DeviNox (#2267) (#2267)
OCD develops from a list of factors, many of which a person is born with. For the outside factors, this is associated with things that relieve a person (or child) from stress. Now, if your argument is to merely ban this relief of anxiety, then they will merely find another. Thus, making it a parenting issue, as it is their job to help a child fix their issues.
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/obsessive-compulsive-disorder
Having said that, it is also their job to teach a child right from wrong, and I would warrant that stealing their credit card is taught to be bad behaviour at a very early age. However, if this child receives no disciplinary action for bad behaviour, and the parents blame a video game, then you do not have to be a scientist to figure out the problem here.
Do corporations target children? They have in the past, and the FTC has taken extreme action against these sort of things (such as tobacco companies), however, the corporations that were punished had to deal in things that were immediately damaging to the child, and the current lootbox ban is being heavily debated, especially when other systems that are extremely similar are left unchecked. If the entire system were to be labelled as such, then you could say goodbye to things like packs of pokemon/yugioh cards and even as far as prize grabbers. The reason they do not, is because they expect parents to nip this bad behavior in the bud before it becomes a problem. Yet we have narcissistic parents that believe themselves to be infallible, and have a much easier time deflecting the blame to corporations.
As for the gambling argument; the reason gachas, prize grabbers, and packs of pokemon cards are not considered gambling (which is the reason kids aren't allowed to play in the lotto), is because it isn't technically gambling. By definition, gambling is betting a sum on a game to win legal tinder.
As for lootboxes and gachas, many games have already veered away from these practices, which is perfectly fine. I agree that adults with gambling addictions are being preyed upon, but it's not only gacha systems that do such things.
Having said that, there are laws in place that attack companies for selling lootboxes, but this does seem like a mistake.There is a much better approach, that I will detail out below. However, since the power was already handed over to the FTC, we must ask, "Where will they draw the line?"
We thought it was ridiculous when the very same entity regulated food and dominated many small businesses to combat childhood obesity (to minimal effect), and found out that counselling and mandatory information was a much better option.
How can we stop a child from developing these traits? Take a very literal approach, and stop them. If they continue to go against your actions, then punish them.
It may seem inconvenient to you to monitor your child and his/her behavior, but... we must take responsibility for our actions and must accept that our children are our responsibility.
As for google, there's nothing wrong with showing targeted ads to children, I mean, who do you think is advertising on Cartoon Network? E-Trade? Retirement Homes? If you're in a niche market, you will pander to the demographic that you service. However, if the ads were inherently dangerous or adult in any way (like porn sites), then this sort of ad targeting is extremely wrong and should be unlawful. Were you eluding that the targeted ads were exclusively loot box content or were you just upset in general? I find this part to be hard to discern.
And which studies show children 13 years and younger to be unable to discern a show from an ad?
It is difficult to believe that a child that has already reached puberty is somehow below this primitive level of mental acuity. I'll read through the source and either debunk it or be extremely disappointed in our youth.
My conclusion?
The argument to simply remove the system seems folley, as they'll probably just go to another gacha system game. Do not despair, though, there is a solution that allows gacha systems to keep rare items as well as not break the bank for compulsive gamblers.
A system that implements a spending limit on new accounts on ANY game that offers lootboxes for paid currency would work fine. After a year of play, the limit extends by 50%, and another 50% for each consecutive year until it reaches its cape of 4x the normal limit. Players that grind out paid currency the free way are left unhindered. Players that wish to get rare lootbox items for prestige have their items become more prestigious, and now the “powers that be '' have less leverage against companies, which you know they will exploit to their utmost benefit.
