7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
7.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Nov 29, 2022, 14:00
7.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Nov 29, 2022, 14:00
Nov 29, 2022, 14:00
 
Bodolza wrote on Nov 29, 2022, 13:20:
I don't understand. The whole controversy is because real money IS involved. If loot boxes were just random items you got as part of playing a game then no one would care.
The articles say that in 2018 the committee recommended approaching loot boxes on a case-by-case basis, since the mechanics aren't the same in every game. The new, proposed bill updates their legal definitions and applies restrictions to paid loot boxes.
6.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Nov 29, 2022, 13:26
6.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Nov 29, 2022, 13:26
Nov 29, 2022, 13:26
 
Bodolza wrote on Nov 29, 2022, 13:20:
I don't understand. The whole controversy is because real money IS involved. If loot boxes were just random items you got as part of playing a game then no one would care.
bingo
Australia needs to change their law on gambling.
- At this point, Windows is the OS equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. -
Burrito of Peace
Avatar 58135
5.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Nov 29, 2022, 13:20
5.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Nov 29, 2022, 13:20
Nov 29, 2022, 13:20
 
I don't understand. The whole controversy is because real money IS involved. If loot boxes were just random items you got as part of playing a game then no one would care.
4.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Nov 29, 2022, 12:58
4.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Nov 29, 2022, 12:58
Nov 29, 2022, 12:58
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Nov 28, 2022, 21:49:
I'd like to know what portion of the legal definition they don't meet...
This wasn't hard information to find. In the linked article it says,

In 2018, a five-month inquiry into loot boxes by the Environment and Communications Reference Committee concluded they met all the psychological criteria for gambling but not the legal definition, and called for further research into the potential gambling-related harms of loot boxes.

Click on the link, and 5 sentences in it explains:

While it was conclusive that loot boxes meet the five psychological criteria for gambling, unless the contents can be monetised for real-world value, they do not meet the legal definition under Australian law.

That doesn't seem like an absurd or arbitrary threshold to me. If real-world money isn't involved then you're not jumping on games for every use of a random number generator.
3.
 
Re: Loot box bill filed in Australia.
Nov 28, 2022, 21:54
3.
Re: Loot box bill filed in Australia. Nov 28, 2022, 21:54
Nov 28, 2022, 21:54
 
fakespyder wrote on Nov 28, 2022, 20:43:
...a five-month inquiry into loot boxes by the Environment and Communications Reference Committee concluded they met all the psychological criteria for gambling but not the legal definition...

When is a duck not a duck?

When it's a platypus.
"Just take a look around you, what do you see? Pain, suffering, and misery." -Black Sabbath, Killing Yourself to Live.

“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Avatar 21247
2.
 
Re: Evening Legal Briefs
Nov 28, 2022, 21:49
2.
Re: Evening Legal Briefs Nov 28, 2022, 21:49
Nov 28, 2022, 21:49
 
I'd like to know what portion of the legal definition they don't meet...
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
1.
 
Loot box bill filed in Australia.
Nov 28, 2022, 20:43
1.
Loot box bill filed in Australia. Nov 28, 2022, 20:43
Nov 28, 2022, 20:43
 
...a five-month inquiry into loot boxes by the Environment and Communications Reference Committee concluded they met all the psychological criteria for gambling but not the legal definition...

When is a duck not a duck?
Avatar 58853
7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older