Apple and Google Play have this, should be on the box, as well. But what about the pubs who patch in those afterwards?
Are you allowed to patch a game above the rating it was given?
Apple and Google Play have this, should be on the box, as well. But what about the pubs who patch in those afterwards?
Apple and Google Play have this, should be on the box, as well. But what about the pubs who patch in those afterwards?
...However, this and other remedies are less readily applied with respect to physical (boxed) video game products, where the ESRB enforcement system allows for the imposition of harsh sanctions (e.g., fines up to $1 million, product recall, the stickering of product throughout all retail outlets) for instances of significant or egregious content non-disclosure. Less serious violations of ESRB content disclosure guidelines can result in the assignment of points, fines, and mandated corrective actions.
https://www.esrb.org/ratings/enforcement.aspx
Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.
It's about making parents more aware of what their kids are exposed to. They might choose to still buy it for the child but they might prepare their child better in terms of educating them about the mechinics at play and what the child needs to be aware of.
As it stands most parents have no idea about what their kids are being exposed to in these games.
Are you allowed to patch a game above the rating it was given?
The publishers will need to disclose that when they submit the game for rating. If not then they leave themselves open to being hit with this:
Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?You say that like it's a bad thing.
I like the idea, but the big companies would never allow this to happen. You'd need someone with more sway than a youtuber to actually get this moving forward.
Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?
Games are not $60. Between season passes and special editions, full games are 90 bucks in average.Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.
Tho it seems like a lot of people don't care, they just want them gone. Guess you're all cool with $100 games then, right? Games have become too expensive for the $60 price tag, companies have to do something.
Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?
I agree with you here. But I'm sure you can understand that doesn't solve the problem. Look at the bad PR some games have gotten for looking "ugly." The industry is between a rock and a hard place currently.Reduce budgets. I'm fine with smaller, less graphically magical games if the market isn't there to support them.
Does games costing more than $60 base sound like a good thing? Game development has gotten more expensive, companies have to make money some way. They know consumers don't want a higher shelf tag so they try things like lootboxes and DLCs to makeup the costs. We keep shitting on every alternative they come up with, what do you think the end-game is here for the industry?
I agree with you here. But I'm sure you can understand that doesn't solve the problem.
Take a game like Fifa for example with pack opening being nothing more than glorified gambling, you think if it suddenly had an 18 rating little Jimmy's parents still wouldn't buy it for him?
This stuff is locked behind parental controls right? You can't make any purchases if they set the system up right.
So I don't think an automatic 17/18+ rating is needed. But more clarity about them being in games would be good. Just like app stores are doing.
You never hear about kids spending thousands of dollars accidently on their parent's iPad
You know what they say: a broken clock is forever bad, but a delayed one is right twice a day.
TotalBiscuit, I would sign this petition.
Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.
Tho it seems like a lot of people don't care, they just want them gone. Guess you're all cool with $100 games then, right? Games have become too expensive for the $60 price tag, companies have to do something.
3) Games must allow users to ban themselves from purchasing boxes (for a period of time or indefinitely) in much the same way that you can ban yourself from gambling on online betting sites.
The companies themselves e.g Publishers have no say in this. They don't determine what regulations come into play. Some would likely try and appeal it, although I'd be intrigued to know what their defense would be.
However I agree that in order to get someone like the ESRB to enforce this you might need more than a Youtuber to propose it.
Apple and Google Play have this, should be on the box, as well. But what about the pubs who patch in those afterwards?
Government regulation over games that has loot boxes would set a bad precedent
What's the current procedure if a pub was to patch in gore into their E rated game? I guess it does not matter on consoles either way, because console vendors will forbid any updates that affect the age rating.
Making a game M-Rated just for having lootboxes? I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. This sounds like a suggestion based around concerns of "gambling" but is just a cover with the actual motive being people want lootboxes gone and they know a lot of games would avoid an M rating.
Tho it seems like a lot of people don't care, they just want them gone. Guess you're all cool with $100 games then, right? Games have become too expensive for the $60 price tag, companies have to do something.
What people don't think of when it comes to loot boxes is that they are a real lottery and put videogames in the dangerous position of gambling, there's a real risk that soon videogames will be restricted by gambling laws because of them.