2 weeks ago
The reactions of players to EA’s initially proposed microtransactions paved the way for the Protecting Children from Abusive Games Act, a bill introduced by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri in May that aims to tackle the problem of predatory loot boxes and pay-to-win schemes.
Do you think this will help or hurt games in the future?
2 weeks ago
Well consider this.
Lootboxes help sustain the servers we use and dev support for bug fixes.
Lootboxes also gives you low or no price purchase cost of a game. (Apex)
If a game has no income to sustain the cost of the game with bug fixes, servers etc. will be a lot more expensive than what you see now.
You may end up paying subscriptions for online services for a game like World of Warcraft.
Pay to win? no.
Most game lootboxes will give you cosmetic items and has no effect in game.
Purchasing lootboxes are an optional method for most games but ultimately can be obtained in game.
This is just a case of legalised lazy parenting when kids have access to mommy or daddy's card.
Another way to approach this is to have restrictions on accounts for users who are too young to own a debit or credit card maybe 16 or 18 idk it varies between countries so a standard can be made. the only way young gamers would be able to aquire a currency is through giftcards (physical or digital) which are commonly gives as gifts for birthdays, christmas etc.
Even if the date of birth is faked you the account will be under the card holders name and a normal seperate username, (Multiple accounts cannot share the same debit card details.)
Young gamers will not be able to download games in the market that have higher ESRB rating than their age.
and have no way to set a debit card to there account.
This is what a game company could potentially do but ultimately:
Kids have access to a form of currency managed by adults.
Parents blame game company payment methods.
Game company payment methods are optional. (im yet to identify a game that actually makes you pay to win)