youwishistayedawhile
YouwishIstayedawhile
youwishistayedawhile

False. Setting a price that strives to maximize revenue is primarily influential. In a market with many competing products, price is also verily influenced by the prices of those competing products and although some sort of soft collusion exists around the $60 price point, with the advent of direct distribution

90s games were not free of bugs, man. They were filled with hilarious non game breaking bugs that we savor to this day.

Hmmm, it’s quite like an RPG where you have to either align with an openly evil dude who is really evil or a milquetoast who doesn’t ever quite accomplish what they hope to and sometimes get a little overzealous. And you just drop the controller and walk out of the room with a simple Nope. Too bad it’s a persistent

How many games with loot boxes have been decommissioned by their creators? Super curious as to how that affects things.

Not a parent, just a sucker uncle who didn’t see his nephew nick his phone for 5 minutes.

Do you have a supporting rationale document from the GBGC? Again, if you only evaluate things based on similarity and don’t factor in dissimilarity then you’ll permanently be living on a slippery slope.

Only if you take a cursory look at how adjacent things are similar and ignore how they are different:

I don’t go to a casino to gamble, I go to drink and socialize over a game of blackjack. Not gambling?

Which is why regulation looks like a tragedy of the commons a lot - people who are adjacent to the regulation don’t want to be looked at so they’ll vociferously knock down anything that looks like it could touch them, even to the point of disallowing the regulation of anything anywhere.

Bingo - we as a society understand the need for vices. But part n parcel of accepting the need for vices is that we will also do a lot in our power to help people avoid them if they can. Basically - we’ll let you do your thing but we’re also going to remind people it’s a vice for a reason.

You care about the aesthetics of a medium where countless fans of the media do sexualize it - its a throwaway joke that really seemed to rankle you given how quickly you spat out ‘projection!. Sorry I lumped you in with the pervs that perv on cartoons instead of taking you at face value as an aesthetic connoisseur of

1. The user MAY be aware. Any state run Lottery will explicitly lay out the odds of overall odds of winning any prize and then specific prize levels. If imposing full disclosure on the discreet odds of any one item popping up from any one loot box is too tall a task for devs (it’s not, I promise) then they don’t get

I watch children’s cartoons to laugh and thus the aesthetics of what characters should look like to comport with schema is non essential. I didn’t bring up why the way cartoons look rubs me the wrong way, you did.

The problem with looking at a ‘like’ thing such as MTG is that MTG is still confined to a lot of the same logistical issues they always had to contend with. While loot boxes are ‘like’ MTG packs in some ways, they are a different beast in the logistics and hurdles. So while MTG is a nice cousin to compare some things

If it wasn’t for gaming, I woulda lost everything to gambling. Thank Nuffle for Blood Bowl!

I love products that defy inflation because of market forces.

That’s actually a good fucking reason to do it. Taxing gambling is morally right. Profits from a game of chance involving little to no ‘skill’ should be taxed like the games of chance they are - heavily. There is no sense in treating gambling itself as some mover of economic activity given it’s mostly zero-sum PvP or

It’s worse than gambling, if you take that ‘it’s different’ tack. If there was an establishment that offered the reward of ‘Bar Scrip’ that was randomized in value for every 5 bucks you put down, yes, you could argue that the game is ‘Drinking’. But that’s as flimsy as amortizing your ‘free’ drinks from gambling based