According to the government. Our 4Cyclones spends his pocket money on these things - Robucks they're called - and they let you buy special clothes and such for your character in the game. It boggles me that he wastes his money like that, but the older kids have pointed out that he's just buying entertainment - like renting a film or something - and I suppose there's some truth to that. I see that you can now buy fake 'bux' in some other game and then gamble them in a casino within the game. But you can't convert any winnings back to real money. It seems bizarre. Anyone have experience of buying these in game money things?
My view, albeit with little more insight than you, or perhaps even less, is that these games are addictive and often take advantage of people. Obviously a bit of harmless spending on a treat here and there is no problem, but I fear that for some kids it's an insidious obsession.
Well my boy was a bit of a fortnite freak. He told me his mate has spent close to £400 on just new costumes. They don't even give special abilities or anything.. It really needs looking at. Especially when it is most parents credit details that are being used.
If a kid wants to spend their own pocket money or earnings on stuff like this then fair dos. It's no different to me spending my paper round money on Pannini stickers or airfix kits as a kid. Parents who have their accounts cleaned out because they're too lazy to keep a check on their kids internet & mobile phone activity deserve the lesson they've been taught. @Clive_ofthe_Kremlin nice one for taking an interest. Too many parents don't bother and just raise screen zombies.
Sure, some parents plonk their kids down with an iPad rather than spend time with them and others give their kids iPhones when they are 8, but often it's more insidious than that. A developmentally challenged child, or autistic offspring, given a phone to calm them for a bit and let the mum have some well earned moment of sanity, only to find that the kid has somehow unlocked their password and spent 3oo quid on something. Fortunately, I'm tech savvy enough to have the kids' cheap amazon tablets locked down to only free, child-safe content for limited screen time. Many parents aren't though and don't deserve to be labelled as lazy, just because they didn't realise that their kid could somehow access their CC details through a seemingly innocent looking game that they had bought for them. OK they should have read and understood the permissions, but that doesn't make them lazy, just naive IMO.
"In game purchases" are one thing but it's the blind purchases that are no different to gambling in my opinion that I object to the most. My son is always badgering me for money to buy "FIFA packs". You don't know what's in these packs. It can be anything from a "rare informs" to some Sunday league cloggers. So he puts his (my) money down in the hope he "wins" something of greater value than the amount of money he puts down. How is that not gambling?
Obviously there will be the odd exception for a special case I can only generalise, but naivety is is not a valid excuse imho. If you're clever enough to have a tablet or mobile phone and link a credit card or bank account to it then you know that it can be charged to through that device. There's plenty of free and paid for ways of restricting content purchases etc. A parent needs to determine if a kid is responsible enough or if not protect from these things happening. To not do so is laziness in not understanding what the kid is being given just to shut them up. Its a blame someone else rather than take responsibility culture.
Is it gambling though? Buying a panini sticker pack in the hope I get a foil badge is technically gambling. Buying a Kinder egg in the hope that there's a toy aeroplane inside rather than a ******* smurf figure is gambling. The difference is the amount is restricted because the kids need to exchange real cash for them. Parents keep their cash protected and manage the amount passed to kids, probably taking them, to the shops also. As such should also keep their credit and account details protected and know what their kids are doing on-line.
I don't disagree that parents need to control their kids spending online and I don't have a lot of sympathy for those parents who allow their kids to run up large credit card bills. But Panini cards and kinder eggs are just whataboutism. The impulse and reward in "buying" online packs in the hope of getting rewards greater than the value spent is exactly the same emotions you get from gambling. It is not something I think is healthy for kids to learn at a young age. It's encouraged by various YouTube "entities" who use carefully edited videos showing them opening packs containing top players, accompanied by screams of joy and excitement. It gives the impression that you will be happy and fulfilled if only you buy the packs. Very similar to the numerous TV bingo and gambling adds showing happy winning faces. As with other gambling, the reality is very different with most packs full of duffers. But the next pack will be the winner I'm sure.....just one more.
Agreed it is really gambling. Thing is should it be banned? Do we expect the government to step in and moderate everything for us? Should we ban advertising of gambling, alcohol, sweet/fatty foods, sex. Lot's of stuff is addictive we have to draw the line somewhere but I don't profess to have the answers. I think where the advertising is specifically pointed at kids it probably needs to be banned (probably already is). But it's impossible to regulate the internet, youtube, social media etc. That's where parents need to control access.
I guess it does come down to a certain amount of personal opinion and experience. Personally I don't think there is a need for gambling in games used by young people. They are not seeking to gamble but are easily sucked into it through the game and, I suspect, it can be a gateway into "proper" gambling. If we are happy for young people to gamble then we should just make gambling legal. It's absurd to on one level make a moral and legal judgement that youth gambling is undesirable and yet allow and encourage it as part of their games.
That would be GTA. I've was told about it and made sure I saw it in action. It's rigged so that it's quite easy to beat the casino, meaning vunerable young minds think that gambling pays. It's a f***ing disgrace.
Loot boxes are 100% gambling. In fact, they're worse: it's gambling where the house always wins because there is literally 0 payout. For things like Panini stickers, you're getting a physical item that you can use to trade for that foil you didn't get. Essentially, every pack opened has a monetary value. Yes, some will have rarer finds than others, but you can trade what you have for what you don't. On top of that, stickers are essentially aesthetics only; not having that foil you want doesn't prevent you from competing with others. Your objective is to complete your book, not play head to head. Most loot crates don't work like that. For most games, they contain performance enhancing items or characters that perform far better than the baseline items. If you want to play online/head to head, you're essentially prejudiced and up against if it you don't have them. Which means those wanting to play on a level playing field have to obtain loot boxes, but they never know what they're getting and have to hope each one they open contains what they want. I get why companies feel the need to monetise, but games like League of Legends where you just pay a flat fee to unlock a particular character you want a far fairer. No gambling involved there....pay money, get what you want. Simple, fair, no possibility of spending 100s and still not having what you want.
I hate the microtransaction/pay to win/loot box money grabbing way video games have gone. It's ridiculous that GTA can get away with charging you real money for fake betting and i suspect it will get outlawed. I hate games that are pay to win more though; buy the golf clubs with better power, buy the gun that is most powerful etc. If I pay £30 for the game I don't expect to then have to pay more to compete in the game.
Quite. I don't have an issue with e.g. buying a new DLC character that's intended to be balanced versus the rest of the lineup, but I do have an issue with needing to buy a weapon just to be able to compete.
