Bigred's Video Game Thread

[spoonitnow]

Np.

These are the shenanigans I'm against. You know, now you add kids to the mix, because CSGO (and it's lootboxes) is PG13 of course. I didn't check that rating, but I'm willing to bet money on it being PG13.

They took the gambling not-gambling aspect of this particular game's lootboxes and built an entire empire on it. Which is what the "reaction videos" are all about. Granted, it was a house of cards, but those were their actions

On that particular case of the videos pretending to be winners on their own site, I'm pretty sure the FTC already has advertising laws in place that make that practice illegal in the United States. I know a half dozen or so people who have been popped on the same sort of thing with regards to not disclosing their ties with a company they were promoting, etc.

Edit: Literally less than five minutes after making this post, I read the following on Wikipedia:

In September 2017, in what the FTC called its first settlement with "social media influencers", the FTC arranged an agreement with Martin and Cassell, requiring them to disclose any business ties with their videos in the future or face more drastic action; this agreement was finalized in December 2017.

Doh.

[Jack Sawyer]

On that particular case of the videos pretending to be winners on their own site, I'm pretty sure the FTC already has advertising laws in place that make that practice illegal in the United States. I know a half dozen or so people who have been popped on the same sort of thing with regards to not disclosing their ties with a company they were promoting, etc.

Edit: Literally less than five minutes after making this post, I read the following on Wikipedia:



Doh.

Sure. They denied being the owners, and then after being exposed they kinda went "oops, I guess I'm the owner after all". And then the apologies etc.

Now the FTC is telling them that they should disclose. Behave now, boys. In the future. Slap on the fucking wrist.Hahahaha

But FTC is a part of the gov, correct? *insert line about why we need government etc etc here*

[spoonitnow]

Sure. They denied being the owners, and then after being exposed they kinda went "oops, I guess I'm the owner after all". And then the apologies etc.

Now the FTC is telling them that they should disclose. Behave now, boys. In the future. Slap on the fucking wrist.Hahahaha

But FTC is a part of the gov, correct? *insert line about why we need government etc etc here*

*insert line about how the entire problem could be sorted out by a free market without government intervention*

Tangentially related, that whole thing also gets into a discussion of if the government should protect gambling addicts from themselves through regulatory measures, etc.

[Jack Sawyer]

*insert line about how the entire problem could be sorted out by a free market without government intervention*

Tangentially related, that whole thing also gets into a discussion of if the government should protect gambling addicts from themselves through regulatory measures, etc.

Hmmm, ok ok, let's continue with the mind experiment

Technically, isn't the free market in play at all times? Aren't they free to do as they wish? Didn't they out of their free will choose this particular path, with resulted in their ridiculous "reprimand" by the FTC? I mean, it IS a scam after all. If this wasn't a problem with the FTC, why would they stop scamming?

How would the free market solve this problem without government intervention? Wouldn't you still need the same whistleblowers and the same watchdogs that are paying attention to sound the alarms? Or would it be done in a completely different way that we do not know of but we'd have to trust because it's the free market and it can do no wrong?

So would this particular scam not be a scam in a fully free market?

[spoonitnow]

Hmmm, ok ok, let's continue with the mind experiment

Technically, isn't the free market in play at all times? Aren't they free to do as they wish? Didn't they out of their free will choose this particular path, with resulted in their ridiculous "reprimand" by the FTC? I mean, it IS a scam after all. If this wasn't a problem with the FTC, why would they stop scamming?

How would the free market solve this problem without government intervention? Wouldn't you still need the same whistleblowers and the same watchdogs that are paying attention to sound the alarms? Or would it be done in a completely different way that we do not know of but we'd have to trust because it's the free market and it can do no wrong?

So would this particular scam not be a scam in a fully free market?

One important principle is that you can't keep people from scamming. Create all the rules you want, but someone will always figure out a way to get around them. If the guys in this particular example with the skin gambling site weren't so oblivious and stupid, they would have never gotten caught.

As for how the free market can regulate itself, eCOGRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOGRA) is a good example. They are an independent company that offers certifications to show that online gambling operations are within certain guidelines, and they have a better long-term reputation than any government licensing jurisdiction on the planet. Companies like eCOGRA showed up because there are no international guidelines or regulatory bodies for online gambling, and it's an excellent example of the market providing accountability in an area where government was not.

Another principle is that it's much easier to corrupt government entities than it is to corrupt profit-driven companies due to the incentives and accountability at play, which is driven by the free market. The example of the FTC giving the "slap on the wrist" in the above case is a good example. If the FTC was profit-driven, not adhering to their own rules (which is what happened with the lack of enforcement) hurts their reputation and their bottom line in a major way. If eCOGRA did that once, their entire business model would fall apart.

The point isn't to be without whistleblowers, watchdogs and other forms of accountability. Those are 100 percent needed because, as I mentioned in my first paragraph above, there is no way to 100 percent stop scamming of some type in virtually any industry or sector. The point is that there is no consistent level of accountability with the FTC and other government agencies whatsoever, as you can see in the lack of enforcement of the existing FTC rules in the above scenario (and I'm sure you can think of an almost endless list of other examples).

It's also not that the free market can "do no wrong" or that it's perfect. Instead, the argument is that it's much more efficient and effective than government intervention at these types of things (and at a lot of other things) because of the incentive structures in place.

[Jack Sawyer]

One important principle is that you can't keep people from scamming. Create all the rules you want, but someone will always figure out a way to get around them. If the guys in this particular example with the skin gambling site weren't so oblivious and stupid, they would have never gotten caught.

As for how the free market can regulate itself, eCOGRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOGRA) is a good example. They are an independent company that offers certifications to show that online gambling operations are within certain guidelines, and they have a better long-term reputation than any government licensing jurisdiction on the planet. Companies like eCOGRA showed up because there are no international guidelines or regulatory bodies for online gambling, and it's an excellent example of the market providing accountability in an area where government was not.

Another principle is that it's much easier to corrupt government entities than it is to corrupt profit-driven companies due to the incentives and accountability at play, which is driven by the free market. The example of the FTC giving the "slap on the wrist" in the above case is a good example. If the FTC was profit-driven, not adhering to their own rules (which is what happened with the lack of enforcement) hurts their reputation and their bottom line in a major way. If eCOGRA did that once, their entire business model would fall apart.

The ESRB fills that role in the gaming landscape. But, of course, it's filled with industry heads with obvious incentives to look the other way as much as possible

The point isn't to be without whistleblowers, watchdogs and other forms of accountability. Those are 100 percent needed because, as I mentioned in my first paragraph above, there is no way to 100 percent stop scamming of some type in virtually any industry or sector. The point is that there is no consistent level of accountability with the FTC and other government agencies whatsoever, as you can see in the lack of enforcement of the existing FTC rules in the above scenario (and I'm sure you can think of an almost endless list of other examples).

It's also not that the free market can "do no wrong" or that it's perfect. Instead, the argument is that it's much more efficient and effective than government intervention at these types of things (and at a lot of other things) because of the incentive structures in place.

Indeed, nothing is perfect. But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

[BananaStand]

But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

Who ever said this?

Furthermore, why do you think the government could get closer to perfection than a free market? When has that ever happened?

[wufwugy]

Indeed, nothing is perfect. But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

The free market argument is that the free market more efficiently allocates resources to things people want than government does.

There are possible reasons for why this could be the case that include individuals having a better understanding of their own preferences than government does,* individuals having a greater incentive to address their preferences than government does,** and individuals having more information about how to address their preferences than government does.***


*There's not much way around this one. It's basically that you know how you feel better than somebody else does.

**This is skin-in-the-game. You probably care more about your toilet flushing to your satisfaction than Donald Trump does. You are adjacent to your problems while bureaucrats and politicians are several degrees of separated from them.

***When your toilet isn't flushing, you know your toilet's history (with possible solutions), your finances, your plumber options, etc. better than government does. You have a lot of information about your nuanced situations that the government doesn't have. The same goes for people who produce goods and services; they too have an information advantage over government regarding what works, what doesn't work, the science, the expertise, etc..


That isn't to say that government can't be better than the free market in some ways. If you can find something that government taxing, spending, and regulating would do better than if instead it was up to individuals interacting with each other freely, then you would have found a case for government on that issue.

I personally am a free market advocate because I have yet been unable to reconcile economic principles and theory**** with any particular issues where government is proposed to do better.


****And data, but virtually any case can be made with economic data

[BananaStand]

Technically, isn't the free market in play at all times? Aren't they free to do as they wish? Didn't they out of their free will choose this particular path, with resulted in their ridiculous "reprimand" by the FTC? I mean, it IS a scam after all. If this wasn't a problem with the FTC, why would they stop scamming?

I read up on this a little bit, and the word "scam" feels a little heavy. From what I gather, it was in the fine print that you could just email them and ask for some free betting currency. No one was actually required to spend money. McDonalds does the same thing with their Monopoly game. You get a little game ticket attached to your french fries. But if you don't wanna buy french fries, you can just walk up and ask for a gaming ticket, and they'll give you one.

If we're calling that "gambling", then McDonalds is a casino.

Separate issue seems to be related to non-disclosure of site ownership while advertising for that site. And whether that deserves a slap on the wrist, or a harsh punishment should be a question of intent. From what I gather, this guy claims he was just trying to keep his business separate from his online personality, or something of that sort. Really what he's saying is that "I'm a naive kid, poorly informed on the law, who didn't think he was hurting anyone". That sounds plausible to me. And it certainly demands a different punishment than if there was damning evidence of a savvy industry insider deliberately skirting the rules to enhance profits.

Jack - is it possible for you to just 'not like' some things in the gaming industry? Why do you insist on identifying a sinister evil plot driving everything you hate about video games?

[Jack Sawyer]

I read up on this a little bit, and the word "scam" feels a little heavy. From what I gather, it was in the fine print that you could just email them and ask for some free betting currency. No one was actually required to spend money. McDonalds does the same thing with their Monopoly game. You get a little game ticket attached to your french fries. But if you don't wanna buy french fries, you can just walk up and ask for a gaming ticket, and they'll give you one.

If we're calling that "gambling", then McDonalds is a casino.

Separate issue seems to be related to non-disclosure of site ownership while advertising for that site. And whether that deserves a slap on the wrist, or a harsh punishment should be a question of intent. From what I gather, this guy claims he was just trying to keep his business separate from his online personality, or something of that sort. Really what he's saying is that "I'm a naive kid, poorly informed on the law, who didn't think he was hurting anyone". That sounds plausible to me. And it certainly demands a different punishment than if there was damning evidence of a savvy industry insider deliberately skirting the rules to enhance profits.

Jack - is it possible for you to just 'not like' some things in the gaming industry? Why do you insist on identifying a sinister evil plot driving everything you hate about video games?

So you bought hook line and sinker what their lawyer is saying? As, your words are literally word for word what this article says: https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/18/1...-of-use-tmartn

Just as an example, as you think I "identify sinister evil plots" on a whim. From the article

“Not disclosing you’re an owner is very different than hiding,” Watson said. “To me, hiding is someone asking ‘Are you the owner?’ and you say no.”

Here is what tmartn said back in the day

And we found this new site

No matter how much bullshit, the internet does not forget

[BananaStand]

So you bought hook line and sinker what their lawyer is saying?

Is there a compelling reason not to??

As, your words are literally word for word what this article says: https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/18/1...-of-use-tmartn

Yep, it appears we have the same google machine.

Here is what tmartn said back in the day

No one is disputing the dishonesty. What seems to be in dispute...is the man's intent. You see "sinister villain". I see "idiot".

It seems that law enforcement and the justice system agree with me. So, why are you right and we're all wrong?

They meted out a punishment that was commensurate with a non-nefarious intent. Corrected the behavior, and now it's not a problem anymore. The system worked....so what's your beef?