Belgium Gaming Commission: Randomized lootboxes are gambling, we want to get them out of Europe - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52914810]Because children aren't mature enough to handle money in that regard. Which goes back to my earlier statement: if a parent can't control their child from stealing a credit card and wasting their money on video game loot boxes, that is not the responsibility of the game to restrict that. That is the responsibility of the parent. So again, does the video game industry need to handle everything with kid gloves because children can't be reered properly?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52914810]Because children aren't mature enough to handle money in that regard. Which goes back to my earlier statement: if a parent can't control their child from stealing a credit card and wasting their money on slot machines, that is not the responsibility of the casino to restrict that. That is the responsibility of the parent. So again, does the gambling industry need to handle everything with kid gloves because children can't be reered properly?[/QUOTE] Why should one be restricted and not the other? If protecting children from any and all predatory practices should be the burden of parents alone, then why even restrict casinos in the first place?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52914876]Why should one be restricted and not the other? If protecting children from any and all predatory practices should be the burden of parents alone, then why even restrict casinos in the first place?[/QUOTE] Its easy to prevent children from gambling at a casino. You turn them away at the door or tell them to fuck off when they saddle up to a table. It's the parents responsibility to do the same thing with a video game. Don't buy your kid a game that they don't meet the age requirement, and research to the game to make sure its suitable. Don't tie credit card to a game your kid can make purchases on without your permission. Its not unreasonable to expect a parent to look into a media that a child would consume for hundreds of hours. Banning steak because kids can't chew it is full on retarded. I'm fine with loot boxes going away, but justifying it with "protect the children!" is sly and unreasonable. Be honest and say you don't like loot boxes because it doesn't give you fair access to a game.

Really I don't think children are the main problem. The thing is, you can chargeback that shit and sometimes get refunds/account closures. If you can't, you generally should be able to (make THAT law.) Because there are cases where a kid might steal a credit card, or a parent just fucks up with payment settings, etc.. My main concern is the potential for vulnerable adults WITHOUT that third party there to intervene.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52914923]Its easy to prevent children from gambling at a casino. You turn them away at the door or tell them to fuck off when they saddle up to a table.[/QUOTE] And it not being easy to implement in video games means they shouldn't even try? The least they could do is slap on an "Adult Only" rating on any game that involves gambling, but we both know that's not gonna happen by the publisher's own volition. [Quote]It's the parents responsibility to do the same thing with a video game. Don't buy your kid a game that they don't meet the age requirement, and research to the game to make sure its suitable. Don't tie credit card to a game your kid can make purchases on without your permission. Its not unreasonable to expect a parent to look into a media that a child would consume for hundreds of hours. [/quote] And that absolves companies from any responsibility how? The root of your argument is "it's harder for companies to restrict online gambling so they should wash their hands off it", why can't both parties make efforts to hamper the negative effects of this practice? [QUOTE]Banning steak because kids can't chew it is full on retarded.[/QUOTE] Who the fuck is talking about banning steak? Is gambling outright banned? [QUOTE]I'm fine with loot boxes going away, but justifying it with "protect the children!" is sly and unreasonable. Be honest and say you don't like loot boxes because it doesn't give you fair access to a game.[/QUOTE] I don't like loot boxes because they're a bullshit model that gimps game design AND because it's a predatory practice that targets vulnerable people, among which children. People can dislike things for several reasons.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52914932]Really I don't think children are the main problem. The thing is, you can chargeback that shit and sometimes get refunds/account closures. If you can't, you generally should be able to (make THAT law.) Because there are cases where a kid might steal a credit card, or a parent just fucks up with payment settings, etc.. My main concern is the potential for vulnerable adults WITHOUT that third party there to intervene.[/QUOTE] There is absolutely zero evidence that loot boxes are a more damaging vector than literally any other micro-transaction-related purchase system. I literally have no idea why everybody is so focused on loot boxes when they clearly aren't the actual problem. Are you all angry because you want to moral busy body, or are you angry because they're destroying gaming? If it's the latter, then it's not lootboxes themselves that need to be protested, it's the actual companies themselves. Slapping legislation on this issue won't make it better. It'll make it worse.

[QUOTE=phygon;52915316]There is absolutely zero evidence that loot boxes are a more damaging vector than literally any other micro-transaction-related purchase system. I literally have no idea why everybody is so focused on loot boxes when they clearly aren't the actual problem. Are you all angry because you want to moral busy body, or are you angry because they're destroying gaming? If it's the latter, then it's not lootboxes themselves that need to be protested, it's the actual companies themselves. Slapping legislation on this issue won't make it better. It'll make it worse.[/QUOTE] Zero evidence? If gambling-style microtransactions weren't much more addictive and thus much more profitable for publishers, then why the fuck would so many companies jump on the bandwagon? There's a reason gambling is much more tightly regulated than standard transactions. The chance factor manipulates the psyche into continuing to gamble until a win makes up for the loss, which virtually never happens. It has a dire impact on vulnerable people, who need counseling and therapy to get out of their situation. How is that not more damaging than fucking horse armor? No shit lootboxes aren't the only toxic kind of microtransaction, but they're by far the worst, and contrary to your standard nickel-and-dime scheme, one that can actually be regulated against. As for how banning lootbox shit will somehow make matters worse, I have no idea why you would believe that.

[QUOTE=phygon;52915316]It's not lootboxes themselves that need to be protested, it's the actual companies themselves.[/QUOTE] How exactly do you "protest the companies" without banning lootboxes? Ask them nicely to stop? Also giving vulnerable teens gambling addiction for profit is extremely damaging and may ruin lives.

[QUOTE=phygon;52915316]There is absolutely zero evidence that loot boxes are a more damaging vector than literally any other micro-transaction-related purchase system. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-blasts-ea-sports-after-3185676"]Bam[/URL] [URL="http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/17-year-old-uses-his-dads-credit-card-to-spend-7600-playing-fifa"]Bam[/URL] [URL="https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Father-My-Teenager-Spent-4500-FIFA-Microtransactions-70782.html"]Bam[/URL]

[QUOTE=Wii60;52913561]the only time i genuinely love Belgium outside of waffles[/QUOTE] How can you forget the P90? The P90 is an national belgian treasure. [img]http://www.thewilderness.com/images/products/gts-p90.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=GhillieBacca;52915374]How can you forget the P90? The P90 is an national belgian treasure.[/QUOTE] I guess that makes this Belgium's second major contribution to gaming.

In 2015 my ex called me a "retard" and a "moralistic wanker" for saying that lootboxes are gambling and that they normalize gambling and scratchcard-like behavioural patterns for kids.

[QUOTE=redBadger;52915364][URL="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-blasts-ea-sports-after-3185676"]Bam[/URL] [URL="http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/01/17-year-old-uses-his-dads-credit-card-to-spend-7600-playing-fifa"]Bam[/URL] [URL="https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Father-My-Teenager-Spent-4500-FIFA-Microtransactions-70782.html"]Bam[/URL][/QUOTE] Ok, anecdotally individuals spend a ton of money. This doesn't compare them at all to other microtransaction style addictions (which have existed LONG before lootboxes were a thing), which is what my point was. Lootboxes are not the problem. It's the infinite money grubbing and anti consumer tactics.

[QUOTE=phygon;52915447]Ok, anecdotally individuals spend a ton of money. This doesn't compare them at all to other microtransaction style addictions (which have existed LONG before lootboxes were a thing), which is what my point was.[/quote] Funny how you deliberately cherry pick anecdotal evidence and ignore my post where I explain why lootboxes are that much worse. [Quote]Lootboxes are not the problem. It's the infinite money grubbing and anti consumer tactics.[/QUOTE] Repeating that statement doesn't make it any more true.

[QUOTE=phygon;52915447]Lootboxes are not the problem. It's the infinite money grubbing and anti consumer tactics.[/QUOTE] "A is not a problem, but a rephrased version of A is" Are you continuing because you [B]WANT [/B]to be right?

Lootboxes might be annoying but outright banning them under some loose definition of gambling (the mixing of money and addiction? Seriously?) is ridiculous.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;52915509]Lootboxes might be annoying but outright banning them under some loose definition of gambling (the mixing of money and addiction? Seriously?) is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] And why is that?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52914961]And it not being easy to implement in video games means they shouldn't even try? The least they could do is slap on an "Adult Only" rating on any game that involves gambling, but we both know that's not gonna happen by the publisher's own volition.[/quote] Nobody is askin for control or regulation. Theyre asking for outright removal and bans. [QUOTE=_Axel;52914961] And that absolves companies from any responsibility how? The root of your argument is "it's harder for companies to restrict online gambling so they should wash their hands off it", why can't both parties make efforts to hamper the negative effects of this practice? [/quote] No, the root of my argument is that its not a businesses responsibility to raise children. How do you hamper negative effects to children from video games? Dont buy your kids those video games. The ESRB exists so that an official government body does not interfere with the video game industry. Its the same as the MPAA for the movie industry. If parents can't follow ratings and do basic google searches, then perhaps an actual government body should get involved and ruin the game industry because parents cant parent. [QUOTE=_Axel;52914961] Who the fuck is talking about banning steak? Is gambling outright banned?[/quote] Thats my point bucko. Nobody is asking for sex, violence, or other mature themes to be removed from video games, even though they can have a negative influence on children. We're asking for loot box removal for a different reason under the guise of child protection. [QUOTE=_Axel;52914961] I don't like loot boxes because they're a bullshit model that gimps game design AND because it's a predatory practice that targets vulnerable people, among which children. People can dislike things for several reasons.[/QUOTE] Sure, you can dislike things for several reasons, but nobody is involved in this crusadw because they're mainly looking out for children. Its a bullshit argument and maybe parents should get more involved with their kids beyond giving them a game and a credit card number.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52915530]No, the root of my argument is that its not a businesses responsibility to raise children. [/QUOTE] You heard it here first folks, we should let children into casinos and brothels.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52915539]You heard it here first folks, we should let children into casinos and brothels.[/QUOTE] Damn. Ya sure got me there. Thanks for making an out of context zinger instead of actually addressing my argument. As I stated in an earlier post, a casino can easily turn away someone who is underage from gambling. You and everyone was ever a teenager post 1990 knows that "please enter your DOB to ensure you're over 18" hasn't ever detered a single kid from getting on a porn site. It wouldn't work any better on a video game. Any restrictions are easily bipassed, unless you want corporations to star maintaining a database of drivers licenses or SSNs.

[QUOTE=phygon;52915447]Ok, anecdotally individuals spend a ton of money. This doesn't compare them at all to other microtransaction style addictions (which have existed LONG before lootboxes were a thing), which is what my point was. Lootboxes are not the problem. It's the infinite money grubbing and anti consumer tactics.[/QUOTE] At this point you are arguing semantics out of some vague notion that you can somehow be more right. Lootboxes are gambling, end of. They are RNGbased purchases where you are encouraged to pay real money so you get a chance to spin the wheel and get that shiny thing you want. The fact that you are periodically handed out free ones doesnt mean jack shit. Casinos offer you a free spin at the slot machine to encourage your to keep trying your luck.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52915572]Damn. Ya sure got me there. Thanks for making an out of context zinger instead of actually addressing my argument. As I stated in an earlier post, a casino can easily turn away someone who is underage from gambling. You and everyone was ever a teenager post 1990 knows that "please enter your DOB to ensure you're over 18" hasn't ever detered a single kid from getting on a porn site. It wouldn't work any better on a video game. Any restrictions are easily bipassed, unless you want corporations to star maintaining a database of drivers licenses or SSNs.[/QUOTE] My "zinger" was addressing your argument; It's garbage. We have this system for game ratings. Maybe lootboxes should only be present in games rated AO (Or even a brand new AO 21+ rating)? That effectively removes them from the hands of children since Walmart, Gamestop, Target and other major retailers won't stock AO games and brings in-game gambling in line with the same age group as real life gambling, and you still have the option to buy them online if you're a big enough idiot to gamble in a video game. No nanny state, parents still make the ultimate decision, existing gambling age restrictions are maintained, and everybody but the publisher wins. What we have right now is a failure by these companies to regulate themselves just as we had before the ESRB. You also conveniently forget that gambling is a government regulated activity. Games don't get to be exempt from that just because the ESRB exists. If anything it means the ESRB handles the game content rating and the government handles fair gambling practices and source code review in games where lootboxes are present.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52915591]My zinger was addressing your argument; It's garbage. We have this system for game ratings. Maybe lootboxes should only be present in games rated AO (Or even a brand new AO 21+ rating)? That effectively removes them from the hands of children since Walmart, Gamestop, Target and other major retailers won't stock AO games and brings in-game gambling in line with the same age group as real life gambling, and you still have the option to buy them online if you're a big enough idiot to gamble in a video game. No nanny state, parents still make the ultimate decision, existing gambling age restrictions are maintained, and everybody but the publisher wins. What we have right now is a failure by these companies to regulate themselves just as we had before the ESRB.[/QUOTE] Gambling age varies on state. Where I'm at, I can go down to the reservation and gamble at 18. Vegas is 21. Good luck with that rating clusterfuck. M is an adequate rating considering games that have simulated gambling already use that rating. Removing the games from retailers makes them digital purchases, which takes you right back to the "please enter your DOB" which isn't even a barrier. Ultimately its in the parents hands from the very beginning no matter which way you look at it. Maybe parents should spend 5 minutes googling a purchase that their kid will spend dozens, or thousands, of hours in. Maybe parents shouldn't tie their credit card to XBL accounts where kids can make purchases without consent. You could just as easily not buy your kid loot boxes in the first place. Its such an easy problem to counteract that its not necessary to get government bodies involved, or ban steak because a kid cant chew it. The video game industry doesn't need its corners rounded off or be required to use kid gloves because parents wont do their own job.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52915645]Gambling age varies on state. Where I'm at, I can go down to the reservation and gamble at 18. Vegas is 21. Good luck with that rating clusterfuck. M is an adequate rating considering games that have simulated gambling already use that rating.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant 2x. If anything this is proof that the gambling age needs to be federalized; and existing gambling games getting M ratings is an oversight that now needs to be fixed. Reservations are special exemptions in the first place. [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52915645]Removing the games from retailers makes them digital purchases, which takes you right back to the "please enter your DOB" which isn't even a barrier.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant, it still gives parents information they don't already have and responsible parents still need to give out their credit card for an online purchase. The point is a game not in a retail space has less exposure, which is a death sentence and/or major deterrent for these business practices. How many AO games have you seen in the hands of kids or even for sale? I haven't seen one. You ever see scratch tickets for sale at Target or Walmart? [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52915645]Ultimately its in the parents hands from the very beginning no matter which way you look at it. Maybe parents should spend 5 minutes googling a purchase that their kid will spend dozens, or thousands, of hours in. Maybe parents shouldn't tie their credit card to XBL accounts where kids can make purchases without consent. You could just as easily not buy your kid loot boxes in the first place. Its such an easy problem to counteract that its not necessary to get government bodies involved, or ban steak because a kid cant chew it. The video game industry doesn't need its corners rounded off or be required to use kid gloves because parents wont do their own job.[/QUOTE] Parents don't know if a game has gambling in it because this has not yet been addressed by the ESRB or law makers, and it's lawless gambling that could be rigged because no government body is regulating it unlike every other form of gambling in this country.

[QUOTE=Nickolas;52913419]Don't think i have to point out that F2P games gotta rely on microtransactions to earn money for the game If there has to be any kind of cosmetic microtransactions in fully priced titles, it should just be a "Pay for what you specifically want" system, instead of having to spend hundreds on the chance not to even get what you want [editline]22nd November 2017[/editline] But yeah they shouldn't cripple F2P games that use these systems, hope they notice[/QUOTE] Black Desert online seems to do the whole cash shop right. Instead of using RNG boxes they just charge you a flat fee for a costume pack you want. So for 15 bucks you know you get the costume you want, most games you spend 15 bucks on a RNG box and get like a dollars worth of shit back. Loot boxes are becoming cancer and the reason there is such back-lash now is because it is getting ridiculous. These devs and publisher reap what they sow.

[QUOTE=Van-man;52915462]"A is not a problem, but a rephrased version of A is" Are you continuing because you [B]WANT [/B]to be right?[/QUOTE] No, I'm saying that [I]lootboxes[/I] are not the problem, [I]micro-transactions[/I] are. Specifically banning lootboxes lets people pat themselves on the back and feel like they've solved the issue while the situation itself will get worse for consumers. It's not semantics. This issue is STILL very present even without lootboxes. [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/redditors-explain-how-they-spent-thousands-of-dollars-league-of-legends-2015-3[/url] [url]https://kotaku.com/15-year-old-kid-spends-37-000-euros-on-gold-in-free-to-1642091831[/url] [url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/03/01/why-its-scary-when-0-15-mobile-gamers-bring-in-50-of-the-revenue/#79516e2f4065[/url] Companies WILL find ways to extract money from users in anti-consumer ways if they can't use lootboxes. Even fucking COD added [I]rental guns[/I] when it was economically viable in markets that they knew would tolerate it. [url]http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_Duty_Online[/url] Focusing on loot boxes will not solve the problem. At all. Arguing that they are somehow morally worse than any other method of fucking over customers is ridiculous. [editline]23rd November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=kilerabv;52915577]At this point you are arguing semantics out of some vague notion that you can somehow be more right. Lootboxes are gambling, end of. They are RNGbased purchases where you are encouraged to pay real money so you get a chance to spin the wheel and get that shiny thing you want. The fact that you are periodically handed out free ones doesnt mean jack shit. Casinos offer you a free spin at the slot machine to encourage your to keep trying your luck.[/QUOTE] See above. Also, Lootboxes are not gambling any more than booster packs for card games are.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52913961]Or they might regionlock the loot box system to only work for players outside of that region. EA's scummy enough to toe the line that finely, where someone just a few paces past the EU border has access to it but their neighbors do not.[/QUOTE] When China made a regulation just to simply reveal the percentages for each item blizzard weaseled out of it by making Chinese buy minuscule amounts of credits with bonus loot boxes included $100 for like 2000 credits and 50 "bonus" loot boxes? Gimme a break

[QUOTE=phygon;52916138]No, I'm saying that [I]lootboxes[/I] are not the problem, [I]micro-transactions[/I] are. Specifically banning lootboxes lets people pat themselves on the back and feel like they've solved the issue while the situation itself will get worse for consumers. [editline]23rd November 2017[/editline] Lootboxes are not gambling any more than booster packs for card games are.[/QUOTE] as it was said before, microtransactions [I]can[/I] be done right. Lootboxes are one step on the chain of keeping predatory business tactics out of games. If they can't do lootboxes, then at the very least that slows them down to rethink how they do it, and they could possibly be removed (wishful thinking) or improved for the next iteration in the series. and re: lootboxes vs booster packs, earlier in this thread: [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52913482]you can generally find and buy a specific card on ebay, not so much with a lootbox. you dont have to buy more card packs if you're looking for a specific card, but you sure as shit have to buy more lootboxes if you want widowmakers bikini[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52916150]as it was said before, microtransactions [I]can[/I] be done right. Lootboxes are one step on the chain of keeping predatory business tactics out of games. If they can't do lootboxes, then at the very least that slows them down to rethink how they do it, and they could possibly be removed (wishful thinking) or improved for the next iteration in the series. [/QUOTE] They already have thought about it, the answer is premium currency. Or rentals. Or paid subscriptions. Nothing will slow down, at all. It's just too profitable, and as long as we keep pretending that it's ~evil, child targeting gambling~ the problem won't even begin to be addressed. The problem is not the fact that it shares some similarities to gambling. The problem is that businesses are being scummy. As long as the media and the population focuses on this one single facet of the shit-diamond, when it's addressed with a stupidly specific over-reaching virtue-signaling law, people will go "we did it!" when in fact literally nothing was achieved and companies will continue to fuck over consumers in the exact same ways. More than that, lootboxes (which are not inherently bad, some games have good, non-predatory approaches) will then be banned, forcing said games to move away from a model that isn't abusive into a model that may be. I actually responded to that post, as well. At least in Overwatch, you can buy skins with currency which you will be floating in if you play the game even a little bit.

I kind of like payday's loot boxes. They're free to drop and open, but you can buy them or the items in them from other players via steam market, and the devs still get revenue from these purchases due to the 15% market "tax" (5% to valve, 10% to dev). Plus due to so many people owning it the boxes drop to like 9 cents a box with most contents being like 3 cents. I don't think I've ever spent a real dime on anything, only market funds from cards, tf2 and other items. They only made it this way after fierce protest of the introduction in general, and it's not retroactive for the ones that existed before the change (still have keys) but I think it's a system much better than others because the consumers are in full control of it pretty much because they set their own prices off things they get for free My only complaint is that they do the dumb CSGO "wear" shit on gun skins so there's like 6 versions of each gun skin. Thankfully the armor cosmetic boxes didn't do that so they're much more enjoyable to open. [editline]23rd November 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52913482]TCGs and CCGs are pretty different from games though. you know what you're getting into with a game like magic if you want to be a hardcore player the difference is you can generally find and buy a specific card on ebay, not so much with a lootbox. you dont have to buy more card packs if you're looking for a specific card, but you sure as shit have to buy more lootboxes if you want widowmakers bikini[/QUOTE] Suppose in making free steam market style it becomes more like tcg items with all the trading and eBay/Amazon like selling [editline]23rd November 2017[/editline] Only problem is blizz and ea refuse to use steam so they'll never have that integration and will take advantage of lack of options in their games [editline]23rd November 2017[/editline] I have to wonder if destiny 2 going to battle net was activisions way of avoiding people asking for market integration for their lootbox color bullshit

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52915530]Nobody is askin for control or regulation. Theyre asking for outright removal and bans.[/quote] What relevance does this have to your claim that publisher can't do anything to prevent children from gambling? Getting an AO rating would certainly be way better than nothing in that regard. [Quote]No, the root of my argument is that its not a businesses responsibility to raise children.[/quote] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;52915539]You heard it here first folks, we should let children into casinos and brothels.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52915572]Damn. Ya sure got me there. Thanks for making an out of context zinger instead of actually addressing my argument. As I stated in an earlier post, a casino can easily turn away someone who is underage from gambling. You and everyone was ever a teenager post 1990 knows that "please enter your DOB to ensure you're over 18" hasn't ever detered a single kid from getting on a porn site. It wouldn't work any better on a video game. Any restrictions are easily bipassed, unless you want corporations to star maintaining a database of drivers licenses or SSNs.[/QUOTE] "Actually, my argument isn't A, it's B" *Someone debunks B* "Nice zinger, but you didn't address my argument, which is A" [I]Well which is it?[/I] [Quote]How do you hamper negative effects to children from video games? Dont buy your kids those video games. The ESRB exists so that an official government body does not interfere with the video game industry. Its the same as the MPAA for the movie industry. If parents can't follow ratings and do basic google searches, then perhaps an actual government body should get involved and ruin the game industry because parents cant parent.[/quote] Oooh, you mean that those game should be appropriately rated, like an AO rating which is what games with real currency gambling currently get? That's funny, that suggestion seems familiar to me. [Quote]Thats my point bucko. Nobody is asking for sex, violence, or other mature themes to be removed from video games, even though they can have a negative influence on children.[/quote] Those aren't outright banned, but as you said, those that are the most harmful are rated appropriately. Violent videogames like manhunt were rated AO. I'm pretty sure a game that manipulates children into spending thousand of dollars is at least as harmful as that. [Quote]We're asking for loot box removal for a different reason under the guise of child protection. Sure, you can dislike things for several reasons, but nobody is involved in this crusadw because they're mainly looking out for children.[/quote] Do people have to be involved for a single reason? Why the fuck can't one do something for several reasons? [Quote]Its a bullshit argument and maybe parents should get more involved with their kids beyond giving them a game and a credit card number.[/QUOTE] You're the one making bullshit arguments since the beginning, you're not addressing anybody's point and keep spouting the same talking points. You're against companies making any effort to inform parents of the risks their game entails yet at the same time you argue that parents should be the one protecting their children. That's like arguing against warning labels or composition on food packages and then blaming parents for not knowing it contains an allergen that killed their kid. This is the apex of libertarian bullshit.