Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:

Morning Legal Briefs

View
6 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

6. Re: Morning Legal Briefs May 27, 2019, 13:46 Scheherazade
 
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.

-scheherazade
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Morning Legal Briefs May 25, 2019, 02:41 Red886
 
Gizmodo is a corporate shill. Of course it is crappy, according to them.

They even added in an example of not being able to charge a player to change servers anymore...the outrage !!!

lol
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: etc. May 24, 2019, 18:02 jdreyer
 
deqer wrote on May 24, 2019, 14:06:
So then why is that guy complaining that it's crappy if it isn't crappy. Like, why the fuck is this is even news.
4DaClickz
 
Avatar 22024
 
The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: etc. May 24, 2019, 14:06 deqer
 
So then why is that guy complaining that it's crappy if it isn't crappy. Like, why the fuck is this is even news.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Morning Legal Briefs May 24, 2019, 12:40 wtf_man
 
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.
 
Avatar 19499
 
"Did you even read cutters post or are you just suffering from rectal cranial inversion." - RedEye9
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Morning Legal Briefs May 24, 2019, 11:30 RedEye9
 
Redditor would've been better off being "disfellowshipped by their community".  
Avatar 58135
 
I want to shut the noise out and reconnect to my inner thoughts on the road to feeling more at one with myself. Fleabag
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo