Blame the US for declaring that US minors are too stupid and US parents too neglectful to pay attention to what is purchased online.
They have to kick off kids from their game, legally, and nearly all mobile and online games that have any way to spend real money will be doing the same within the next year.
They have to kick off kids from their game, legally, and nearly all mobile and online games that have any way to spend real money will be doing the same within the next year.
Good. Gambling is illegal for minors under the age of 18.
If you think cosmetic lootboxes are comparable to porn, you’re too stupid for internet access and your handler should limit your screen time in the future until a cure is found for whatever thing is currently affecting you.
LaLuzDelSol does not think cosmetic loot boxes are comparable to porn. They were making an analogy, not an equation. “A is like B in that C” does not imply that A is morally equivalent to B, it means that they share a similarity. In this case, “putting 10 minutes of hardcore sex in an otherwise g-rated film” is like “incorporating gambling into an otherwise child-friendly game,” in that “even if the majority of the work is child-friendly, the not-child-friendly aspects make the work as a whole not child-friendly.”
The analogy only works if you believe gambling does the same relative harm as porn.
That is the problem I have with their terrible attempt at an analogy. Not only does it imply it’s comparable, it has to be for the analogy to work as intended.
An analogy is not an equation. If most of a movie is G-rated, but it incorporates 10 minutes of hardcore sex, then the movie isn’t suitable for children. If most of a game is E-rated, but it incorporates gambling, then the game isn’t suitable for children.
Most of the game isn’t gambling, to pretend otherwise is just silly.
Just because most of the [game/movie] is suitable for kids doesn’t mean the [game/movie] as a whole is suitable for kids. Do you see how both of those things share that similarity, despite not being morally equivalent?
*Edited to more precisely and concisely make my point
You should know better than to assume that the average Lemmy user understands analogies. Lemmy users are generally pretty smart when it comes to technology, but not when it comes to interpersonal communication or politics
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
TDLR: “If you don’t give us PII information within a made up deadline, we will deny you access to any content you paid in the past.”
Blame the US for declaring that US minors are too stupid and US parents too neglectful to pay attention to what is purchased online.
They have to kick off kids from their game, legally, and nearly all mobile and online games that have any way to spend real money will be doing the same within the next year.
Good. Gambling is illegal for minors under the age of 18.
Most of the game isn’t gambling, to pretend otherwise is just silly. It’s like being one of those idiots that pretend counterstrike is gambling.
If there’s an otherwise g rated movie with ten minutes of full frontal nudity and hard-core sex what rating do you think that movie is gonna get?
In statesia? Who made it?
If you think cosmetic lootboxes are comparable to porn, you’re too stupid for internet access and your handler should limit your screen time in the future until a cure is found for whatever thing is currently affecting you.
The reading comprehension situation is crazy
LaLuzDelSol does not think cosmetic loot boxes are comparable to porn. They were making an analogy, not an equation. “A is like B in that C” does not imply that A is morally equivalent to B, it means that they share a similarity. In this case, “putting 10 minutes of hardcore sex in an otherwise g-rated film” is like “incorporating gambling into an otherwise child-friendly game,” in that “even if the majority of the work is child-friendly, the not-child-friendly aspects make the work as a whole not child-friendly.”
The analogy only works if you believe gambling does the same relative harm as porn.
That is the problem I have with their terrible attempt at an analogy. Not only does it imply it’s comparable, it has to be for the analogy to work as intended.
❌ Incorrect
An analogy is not an equation. If most of a movie is G-rated, but it incorporates 10 minutes of hardcore sex, then the movie isn’t suitable for children. If most of a game is E-rated, but it incorporates gambling, then the game isn’t suitable for children.
Just because most of the [game/movie] is suitable for kids doesn’t mean the [game/movie] as a whole is suitable for kids. Do you see how both of those things share that similarity, despite not being morally equivalent?
*Edited to more precisely and concisely make my point
deleted by creator
It’s an analogy bro
You should know better than to assume that the average Lemmy user understands analogies. Lemmy users are generally pretty smart when it comes to technology, but not when it comes to interpersonal communication or politics
Haha yeah I’ve picked up on that. Oh well
It’s comparable to gambling—you should keep up with the thread.