1. I am actually more than willing to listen to/consider your POV IF you can prove it convincingly enough and without using logical/debate errors, fallacies, pulls at heartstrings, etc.

So far, most of your replies have been such, and not much explaining how i'm wrong or why. I am the one who made the original point, but I did it just to state my opinion.....NOT to debate it forever or provide example/prove it.

Point: You(seemingly) seem to be claiming now that because I didn't provide a number/figure/percentage(and evidence, I assume) of those who are affected by lootboxes that that means my argument is somehow less valid. This is another logical fallacy(i.e. thinking that because proof isn't presented by someone that that person is wrong automatically). The problem exists.....don't believe me? Look for articles about it(and children accidentally blowing tons of money on such online because their parents financial info was tied into the games they were playing) on google/etc.

2. I never claimed it didn't earn less money than lootboxes/microtransactions, but then I make these points: A. COMBINED, other methods can help them recoup a good percentage of lost revenue. B. If they rely on solely lootboxes/microtransactions to survive, then imo that is a shitty(both in taking advantage of people and as it isn't diverse enough a means of income sources) way to survive & maybe they SHOULD fail.

(In the world economy/capitalism, sometimes this happens. This is the way the world works. Yes, some poor staffers will lose their jobs but these things happen regardless.)

C. If they make a few million less(AND a big AND here: AND if staffers have already been paid) then I couldn't care less.

=============================
Addition: I have to wonder what your stake in this is, to debate so much on the issue. Yes, you could just be like me[obsessed with replying on certain topics], but I wonder if maybe you have a stake in this or are just against corp regulations in general. Regardless, as I said above...I am willing to debate my points made so far and listen to your counterpoints if you can prove your case sufficiently/actually tell me what your case is against banning/regulating lootboxes paid for with irl money.

WUT?! All I did is asserting MY point of view - lootboxes are not "objectively bad". They have their downsides, sure, like many other business practices. And some regulations (similar to ones that are placed on gambling) could make things better. But your claim that if people "vote for the wrong thing" that thing should simply be banned is just an attempt to impose your views, morality, order on people who disagree with you - and nothing more.

So, if I say that you're serial killer, I don't need to prove that claim? Than - you are serial killer!

No, you claimed:
"Objectively bad" means that something is bad by any metrics and have no good things coming of it whatsoever. And in fact that claim you made in response to statement that people can generally disagree with you. Which means you outright disregard possibility that some people can get something positive from things they are willingly paying for.

My stakes in this are simple:
A. I'm sick of people who are telling me what is good or bad and when I ask them to explain their reasoning they tell me nonsense or claim I attack them.

B. I play f2p games from time to time, including very good ones (Secret World Legends, for example) that also happen to have lootbox mechanics (I never payed for them, but apparently those are a source of substential part of game's income). And I don't want them to go away if propositions of guys like you will be implemented.

I also never said ALL lootboxes are objectively bad, just ones bought with irl money that are designed by companies to prey on certain people's bad spending habits/addiction.

Clarification: I didn't say PEOPLE should be banned, but that the usage by developers of the mechanic(of irl money funded lootboxes) should be banned...or at the very least regulated heavily. If it seemed like I was saying people should be banned for buying lootboxes I apologize.

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

You don't have to prove it, but others can call you out on it(like you're doing with me now). All I meant was that not providing proof of one's claim doesn't invalidate said claim(it also doesn't validate it either).

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

By objectively bad I meant objectively morally bad on the part of devs who implement such mechanics to prey on people. Also, just because SOME get a net positive benefit from said irl money lootboxes(those who get rare items/content), that doesn't mean a good number don't or that a good number don't suffer because of such mechanics.

To use one of my examples from before(i.e. murder): Some "benefit" from murder(the criminal doing it can get joy from it and the funeral home taking care of the body makes money) can occur. That doesn't mean murder should be accepted/allowed for the most part.

====================================================
A. I didn't tell you nonsense......I simply have trouble conveying my meanings sometimes. If you read what I type carefully it should be clear in most cases, however. Also, I only claimed you MIGHT'VE been attacking me/my credibility because your own wording was somewhat written in a way that it appeared as such(to me). If you weren't trying to do so, I apologize.

I wasn't trying to tell you specifically what is good or bad(initially). I was just trying to state my opinion on lootboxes that cost irl money and why they should be banned/regulated(imo).

B. F2P games also make money(to a good degree) from ads in-game/online, and other methods(like non-lootbox items/content). As such, I think the more successful ones would be fine in those cases. If not, then this is the way of the market,

One principle could be that "pay to win" elements like loot boxes should be taboo for players under 18 years old. They are probably the most perceptile and vulnerable to gambling. For those above 18 there should be clear warning signs, and the game companies should be absolutely clear what the chances are exactly for each outcome. This just as a start. Same regulation as for the gambling industry because that's what it is. It used to be gaming, now it's more gambling.

That idea holds merit. Not allowing children to buy such irl money lootboxes/etc and putting warnings on game packages/sites would be a good start....also good would be servers monitoring spending over time and sending emails/etc to those playing who might have a problem(similar to addicition help ads on lottery machines/etc).