Is this true?

Invective for healthy games like we used to have rather than consumer exploitation systems

whats the legal justification?

Every iteration of Pokemon has had monetized monsters you could win at events. Every single one.

Same one as underage gambling

So does DLC and lootboxes based on that description

muh emotions

It is a conscientious choice of consumer to be exploited. Restricting always lead to the death of creativity.

If i don't like something it should be banned

Literally impossible to police.
The wording of which makes it impossible to resell a game after the fact. Good bye E-Bay. Goodbye ever getting a hold of older games that have long since being produced.

If you want to get technical, A store buys games from the publisher, to then sell to the consumer. Is that not the initial sale?

Short sighted morons are the bane of everyone.

Protecting consumer interests

gambling is restricted but not completely banned, and not all post sale monetization are lootboxes

So with your ban only the first wave of copies of a game could be sold and all the 2nd and 3rd should be free

Restritcing consumer choice is anything but in its interest.

The concept of a store becomes invalid.
You must purchase from the publisher directly assuming this dipshit gets his wish.

i think preorder bonuses should be illegal, all post-release extra content is fine if that happens

Yes. Also forbid making original versions unavailable if a lemustard is released.

I'm not sure if you realize this but since monetization of games past the initial purchase became a thing, we've had exactly zero (0) worthwhile creative uses of microtransactions, they're an entirely and inherently detrimental concept that has done nothing but cause irreparable damage to the industry. It'd be like claiming government meddling in preventing cheap but toxic chemicals in consumer products is harming the producers' creativity in fucking over the consumer.

Proper DLC expansions are fine. As long as the base game is big enough to satisfy.

Other than that, all other forms of monetization should fuck right off.

Then surely people would stop buying in-game purchases if they were indeed so harmful. What made you think you know better what people should have access to rather than themselves?

No the market should decide this. I don't like it either, but if idiots are emptying their wallets on microtransactions, that's their deal. And if kids are getting called "default" as a form of playground bullying because of their Fortnite skins, well good luck trying to get kids not to be shit heads. And if this shifts the business model to something I find objectionable, well my personal disgust for it is not an argument against it.

I know vuh will characterize that as defending billionaires, but really it's more that I can't think of a system that is both reasonable and doesn't create these outcomes.

Those games were consumer exploitation systems too.

>muh brainlet literal interpretation

Attached: arr.jpg (850x550, 227K)

yes but games should cost more at release

You're relying on the bad faith argument that people know what's best for themselves, as opposed to being easily impressionable retards, and that capitalist companies have literally anything but their own bottom line in mind.

>Those games were consumer exploitation systems too.
No they were products with a fair content:pice ratio.

>short sighted child tries his hand at drafting a law with no respect with how it will be interpreted down the line
>calls everyone else a brainlet

>the shortest possible summary of the core idea in order to grab the attention of ADD Yea Forums tourists
>"drafting a law"
Zoomer tourist please leave

There's something called "first sale doctrine", which, if followed 100% by the courts, would outlaw all forms of "monetizing" ANYTHING after the initial sale.

And it's SUPPOSED to be law (and has been recognized as such during trials in the distant past), so it really technically IS illegal to make someone keep paying money for something they've already paid for.

>This is pretty anti-free market
Hmm, almost as if a free market is not good.

>kids are getting called "default" as a form of playground bullying because of their Fortnite skins
Really? Where did you hear this?

games now costs $200

>US of A
>no salt/sugar content in food regulation
>foodmakers drown everything in it to take advantage and exploit people's natural urges
>become a nation of unhealthy obese fucks that drop like flies in their 40s
>no ecology regulations for resource exploitation
>Arctic is literally on fire
>"it's a free market bro"
The system works, surely devs will make fun games that people will enjoy instead of hiring psychologists to find the most efficient ways to exploit children and their parents' wallets through shitty live service systems

What the fuck is your intention then other than to attempt to convice people that this should be pushed into law?

It is though, free market is the best system humanity managed to come up with.

Absolutely.

What made you believe that you know better than, as you say, "retards" who are you so desperately trying to protect from their stupidity?

Attached: images (1).jpg (229x220, 9K)

My impeccable track record and experience in never being retarded enough to buy microtransactions and not allowing myself to be exploited

good for you, you're smart enough not to buy into microtransactions, but alas, not smart enough to understand how a restriction-free environment is beneficial for all parties involved, even for a little elitist prick such as yourself

>i-i'm i fitting in yet g-guys?

Not true. first sale doctrine deals more with copyright and the protection against people purchasing a single instance of a work, copying and producing therefore becoming a distributor of the work themselves.

It's essentially a protection against bootleg copies rather than the resale of authentic goods.

>Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner's interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as he sees fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it. However, the owner of the copy of the book will not be able to make new copies of the book because the first-sale doctrine does not limit copyright owner's reproduction right.

Dlc is fine specially if the base game is good, buying xp, money or items in 60 dollar game needs to stop.

thegamer.com/fortnite-default-insult-kids/

>Then surely people would stop buying in-game purchases if they were indeed so harmful.
People still smoke, despite the fact that we know it fills your lungs with shit and give you fucking cancer.

They would start charging 120 for the game.

kids say the darnedest things

It's their choice. You're merely a human same as smokers are, it is not up to you to decide whether should they have access to allegedly harmful products.
You as individual are free to smoke or not to smoke, this is where your say on the matter ends.

This is some baby boomer "me only" tier retardation. Sure it's nice in a vacuum but in real life everything has consequences, on the literal and metaphorical health of society, and the environment, and it's in the government interest to protect those. Using that logic, hunting, killing, selling endanger species is fine because who are we to impede on the hunter's or the buyer's right to do it, monopolies are okay because consumers will decide what's best for them, single use plastics are just peachy and their impact on the environment is not important as long as everyone can do what they want, selling your organs is a good thing as long as it's something you want to do etc.

All of the listed are just artifacts of the free market that always sort itself out eventually. Please understand that freedom of choice is sacred and is worth more that millions of lives of controlling freaks that try to trample on liberty.

It is in the interest of games as a medium and an aspect of culture that consumer exploitation is brought to a minimum.

>The future is gacha
If you can't steal it, buy it

Attached: 1548278422435.jpg (507x586, 128K)

Lol. Yeah the choice to get fucked over repeatedly and assuredly. Why the fuck cant i buy food that might give me salmonella? Thats a fucking restriction of my choice

What made you think you qualify to be a spokesman on behalf of all games?
Food that gives you salmonella deliberately is not available for purchase because it's a bad product no one would pay for.

If by sort themselves out naturally you mean "the free market literally burns down due to lack of environmental protection regulations" then I agree. Apple's right to sell unrepairable phones in order to maximize short-term profits with no regards to Earth's limited natural resources is much more important than humanity's right to live on a habitable Earth.

You can't change a product just like that.

What made you think you qualify to be a spokesman on behalf of all food eaters? I happen to like salmonella.

Not if they provide two versions of the game, one that has the in-game purchases, and another with them completely removed.

>It's their choice.
Don't know about US of A and other countries with higher standards of living in general, but in the rest of the world smokers can puff out clouds of carcinogenic shit pretty much wherever they want. Governments are very, very slowly starting to introduce some legal framework to limit this nigger behaviour but it is incredibly laxly enforced (if at all) because "lol everyone is doing it so we can't just punish everyone". I wouldn't even mid that as much if there was tobacco in those cigarettes, but give something that actually grew from a seed as a plant to a chronic cigarette smoker and he'll probably cough his innards out, seeing as his lungs have long adapted to a poisonous cocktail of addictive chemicals.

Disregarding all this free market talk, let's be real, did DLC and MTX ever bring anything meaningful to games? I pirate everything including DLC and I fucking hate it due to how out-of-place and "not balanced with the core game" it always feels.

>salmonella deliberately is not available for purchase because it's a bad product no one would pay for.

How about food that isnt advertised as giving salmonella? Or poor practices that cause it to contain salmonella despite the producers of the product not meaning for it to? But of course the market would balance and fix everything. Its not like a product can just rebrand itself or anything

This is some strawman shit. We're not making an unrestrained free market argument. We're asking people in this thread to demonstrate the harmful basis on which these monetization practices should be regulated. We rightly forbid certain forms of hunting and certain forms of manufactured goods because of the harm they do. We didn't wait for the free market to take care of CFCs once their impact was evident.

So what EXACTLY is going on with post-sale monetization that is harmful? What/whom EXACTLY is being harmed? What EXACTLY is the extent of this harm?

>selling your organs is a good thing as long as it's something you want to do
This should be legal btw.

genuinely based games should cost more, and then be banned from monetization

>did DLC and MTX ever bring anything meaningful to games?
Dark Souls DLC is some of the best content in the series and the Civilization series requires one or two expansions before you can really call them games.
>But expansions aren't DLC!

>So what EXACTLY is going on with post-sale monetization that is harmful? What/whom EXACTLY is being harmed? What EXACTLY is the extent of this harm?
Quality of games as a product and health of the industry as a whole, with minor harm on the consumer end due to exploitative tactics.

Yes, this is 100% true besides expansion packs. Only zoomers conditioned to accept DLC and microtransctions will argue, these were never the norm prior to AAAs getting greedy in the 7th generation.

>Yes, this is 100% true besides expansion packs. Only zoomers conditioned to accept expansion packs ...
?

>monetized monsters
I seriously can't think of any monetized Pokemon outside of Mew in LGPE, Manaphy from Ranger (which can be argued doesn't fit that rule), and forms added in later version if you even count that as you are getting a game with that purchase. Most post release Pokemon are given out for free by going to Gamestop, target, or logging to wifi.
>you could win at events
the fuck are you talking about

Attached: 1544837930430.png (500x375, 118K)

Insidious exploitation of the market

>people ITT will unironically defend shit like AC Odyssey paywalling progress in a single player game as the future of videogames just because it preserves "muh free market"
Imagine if your vacuum cleaner came with a hand crank you had to wind up for ten minutes every time you use it, but it did nothing except frustrate you, and the company offered to sell you vouchers for instant access to your vacuum that you bought.

>DLC and microtransactions are equivalent to expansion packs

Not really the same thing. With expansion packs (and by extension, DLC), it's a one time purchase and BAM, you have extra content. With lootboxes, you spend money just for the chance to get something, and 9 times out of 10, it's shit. That's why people are more forgiving towards expansion packs and DLC than they are lootboxes.

>But expansions aren't DLC!
But they really aren't

You're a retard.

Nintendo Store explicitly hosts events you can win special prizes for, not just monsters alone. Some of them even cost money to enter.

You're going to sit here on Yea Forums of all places and tell everyone that they can win everything they get in the Pokeverse for 100% free, even if it's ultra-rare or during a timed event. Try to understand how that reads.

Give me the hard and fast cut-off point, user. At what amount of content does it go from a DLC to an "expansion pack" (which are all downloadable these days).

There has -always- been shitty developers who make games with skimpy content and charge too much for it.

I like extra cosmetics sometimes.

>Give me the hard and fast cut-off point, user. At what amount of content does it go from a DLC to an "expansion pack" (which are all downloadable these days).
The differentiation is that the content is developed AFTER the initial game has come out and contains a significant amount of content.

I guess you weren't alive when they were in the base game completely free

>irreparable damage to the industry
>industry has been keeping a double digit growth in the past two decade
The only thing that's damaged is your brain. The industry (i.e. the business) is doing perfectly fine.

>Quality of games as a product
Not an argument. It's the consumer's prerogative to buy lower quality games for higher prices. Who even defines "quality" anyway? Do we set up a regulatory body, and have the government step in and decide what can and can't be sold?

>and health of the industry as a whole
Games are not an essential service

>with minor harm on the consumer end due to exploitative tactics.
Define the harm in concrete terms. How are consumers being harmed by this? How are they being unduly exploited?

It shouldn't be banned. You dipshits should just have enough self-control not to buy the very same games about which you're endlessly complaining.

Game has microtransactions? Don't buy it!

>B-B-B-BUT VOTING WITH YOUR WALLET DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE WHALES EXIST LOL
Irrelevant. Just don't buy it. I'm not telling you to boycott the game in order to put the company out of business. I'm telling you to be a rational human by purchasing only what you like. What you like, evidently, does not include games with microtransactions.
>BUT THAT'S EVERY GAME
Categorically false.
>B... BUT WAIT, I ACTUALLY LIKE THE GAME.
Then the microtransactions obviously don't bother you enough to justify all the bitching.

Okay then, irreparable damage to games as a cultural medium

>AFTER the initial game has come out
Like a lot of DLC.
> contains a significant amount of content.
See but maybe read it this time.

It should also be true for everything else in the world.

I don't think you understand the concept of "extra." Extra was never free, it came in the form of expansion packs and quickly changed to monthly subscriptions so a continuous flow of "extra" content could be made.

>irreparable damage to games as a cultural medium
Games are more popular than ever

The problem is that there used to be plenty of good games and now there's few of them, with no chances for the industry to ever go back to the way it was before, apart from government regulation or a massive shift in the audiences behavior.

So exactly like... all form of entertainment then? Music, books, movies. Pretty much all of that turned to shit as well in order to keep the industry growing. Welcome to capitalism.

You genuinely don't remember the times when the cartridge/disc you bought was all the content the game will ever have, yet it still included a lot of extra cosmetics in the core game

>Music, books, movies
I'm not aware of any monetization system equivalent to microtransactions in any of those form of media.
Music and movies do suffer from shitty pricing systems, though.

>The problem is that there used to be plenty of good games and now there's few of them
Not him, there's a ton of good games that have come out in the last several years and are coming out. What should be banned is spouting dumb shit like this.

>The problem is things used to be better when I was younger and now I am not younger.

>>You're going to sit here on Yea Forums of all places and tell everyone that they can win everything they get in the Pokeverse for 100% free
yes I am. I have gotten most mythical Pokemon for free ever since 2008. Arceus, Darkrai, Victini, There is no "winning". Every Pokemon outside of very very few such as the AZ Floette for XY (which still hasn't been released) have been obtainable for free through various means over the years. Also claiming a prize for a tournament you have to pay to enter in a store is "monetizing the game after the initial sale" is a fucking stretch.

Attached: mythical-pok-mon-special-distribution.jpg (854x600, 174K)

Yearly sequels and expansion packs have been a thing basically since the beginning and it's the same principle there. You could make the same argument for any of it and claim that they could have just packaged it all together except that's not how reality works. When a team has a limited budget to work with (which all teams do) they release whatever they can get done in the amount of time they can stretch that budget for. Some publishers no doubt take advantage and artificially shorten the development time, but that wasn't always the case and it still isn't today.

Popularity is not a measure of success or health.

You're talking about the subjective quality of the finished product, I am talking about the technical meta quality of any hypothetical product. The content delivery system is flawed, if any other medium tried to pull shit like microtransactions, there'd be an uproar, the only reason gamers are quietly taking it up the ass is because it's predominantly not a mature medium.

>The content delivery system is flawed, if any other medium tried to pull shit like microtransactions, there'd be an uproar

The "serial novel" is a thing where an author sells a book chapter by chapter rather than all at once. Some of the greatest works of literature were published this way. This is standard in comics. Toys are frequently advertised as "each sold separately", and it's not unusual to see accessory kits with new outfits that are not packaged with the toys themselves. I'm not saying the analogs in other industries are perfect comparisons for microtransactions, but they don't do it more because they simply physically can't rather than consumer pressure.

I go by the "dont like it? dont buy it" approach.

Enjoy your $80+ game then user.

>We're two guys who think..

It's a valid equivalency, but not a fully valid one, you make.

With DLC, it is closer to them selling an extra page or two of that comic/novel.
With lootboxen, it has become that they are selling individual word-balloons/paragraphs that while not essential to the story, are noticeable in their absence from the base product.

I do think its reaching a breaking point. I personally haven't bought a AAA game in a god while, and with the laws beginning to be pushed it is clear that there is a more general backlash against them than just me.

No, because and character packs add content to the game, making it worth playing again or playing differently.

So are you fine with microtransactions like horse armor? Are you fine with bullshit like premium weapon ammunition?

Besides, the thread started with "monetization after the initial sale". Everything from expansion packs to lotto boxes are attempts to monetize the game after it has been released. You'd need to re-phrase your statement if you just want to exclude the paid-for lottery in video games.

>With DLC, it is closer to them selling an extra page or two of that comic/novel.
>With lootboxen, it has become that they are selling individual word-balloons/paragraphs that while not essential to the story, are noticeable in their absence from the base product.

It's hard to say exactly what it is or isn't like, because as I said there isn't a perfect comparison. I think toys with accessory packs come the closest. Toy/gaming crossover hybrid products have been tried much more than other forms of entertainment products (licensed games not withstanding, I'm talking about single product lines here).

What makes this more pernicious than accessory packs is that there isn't someone from Hasbro right in your back yard trying to tempt your kids into parting with their allowance when they're in the middle of playing. But again, I think they don't do this more because they can't.

>with the laws beginning to be pushed it is clear that there is a more general backlash against them than just me.

In the case of lootboxes at least, the ways in which this negatively impacts the consumer that are demonstrably harmful are far more manifest than with other forms of post-launch monetization. I'm not anti regulation, I want clear reasons for regulations to be articulated, and for those reasons to be something a little more concrete than not liking a particular business practice.

Expansion backs and whatnot are fine.
The lack of a clear definition between larger content additions and microtransactions is how standards got lowered, though, and people don't even make expansion packs anymore. I guess just banning the lot would be "fine".
Would prefer a non-litigation response to games being shat up to move pennies in virtual purchases. Like people growing folds on their smooth little brains and collectively stop buying the fucking things.

EA plix