China to ban daily log-in rewards, loot boxes for minors, impose spending limits and more

Thread: China to ban daily log-in rewards, loot boxes for minors, impose spending limits and more
regawdless

regawdless

hare-assment
 
Platforms
  1. PC
The National Press and Publication Administrations released new draft rules that will ban a swath of common mechanisms in games, including daily log-in rewards, bonuses for first-time spenders, and incentives to spend repeatedly on a game.

Read more on GamesIndustry.biz
Publishers will also be prohibited from offering loot boxes to minors or allowing for in-game items to be auctioned or used as speculative assets. Games will need to impose spending limits on players, while publishers will be required to run all their servers for Chinese games in China.
Click to expand...

www.gamesindustry.biz

China to ban some monetization and engagement tactics in games

China today announced a series of planned restrictions on video game monetization and engagement tactics, according to …
www.gamesindustry.biz www.gamesindustry.biz
 
  • Like
  • Brain
  • Shocked
Reactions: TyphoonStruggle, and 3 others, CloudNull and 4 others
DT5p8ZEXkAAUK6k.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Funny
  • This tbh
Reactions: Franky Family, CloudNull, Zefah and 2 others
As much as I hate microtransactions and those shady tactics to keep people glued to games, those should be each individual's choice and not the government's.

Some of you are letting your biases cloud your judgement. Do you want democracy, a free market and individualism or do you want government micromanagaing our lives for "the greater good" of the collective?
 
Joe T. said:
As much as I hate microtransactions and those shady tactics to keep people glued to games, those should be each individual's choice and not the government's.

Some of you are letting your biases cloud your judgement. Do you want democracy, a free market and individualism or do you want government micromanagaing our lives for "the greater good" of the collective?
Click to expand...

It's not really a fair fight though is it? These companies spend lots of money learning how to manipulate people.
 
Joe T. said:
As much as I hate microtransactions and those shady tactics to keep people glued to games, those should be each individual's choice and not the government's.

Some of you are letting your biases cloud your judgement. Do you want democracy, a free market and individualism or do you want government micromanagaing our lives for "the greater good" of the collective?
Click to expand...

If it was only in m rated games I would see your point. Remove it from Roblox or make Roblox m for mature. Same with Fortnite.
 
More restrictions on the hobby… weeeee. I "vote with my wallet" as the saying goes, so I'm completely out of the online gaming loop, where most of this thrives. Couldn't they just let customers pick the game they like best and blow money on it, if they want to? On the whole, even if we take really bad examples of gaming addiction, it's probably a better addiction compared to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, or junk food. Some people have an addictive personality. Allowing the market to provide people less-harmful addictions is not evil or anything, it's how other parts of entertainment have been treated. Did Boomers have restrictions imposed upon their movie/concert attendance by the government, any quotas like that? Have we restricted how many albums/CDs a customer was allowed to buy or how many digital songs customers bought from Apple for their iPods? If we just zoom out a bit, it's weird that governments would impose such "special" rules on video games in particular. Is it a case of elderly retards squashing yet another entertainment product they don't understand, or is it an acknowledgement that it's too powerful of a communication medium to be left to the free market.

I would prefer that banks offer their customers better tools for spending limits, but banks don't care. Let parents put caps on these spending habits by having a little checking account for 9 year old Effron with $100 "once it's gone, it's gone" allowance pool. I honestly don't know if parents teach their kids about handling money (properly) at all. But I feel like I'm making a bigger deal about a tangent than about the thread topic.

quickwhips said:
If it was only in m rated games I would see your point. Remove it from Roblox or make Roblox m for mature. Same with Fortnite.
Click to expand...

But parents don't care and neither do businesses so…..

The ESRB is a joke. As if adding "Rated M: contains monetized gacha mechanics" would matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: and 3 others
DonDonDonPata said:
More restrictions on the hobby… weeeee. I "vote with my wallet" as the saying goes, so I'm completely out of the online gaming loop, where most of this thrives. Couldn't they just let customers pick the game they like best and blow money on it, if they want to? On the whole, even if we take really bad examples of gaming addiction, it's probably a better addiction compared to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, or junk food. Some people have an addictive personality. Allowing the market to provide people less-harmful addictions is not evil or anything, it's how other parts of entertainment have been treated. Did Boomers have restrictions imposed upon their movie/concert attendance by the government, any quotas like that? Have we restricted how many albums/CDs a customer was allowed to buy or how many digital songs customers bought from Apple for their iPods? If we just zoom out a bit, it's weird that governments would impose such "special" rules on video games in particular. Is it a case of elderly retards squashing yet another entertainment product they don't understand, or is it an acknowledgement that it's too powerful of a communication medium to be left to the free market.

I would prefer that banks offer their customers better tools for spending limits, but banks don't care. Let parents put caps on these spending habits by having a little checking account for 9 year old Effron with $100 "once it's gone, it's gone" allowance pool. I honestly don't know if parents teach their kids about handling money (properly) at all. But I feel like I'm making a bigger deal about a tangent than about the thread topic.



But parents don't care and neither do businesses so…..

The ESRB is a joke. As if adding "Rated M: contains monetized gacha mechanics" would matter.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't matter that you shouldn't worry about me wanting this enforced.
 
quickwhips said:
If it doesn't matter that you shouldn't worry about me wanting this enforced.
Click to expand...

What's the point in giving the government more oversight when the desired end-result isn't likely to happen? It's pointless, at best, but usually is a foothold for govt to control even more things beyond the original scope.
 
I prefer the government having less control over our lives even if they are some good side effects.
 
Yeah this is not a good thing, children getting addicted to gotcha games is bad of course, but this is offloading parenting to the government. And as many have mentioned, the Chinese government is perfectly happy exporting monetization mechanics like this to children around the world.

A much nicer middle ground would be for any app or game targeted at children with in-app purchases to require verification from the card holder for each and every purchase. Would still massively impact the market (as purchases no matter how small would be a hassle), but still perfectly possible if you are the card owner (thus not a child).
 
Last edited:
Joe T. said:
As much as I hate microtransactions and those shady tactics to keep people glued to games, those should be each individual's choice and not the government's.

Some of you are letting your biases cloud your judgement. Do you want democracy, a free market and individualism or do you want government micromanagaing our lives for "the greater good" of the collective?
Click to expand...

We already intentionallly limit the freedom of kids because they have not yet developed the minimum decision-making skills that we expect of an adult. Kids should not necessarily be exposed to the "free market".
 
DonDonDonPata said:
What's the point in giving the government more oversight when the desired end-result isn't likely to happen? It's pointless, at best, but usually is a foothold for govt to control even more things beyond the original scope.
Click to expand...

I look at this as no different that cigarettes or alcohol. Age limits are important to build a proper society.
 
Joe T. said:
I believe that if anyone, anywhere, still trusts their government to do what's right after 2020-2021 then they deserve to be squeezed for everything they've got. The government is definitely not on the consumer's side.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question.
 
TyphoonStruggle said:
We already intentionallly limit the freedom of kids because they have not yet developed the minimum decision-making skills that we expect of an adult. Kids should not necessarily be exposed to the "free market".
Click to expand...

We is the keyword there. We, the people, not we, the select few in government whose campaigns are funded by corporate lobbyists or, in some cases, are the lobbyists themselves.

Zog said:
You didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

I did. I have no desire to grant an obviously corrupt entity even more power to restrict me and the market as a whole. When we can clean up our governments, including the checks and balances that were meant to keep them in line, then I will happily entertain discussion about what laws should and shouldn't exist, but not before. The voting public needs to become much more politically engaged and educated if there's any hope of that happening.
 
quickwhips said:
I look at this as no different that cigarettes or alcohol. Age limits are important to build a proper society.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, sure, age limits are important. I wouldn't want games regulated like cigs or alcohol. And (I won't rant again about it) I think an age limit that doesn't get enforced is pointless at best
 
DonDonDonPata said:
Generally speaking, sure, age limits are important. I wouldn't want games regulated like cigs or alcohol. And (I won't rant again about it) I think an age limit that doesn't get enforced is pointless at best
Click to expand...

My point is Roblox targets kids and is different from say GTA or COD doing the same thing.
 
  • 100%
Reactions: DonDonDonPata
Joe T. said:
We is the keyword there. We, the people, not we, the select few in government whose campaigns are funded by corporate lobbyists or, in some cases, are the lobbyists themselves.



I did. I have no desire to grant an obviously corrupt entity even more power to restrict me and the market as a whole. When we can clean up our governments, including the checks and balances that were meant to keep them in line, then I will happily entertain discussion about what laws should and shouldn't exist, but not before. The voting public needs to become much more politically engaged and educated if there's any hope of that happening.
Click to expand...

So you don't want consumer protection laws.
 
quickwhips said:
I look at this as no different that cigarettes or alcohol. Age limits are important to build a proper society.
Click to expand...

But cigarettes and alcohol are ingestible products that are literally poisons (with at times pleasant side-effects (a high)), not only are they regulated not to be sold to minors, but supplying minors with them is itself illegal. This means that if you as a parent give your 10-year-old a bottle of Jameson twice a week your right to care for your child would be removed and you might even face criminal charges. Presumably, nobody here would be okay with the government taking away custody of your child if you bought too many loot boxes in Fifa for him? If (presumably) not, then implicitly we are saying that it's at the discretion of the parent how much to allow their children to engage with monetization like this, and if it's at the discretion of the parent, how on earth can we be okay with banning it?

It's essentially purchasing additional content for a product which some consider art, that you already own some of. One can imagine a non-linear book series that is sold in the form of a random "extension" which changes the direction of the storyline depending on which extension a random number generator assigned you at the point of purchase, this is not functionally completely the same as a loot-box, but it's close and given the power legislation like this gives the(any) government and the quality of the minds who usually serve in government...do you trust them to make correct distinctions?
 
Last edited:
quickwhips said:
I look at this as no different that cigarettes or alcohol. Age limits are important to build a proper society.
Click to expand...

Or you can make the more direct comparison of gambling. Why not allow a kid to join the poker table and get glued to a slot machine?

You never get more than you give. That's the point of these things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zog
China removed an official at a government body overseeing its press and publications regulator, five sources who were briefed on the matter said, days after Chinese gaming stocks were hit by proposed rules to curb spending on video games.

Feng Shixin was removed last week from his position as head of the publishing unit of the Communist Party's Publicity Department, the sources said. The department oversees the National Press and Publication Administration (NPPA) which in turn regulates China's vast video games sector.
Click to expand...

China's State Council Information Office, which handles media queries on behalf of the Chinese government, including on personnel matters, did not immediately respond to a request for comment and Reuters was unable to obtain Feng's contact details to reach him for comment.

The five sources said Feng's removal was linked to rules the NPPA announced last month that sent stocks in the world's largest video games sector, including industry giant Tencent plunging.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Looks like China is walking back on this
 
  • Brain
Reactions: regawdless
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back