wtf_man wrote on May 24, 2019, 12:40:
What it aims to do is prohibit specifically “pay-to-play microtransactions” and “loot boxes.” It’s how these terms are defined, however, that will cause game developers and players the most headache. It would limit, for instance, the types of rewards that can be offered when players purchase “Collector’s Editions” of video games. Expansion packs that, aside from additional content, grant players competitive advantages over ones who don’t purchase them would be banned.
Doesn't sound crappy to me. Collectors editions and expansions that grant competitive advantages SHOULD be prohibited.
And here’s the kicker: This new law would also apply to any game that is “not a minor-oriented game” if the distributor or publisher has “constructive knowledge any of its users are under the age of 18.” That term, “constructive knowledge,” is legalese for information a company should be aware of, regardless of whether or not it actually is. (Try to imagine a game developer arguing in court it had no idea its product had ever been used by a minor.)
Again, Doesn't sound crappy to me. If the wording makes it so loot boxes and pay-to-win is banned across the board instead of "just for children"... I'm all for it.
This crap shouldn't be in games in the first place. If there isn't a complete "opt-out" setting in the game where you can't even see loot boxes (and the like)... then yes... ban them alltogether.
By that standard, everything is for children - because the probability of a child _ever_ interacting with it is not literally 0.000000000000000000000000...%.
Also, I have no problem with expansion packs that include power creep. That's often the point of expansion packs, and the very reason for why people want them.
The only shit situation is when the publisher makes the expansion pack a near-release release, and you can't get good use of the base version before the pack is out.