pays irl money to access the areas they're in) then that's a deterrent to rebuying the areas(to access said locked boxes) and trying to get items from them over and over. So while they count to a degree, they're not as bad/somewhat a deterrent to addictive behavior as they take time to get/open.

And even if they ban such & companies make workarounds(assuming those don't get them in trouble as well), that doesn't mean attempts at regulation/banning shouldn't be attempted. That's like saying murders/theft still happen irl so laws/deterrents against such shouldn't be made/enforced(an extreme example but it fits).

As for a definition: I've given it several times, if you read what I posted carefully. I am against: Lootboxes with random items/content which one can buy with irl money, which can be opened/bought quickly and thus encourage/exploit addictive behaviors. Buying access to areas with random loot drops takes effort to do(much moreso than opening lootboxes one can buy/open automatically/quickly), and thus they are somewhat ok(but stll a bit iffy) in my book.

2. And just because something has good outcomes for some & some aren't affected by something, that doesn't mean such shouldn't be regulated to protect the more vulnerable/"innocent". This is why we have laws in some nations to put ads on ciggarette packs/etc with warnings to dissuade people from using/consuming such, because some people get addicted/sick from such.

3. No, but people have been accused of/sentenced for crimes they are found later on to have not committed.

Also, how is this relevant to what I said?

1. Again. Murder and theft are well defined crimes. And it's hard for people to protect themselves against unexpected robber and/or murderer. Lootboxes and other "predatory" practices are defined more vaguely.

You consider amount of efforts to be defining criteria? What about Candy Crush (and many other match-3) that offer "payed" extra turn? What about sales? They are very tempting, especially to people with compulsive personality.

2. Yeah, protect "innocent"! Let's install camera in every private home, so emergency services can react more quickly. After all, some people can be afraid to report crime. Let's ban cigaretts, fast food and extreme sport for good measure.

3. And that's a good thing? I mean you proposing to ban games because some person who can't control himself/herself would spend too much money. So you want to punish every company that (even accedentaly) uses in-game purchase system that become effective.

1. They're still good(if extreme) examples to illustrate my point(s).

As for lootboxes vs murder/theft: A. "Lootboxes"(as I defined before) and similar mechanics prey upon people, and sometimes severely affect them financially(which can lead to other problems). As such, they are pretty bad & need regulation(imo)/banning.

B. Defined vaguely(by me or others) or not, they are still bad practices that prey on a good number of people.

2. That kind of thing is also very addictive and could also be fitted with warnings/other regulations & I wouldn't complain.

Just because I don't mention EVERY type/kind of such mechanics that I dislike/think should be regulated/banned doesn't mean my point is less sound or that I don't also want such reg/bans on such as well.

3. Now you're just being hyperbolic(I believe that's the term).

By this paragraph you're basically trying to say/infer that what i'm suggesting is as bad/unneeded as spying in people's homes or banning indulgences such as smokes/snacks(BTW: we already regulate those to some degree in various areas, btw, and i'm all for some such warnings/etc in those cases albeit not outright bans.)

4. I never said or meant to infer that accusing/arresting people for crimes they didn't commit was a good thing. As for what I want/why: Stop focusing so much on my motivations and debate the points. Prove to me why it'd be a bad thing to protect the extreme addicts/innocent children from such predatory practices. I'm waiting.

Edit: I am not against companies making money in other, less predatory ways. DLC(storyline mostly), expansions, subscriptions.....all good choices. Companies/devs could easily make all "lootboxes"/similar things "free" and still make money.

(You keep proving that you're not above using "iffy" tactics to "debate" me. Why not be civil and actually debate the points i've made without trying to paint me as a loon to make your points[if any] look more valid by comparison? If you can do that then we'll talk some more.)

------------------------------------------------------

Here's what you've basically proven to me so far(feel free to point out where i've mistaken what you've said):

*That the issue of "lootboxes"/similar mechanics isn't affecting you/those you know & doesn't seem to bad, so it should be allowed(even if doing so affects some people adversely).

*That if such were banned then companies would do worse things like censorship/etc.

*That they'd just get around it, so why bother(My thoughts on this one: One could also say why enact any laws because criminals won't follow them).

*That because I don't list every example of such a mechanic that i'm against, that must make my points less valid.

*That because I make mistakes in how/what I type that my points are any less valid.

Basically, the only thing you've proven to me is that you're either severely anti-corporate regulation(for some reason)...even for any regulation that could help people(or so it seems for how much you seem to be against this point I am trying to make/advocate for).

No. What I basically trying to say is that you can suggest every sort of idiocy/atrocity and excuse it by "protect the innocents" rethoric. Because there are many kinds of people with many kinds of psychological and/or physiological problems that make them especially "vulnerable" to some things that for other people are totally fine, even beneficial.

No matter what thing are you talking about there are always people out there people who are hurt, offended or otherwise put into disadvantage by it. So, when we are talking about making the law, the question is always - will it do more harm than good?

Lootboxes and similar practices allow developers to support games that otherwise would be unprofitable and thus cease to exist. Yes, it comes at a cost of some people spending too much, but does simply banning those games make everithing better? You take away a lot of games (including good ones), leave vulnerable people still vulnerable to other schemes (because without those games they will go somewhere else, where they will be preyed upon too) and make a way for yet another group of shady manipulators to legislate laws that would take away people's freedom even further.

I mean, Las Vegas is basically built on casino business and now you're gonna tear it down.

1. And using "protect the innocents" as a method to sell an idea is bad/wrong, but that doesn't mean that all such efforts made to protect the innocent/vulnerable shouldn't be attempted/can't be a net good.....even if a number of people aren't affected by the issue in question.

This is why we have laws regulating/banning many things that can/do happen to some people(but not all)......things like murder/rape/theft/drunk driving/etc.

2. We also look at whether or not removing said thing will actually deprive anyone of something;s good aspects or viable alternatives. In the cases I mentioned before, there are viable alternative to paid "lootboxes" both as a mechanic(Such as free lootboxes or those which need game exp to get) and as alternative sources of dev income(paid story/character dlc, expansions, subscriptions, etc).

By limiting or even banning "lootboxes" for irl money, you're not depriving players of something they cannot get in other forms which are the same or virtually the same mechanics/play wise.

3. I mentioned other ways(subscriptions, etc) above that could allow devs to make money. They could also ask for player donations and kickstarter/etc money as well as other support from players. Btw: Imo if they can only survive on mechanics that prey on the more addiction minded people then maybe we don't need them. Something else will surely fill the niche for content(genre/etc wise).

Also it's a bit hyperbolic to say that cutting out/regulating "lootboxes" will cut down on game availability severely.

And just because people will find something else to blow their money on doesn't mean we shouldn't make any effort to curb that behavior and help such people not do such things. It's the old "it'll still happen somewhere/someway else, so why bother?" argument.

4. I never said or argued for that and you know it.

(And btw: Imo casinos should BY LAW have to spot problem gamblers and make some effort to curb said behavior[Example: Someone who is obviously broke trying to bet their house or whatever on a game])

================================

Addition: So far, you seem to be either: "Regulation/laws against such are ineffective/can be circumvented by some, so why bother" &/or "Regulation is bad because it'll lead to more/much worse regulation".

If either is the case then prove them to be true or try to convince me of such instead of using such heartstring tugging "examples" as "if we enact such gaming will be cut down severely" and "This guy wants lootboxes banned or regulated so he must want vegas torn down as well".