[ad_1]
(Photo illustration by Joe Raedle / Getty Images)
The main GOP discussion topics on video games, at least throughout my life, were that they were the devil's work that led to the moral decline of society. Lately, some Republicans have adopted the idea that it is video games, not guns, that are responsible for mass shooting. And then there are Republicans who want to use video games as recruitment tools for the military. Republican politicians generally do not know why video games are even a thing.
It's a strange disconnect because most real The problems of people who play video games can be directly related to the self-identified white Republicans who play them. Nobody is eager to "bag" you after killing a Republican. Nobody is more likely to harass women who play, whether in the game or on the forums, than a Republican whose account is draped in various Maga merceries. And no one, no one says faster than you are a snowflake too sensitive to his harassing or violent speech, than the same Republican asshat who will vote for politicians who "go off" and are sensitive every time someone publishes a video of driving a cop in Grand Theft Auto.
Democratic politicians are not very much better. But at least the "ImStillWithHer2020" player will probably not paint his armor as a Confederate flag.
But yesterday, the Republican in real life, Josh Hawley (R-MO), introduced a bill that tackles the scourge of both liberal and conservative players: loot boxes.
Chests are a treasure in video games that contains a random reward. It's like a scratch lottery ticket: you will sometimes get something extremely useful, but most of you will get shit. Also like a lotto ticket, you usually have to pay them. This is a small fee, a microtranscation and, in the manner of a lotto ticket, you are not supposed to have the impression that a $ 1 or 5 dollar purchase $ is quite advantageous, even if your chances of "winning" something that is worth the price of buying rather small.
I do not do lottery comparisons without doing anything. I think that the boxes are very similar to the game. For example, the only time I make microtransactions in games is for "colors". (I want my characters, my spaceship or something else to be orange and blue because I'm a fan of the Mets and … I do not want to talk about it anymore.) When a game allows me to buy the colors, is boring but fair. But some games put this kind of "cosmetic products" in the coffers. That means I have to keep buying the loot chests – the rewards of which are random, remember – until I find myself happily with the palette I've chosen.
It's even worse when the game wants you to buy loot chests to progress in the game. Then you really feel like a guy with a scratch ticket trying to earn a "retirement" on your card. Players call it "pay to win" – it's when a key piece of equipment or skill you really need to progress in the game or compete online is stuck behind a box of surprises. Of course, the game can give you a way to get the upgrade without spending real money, but it is usually not fun and is simply designed to make you want to pay for you out. Most people will just stop playing at that time, but those who can not will spend money. Even here, it looks a lot like a gambling addiction. South Park has, in fact, the best explanation for this.
Unfortunately, countries around the world do not agree with me. They do not think that the chests are similar to the game and that, therefore, the chests in video games are not regulated as the game. Honestly, I think it's because the older people find themselves in the courts never realized that DESPERATE needed to unlock Iron Man on your tablet so your child would stop crying at the airport, but they never ask me to testify.
Which brings us back to Hawley's proposition. If loot boxes and microtransactions are not governed by current gaming legislation, Hawley simply wants to draft a new law. He calls it the law on the protection of children against abusive gambling. From ArsTechnica:
As noted, the bill would mirror the Children's Online Privacy Act by applying "games for under 18s" and "games intended for a wider audience," which developers can cognizance of minor players to engage in microtransactions ". Games would not be allowed to have loot boxes, defined here as "microtransactions offering random or partially random rewards to players".
The invoice summary also refers to the so-called "pay-to-win" mechanisms that "manipulate the progression system of a game … to entice players to spend money …" or that alter "the l & # 39, competitive balance between multiplayer game players. The Trade Commission and state attorneys general would be able to enforce the law.
As a Republican Senator, Hawley has already been demoted to Donald Trump's service, helping to protect the President and his men from any legal or ethical responsibility. Hilaryly, Hawley has already voted and will continue to vote for judges and judges who may raise constitutional or regulatory objections to this law.
But for now, in this extremely limited sense, what Hawley is good at. The video game industry benefits children and people with addiction problems, AND creates games that are intentionally boring for people to buy their happiness. It should not be legal now, and if it is, then we should write a law to make it illegal.
For the first time perhaps, I think that a Republican has discovered something that really does not go with video games.
Senator Hawley Announces Legislation Banning Loot Boxes and Payment Mechanisms to Win [ArsTechnica]
Elie Mystal is the editor of Above the Law and a contributor to The Nation. It can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter or at [email protected]. He will resist.
[ad_2]
Source link