I’m impressed they actually thought to include loot boxes you buy with in game currency you can pay to get more of, I was expecting that to be a loophole
I think anyone who’s tried one of these games or is the parent of someone who’s tried one of these games figures out this loophole (or alternatively , predatory practice) pretty quickly.
Let them cook, we only got steam refunds thanks to them.
What does that even do? There are little children play call of duty
deleted by creator
Yeah, sometimes it’s not about finding the “perfect” solution, but taking 100 small steps that each move things in the right direction.
I wonder if they care about not selling M rated Fifa to minors though
I can’t think of many minors who would be able to afford a game, so it’ll be the parents buying it anyway.
I could see it helping.
“I have to inform you that this game is rated M for Mature, and isn’t suitable for minors.”
“What? It’s just football, isn’t it?”
“It says this game has gambling that uses real world money.”
I don’t know how many sales it’d stop, but at least parents would know.
This will put pressure on studios that make E and T rated games with loot boxes (for example: Fifa). Now they have to decide between letting the game get bumped up to a M rating, losing initial sales of the game, or removing loot boxes and other gambling features.
deleted by creator
Yeah they choose where they work at the end of the day.
I’m a software developer and I would never work for a gambling company, even for double money for the same work. It’s just not something I would be cool with.
You are fortunate that you have the experience to make that decision. Lots of kids are sold on becoming game devs young, and the ones who succeed land a job at mega publisher studio who has all the financial capital to hire junior devs.
At the end of the day, it is the employer at fault. They are the ones saying “your family’s health insurance will be revoked if we don’t like you” and there are no industry-wide or general unions to tell em to fuck off. “It’s their choice” sure, but they have a family to feed and they know how to make games since they were in high school and that has always fed their kids—how’d they know this industry would turn into a capitalist fuckfest? I get the frustration, but it should be pointed towards organizing and put the pressure upwards, not down or sideways.
I mean, lootboxes as gambling for kids is more dubious, at least to me, than programming gambling games for adults, or working for a gambling company.
at least they have some level of legitimacy and some (feeble) attempts at damage prevention, compared to the alternative that they may take, which would be going straight into the arms of the black market and all the even worse shennanigans that comes with.
same view as legalised drugs, safe injection sites, etc etc.
EDIT : no one cares, but re reading this, the idea is also that instead of a black market for gambling, the adults can turn to a government regulated, standardised “safer” gambling
It’s not a option for everyone. I actually changed jobs when my last job started to nickel and dime customers, because it didn’t feel right.
Where my buddy stayed because he can’t uproot his life and his family. He’s pretty numb to the work though.
Dumb. They’re giving restricted 18 to “simulated gambling” where money doesn’t even change hands but actual gacha gambling that hits all the reward centers with real money and exchanges is M? I think they’ve got their wires crossed.
While I’m happy they’re doing something, they got it backwards. In my opinion games that have simulated gambling but don’t take any real world money should be mature (age 15 suggested) or even unregulated, and games that have real world money that control an element of chance should be 18+ (legally required).
Here’s some games/series that would be 18+ if released under this law: Pokemon Red and Blue, Ni No Kuni, Knights of the Old Republic, Witcher, Yakuza, Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Fable, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, many more.
Simulated gambling isn’t really a problem it’s the real world money tied to elements of chance that’s the problem.
Simulated gambling still cause the brain to become addicted to gambling, which then in turn leads to serious issues.
I think “cause” is a little bit of a strong word here unless there are studies I haven’t seen. The studies I’ve read are about correlation between simulated gambling and problem gambling. A child who spends a lot of time on simulated casino games is more likely to problematic gamble as an adult - but that’s not a causal link. The child could like the simulated gambling and real gambling because they were already predisposed to gambling in general.
The problem with loot boxes and micro-transactions tied to chance is they let kids actually problematic gamble. And this lootbox/real world money style of gambling is also correlated with problematic gambling in adulthood yet they’re being left at mature instead of 18+. It really doesn’t make sense treating simulated only gambling harsher.
You form positive associations with the act of gambling in a young age. That problematic.
They should take out the gambling and instead implement games that you can win reliable trough skill. That way you form positive associations with putting in the work.
The title says “paid lootboxes,” and I don’t think they mean in-game currency.Maybe not then, read reply
Read the article, they mean both.
It’s a sensible move by the Australian Government to restrict games with “in-game purchases with an element of chance” from being recommended to children under 15. These types of purchases, often linked to loot boxes or similar mechanics, can foster gambling-like behavior at a young age. Protecting children from exposure to such features helps promote healthier gaming habits and prevents the potential normalization of gambling risks. Additionally, with the rise of AI stores offering personalized game recommendations, it’s even more important to ensure that children aren’t exposed to content that could lead to harmful behaviors. Protecting their gaming experience now will help foster a more responsible gaming culture in the future.
No one cares about game ratings in Australia, do they?
Australians do. As do international companies selling to the Australian market.
As clarification I meant: “do people in Australia care about the tiny black and white sticker on the box which says “M - rated for mature audiences” now?”
and not: “why should the global community give a damn about Australia…”.
I remember cinemas were always strict with entry into movies, but game shops never used to ask for ID. Has this changed?
Penalties will vary between states but for NSW the maximum fines for selling games with restricted classifications to underage customers are:
. MA15+ R18+ sold by individual $5.5k $11k sold by corporation $11k $22k https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cfacgea1995596/s30.html
https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa1999278/s17.htmlThese seem steep enough to encourage compliance.
But G, PG, or M? The customers age is none of their business and I wouldn’t expect them to take an interest.
Edit: to put those penalties in perspective the sentencing for supplying alcohol to minors scales up a maximum of $11k and/or 12 months incarceration.
https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/la2007107/s117.htmlWhile for tobacco the maximum penalties are:
. first offence subsequent offences sold by individual $11k $55k sold by corporation $55k $110k https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/pha2008178/s22.html
So it looks like it is penalized significantly more lightly than alcohol or tobacco.
Ah, that is not how your initial comment came across. Though I guess you realise that now.
I honestly don’t recall ever encountering any bars on buying video games as a kid, or even knowing that ratings existed, though it could just be because my parents bought most of my games. I think you’re right that very few people in Australia care about ratings. To me, it’s clear that ratings are almost entirely arbitrary. It’s obvious that big developers get more leeway in how their products are rated than smaller developers anyway.
Europe does, at least for Nintendo e-shop. For some reason Nintendo keeps managing both at the same time. When PEGI (Europe’s own ratings) is totally okay with a game, but Australia has a brain fart and thinks a retro-style shoot’m up with pixellated little spaceships shooting at each other needs to be mature, the game is suspended form the e-shop for both regions, generally for months.
There’s some weird ripple effect going on I think, it goes through an international rating system of which Australia’s one of the biggest member. But the fact still is a game that passes the (mostly) reasonable PEGI can still be removed from the shop if a very stupid butterfly flaps its wings on the other side of the world.
I think you mean Earth. When is the last time anyone checked the rating?
