You are in this latest post just outright contradicting yourself within the span of two adjacent sentences as opposed to separate posts.
Then please point that out so I can either explain how it’s not a contradiction, or learn where I was mistaken.
DRM still is not DLC. Yes. They interact. That does not mean they are the same thing or necessarily must coexist. DRM is not /content/ it is /content management/.
I never said they were. I said that in many cases, DLC is already “part of the game,” just hidden behind some DRM. That seemed to be the contention you had with MTX, that content was in the game, but not available unless the player purchases it. I’m sure there are plenty of games in your library with content locked behind a DLC paywall, but still in the binary you downloaded.
DLC used to simply be a replacement for those expansion disks you can buy at the store, and now they’re just unlocked in the same binary everyone downloads. MTX is extremely similar in that you get to see content you can’t access directly, provided someone you’re playing with has paid for that content.
Again, as I already stated, in a world where say games were not allowed to, within the actual game itself, offer access to the player to additional content that applies specifically to that character’s avatar as either a cosmetic or a functional in game item, where the actual digital code for said items is already present to all players without additional download, this would 1) lessen impulsive purchases 2) reasonably result in many games moving there stores for MTX to a program or website not actually in the game itself.
Games would just provide a link to a browser (or embed a browser directly, depending on the wording of the law) in the game itself, and then you’d see the effects immediately in the game when buying cosmetics. Yeah, maybe it would be a slight hurdle to jump, but it would basically only be one more click.
And that’s if your bill even passes. The market is just too lucrative for these companies to just roll over, they will find a way to capitalize on players’ vanity and desire to have “everything.”
theoretical restriction of being able to purchase additional DLC for a specified game only every so often, or put a cap on max spending on DLC in a time period
How would that be enforced? Unless that number is quite high, it’s going to annoy a lot of players (i.e. let’s say I come back to a game like Magic Arena or Hearthstone and want to get caught up with the latest cards), and if it’s too high, it’s probably not going to help much. Maybe a requirement for games to block users for unusually high spending would help in some cases, but would that really apply to people who are addicted (i.e. that have consistently high spending)?
It just seems incredibly hard to craft a law that effectively solves the problem, doesn’t restrict players’ freedom too much, and that large gaming companies would not fight too hard against. And I’m sure large gaming companies would find a way around whatever law is crafted (i.e. maybe gifts don’t count, so players gift each other stuff instead).
addiction literally is a self regulation problem
No, addiction is a dependency problem.
Ask anyone who has made it through AA or any similar program and you’ll learn that the (physical or psychological) dependency is still there, but they’ve learned how to self-regulate to avoid triggering it. What seems to work is placing obstacles in their way to force themselves to make a conscious decision instead of giving in to that need.
So if there’s any regulation here, it should be around giving people the tools to self-regulate (and perhaps requiring games to advertise them), not on preventing the behavior directly (that limits individual choice). If people know they have an addiction problem, they can set a cap (or ideally just not play predatory games).
You are just arguing for the sake of wanting to be right
No, I’m arguing because I have a different opinion, and I think you’re misunderstanding it. If you simply disagreed, you’d presumably stop replying, or try to convince me of yours. But if you attack my arguments, I’ll clarify and explain.
Then please point that out so I can either explain how it’s not a contradiction, or learn where I was mistaken.
I never said they were. I said that in many cases, DLC is already “part of the game,” just hidden behind some DRM. That seemed to be the contention you had with MTX, that content was in the game, but not available unless the player purchases it. I’m sure there are plenty of games in your library with content locked behind a DLC paywall, but still in the binary you downloaded.
DLC used to simply be a replacement for those expansion disks you can buy at the store, and now they’re just unlocked in the same binary everyone downloads. MTX is extremely similar in that you get to see content you can’t access directly, provided someone you’re playing with has paid for that content.
Games would just provide a link to a browser (or embed a browser directly, depending on the wording of the law) in the game itself, and then you’d see the effects immediately in the game when buying cosmetics. Yeah, maybe it would be a slight hurdle to jump, but it would basically only be one more click.
And that’s if your bill even passes. The market is just too lucrative for these companies to just roll over, they will find a way to capitalize on players’ vanity and desire to have “everything.”
How would that be enforced? Unless that number is quite high, it’s going to annoy a lot of players (i.e. let’s say I come back to a game like Magic Arena or Hearthstone and want to get caught up with the latest cards), and if it’s too high, it’s probably not going to help much. Maybe a requirement for games to block users for unusually high spending would help in some cases, but would that really apply to people who are addicted (i.e. that have consistently high spending)?
It just seems incredibly hard to craft a law that effectively solves the problem, doesn’t restrict players’ freedom too much, and that large gaming companies would not fight too hard against. And I’m sure large gaming companies would find a way around whatever law is crafted (i.e. maybe gifts don’t count, so players gift each other stuff instead).
No, addiction is a dependency problem.
Ask anyone who has made it through AA or any similar program and you’ll learn that the (physical or psychological) dependency is still there, but they’ve learned how to self-regulate to avoid triggering it. What seems to work is placing obstacles in their way to force themselves to make a conscious decision instead of giving in to that need.
So if there’s any regulation here, it should be around giving people the tools to self-regulate (and perhaps requiring games to advertise them), not on preventing the behavior directly (that limits individual choice). If people know they have an addiction problem, they can set a cap (or ideally just not play predatory games).
No, I’m arguing because I have a different opinion, and I think you’re misunderstanding it. If you simply disagreed, you’d presumably stop replying, or try to convince me of yours. But if you attack my arguments, I’ll clarify and explain.