So, gambling is "objectively bad". Got it! </sarcasm>

Read what I wrote, please(seriously, is everyone replying to me itt purposefully dense?).

I said that mechanics designed to take advantage of people's gambling tendencies/addictions are bad.

(Of course, I also think casinos/etc taking advantage of people's addictions through promotions and not cutting such people off in time is also bad...make of that what you will)

(Addition: I also dislike random card packs for games like pokemon/yugioh/etc, as those also prey on people's collection tendencies/completionism/etc)

Except, you haven't provided any argument how "lootbox" mechanic (and I mean mechanic in general, not some particular cases that take it to the extreme) is designed to take advantage of peoples gambling addiction. By that logic any kind of gambling (or mechanics that involve real money) can be accused of taking advantage. Thus my reply "gambling is objectively bad. Got it.".

1. Others(gov't agencies/etc) have already done the work. It's all there if you choose to look for it. Why should I regurgitate it?

2. I never meant to say/infer that every lootbox mechanic(or it in general) is designed to do such. Just the ones designed to charge players real money for such(especially those with very low odds of getting anything useful from them).

3. Companies are in it to make a profit, and such things(lootboxes for irl money) are vastly profitable. Why wouldn't thye design them as such on purpose?

If you honestly believe that they( loot boxes for irl money) weren't designed to take advantage of people's completion ocd/gambling addicitions then I also have a bridge in brooklyn I want to sell you.

4. I never meant to infer gambling(all gambling) was bad. I mentioned a very specific gambling mechanic/set of criteria in this case.

You're eihter trolling or completely ignorant. Selling virtual boxes with random loot for real money IS what's called "lootbox mechanic".

And you have proof that without addictive people lootboxes wouldn't be profitable?

Except you haven't provided any argument how to differ "lootboxes" from any other form of gambling.

1. I noticed something. Rather than debate my points fairly you seem to pick apart my wording/nitpick definitions. Why is that? Why not prove me wrong on my belief instead of calling me names or nitpicking the wording I use?

I said what I believe. That lootboxes for irl money(vs lootboxes for game currency or free lootboxes, which DO exist) are bad and a detriment to players/should be banned. Either prove me wrong or provide a counterpoint as to why that's wrong/a bad idea or stop wasting our collective time.

2. I don't feel this reply chain is worth digging up such proof, but answer me this: Would they design such a mechanic if it wasn't profitable if the main thing it does is generate income for them?

One difference is that lootboxes are targetted at gamers(of which a good number are children, who aren't very good with money/financial decision making in most cases).

In short: Debate me on the issue/points I made. Don't focus on what words I used/if I used them correctly. Don't attack my character with certain words and phrases. Debate the issue itself and the point I was trying to make. This is all I ask if you want to keep up this conversation.

Who decides what is bad though? As flawed as majority rule is, someone deciding for everyone is even worse.

Probably no one person/persons, but rather a mix of objective reasoning/logic/common sense & the majority collective view of society. Example: If something is objectively bad then it should either be banned/limited(as with most types of murder/rape/major theft) permanently or only allowed in certain circumstances(conditional laws).

Because you can't prove that someone is wrong (or right) unless you know what exactly that someone is saying.

See? You already show that your definition is inconsistent as you say that lootboxes can be bought with real money or game currency, while in reality there are practically no games where lootboxes are sold for real money. In most games (Star Wars: Battlefront, Secret World Legends, tonn of various mobile games) lootboxes are sold for game currency. And it's game currency that is sold for real money.

And note that this game currency can also be spent on all sorts of things - some in-game items (cosmetics, or gameplay), various resources, resetting cooldown in a dungeon raid (and dungeon raid result is not determined thing by itself). When spending real money on in-game purchases becomes "objectively bad" thing?

I'm not attacking you. I'm asking you to define what is "objectively bad", or at least make an argument why lootboxes are "objectively bad". So far you've only proved that lootboxes are bad for people who can't control their gambling desires. So what? There are plenty of people who CAN. For them lootboxes are nice entertainment and nothing more.

1. Yes, but obsessing over wording instead of the issues just leads one in circles with another. I also explained my position on the matter quite clearly a few times, I believe.

In summary: Lootboxes bought for irl money should be banned/not allowed because they can be used(and often are) to prey on people's tendencies to gamble/spend unwisely...especially children. (I don't think i can be much clearer than that)

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

I mentioned that SOME lootboxes can be bought with in-game currency or gotten for free to be fair and show that sometimes lootboxes(not for irl money) can be acceptable/that I was being fair with my points. That doesn't mean I mixed up my definitions.

As for games that allow lootbox purchases with in-game currency(which one must buy with irl money), I have little issue with using in-game money to purchase dlc(cosmetic/etc) using irl money/buying in-game currency with irl money.

I DO, however, dislike lootboxes bought with irl money(which you do anyways in such games, just indirectly with a second step: i.e. buying in-game currency then buying lootboxes with said in-game currency), regardless of the number of steps needed to get them.

As such, I don't take issue with using irl money to buy in-game currency, but rather one thing which is effectively(via buying in-game currency first to do so) bought with irl money(i.e. lootboxes).

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

Again, I said before(and will say again) that ALL lootboxes(free/etc) aren't bad....just those that rely on irl money(either direct purchases or through buying in-game money to obtain) to obtain.

(Addition: Again, I am not saying in-game currency purchases are all bad by saying all this. That is not what i'm trying to point out/say here)

Big addition: So you're saying that because some can control their impulses to spend/gamble, that protections shouldn't be put inn place for those who cannot? That's like saying we don't need laws against murder or grand theft because some people can keep themselves from comitting such acts or avoiding falling victim to such acts. Sometimes laws are needed, and imo this is one such case......especially if it protects the more susceptible in society from harm(financial or otherwise).

To me, this is no better a counterargument against my points than others saying that because social shunning and it's effects don't effect them that it basically isn't a problem/big deal.

No I didn't. If I did show me where, otherwise it's just "he said it because I said so so I win the argument"

I also defined what type of lootboxes I have issue with(ones that rely on players spending irl money to obtain them, either directly or indirectly), but here's some criteria as well: i.e. Lootboxes in the literal sense count(containers with items in them like chests/crates/etc), as well as random item packs/content packs......as long as they cost irl money(in some way/form) to obtain and the chances of items/content gained(if any) is randomized.

Now that i've re-reexplained my position, explain how banning such to protect those with gambling problems/addiction would be a bad thing beyond stuff like "less choices" in gaming or attempts to use the slippery slope fallacy(as others have tried).

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

In the case of buying a chance to raid a dungeon/area, you're at least getting content/an experience that is the about the same(barring things like the random item drops/maybe enemy spawns) for everyone. This is a little less egregious as "lootboxes"(defined above/previously) for irl money, but still bad(albeit to a lesser degree).

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

The laws may be APPLIED after the fact, but they're also meant(along with other things) to try and dissuade people from committing such acts/to prevent people from doing such things.

One can probably discuss a long time about loot boxes, but the real thing will be if medical studies really confirm that some or all of these practices make players addicted, then one really has to treat and regulate the makers of such games the same way gambling operators are treated. Voting with the wallet is one thing, but gambling all your money away because you're addicted is another thing.

1. In case of lootboxes you also get guaranteed content (or at least content with certain guaranteed value). So yeah, there is little to no difference.

2. So "less choices" and "slippery slope" are not bad things?

3. What kind of twisted logic is this? Action counts, not intentions.

I'll just leave it at that:

In connection with all your comments made in this thread, all I can say is: oh the irony...