Lootbox games: I don't understand why these kind of games are not getting banned or heavily restricted. There is absolutely not a single positive thing about these games. Moral doesn't matter.
More countries need to adopt similar laws.
It has always had the gambling element though. While doing Meph runs I came to the conclusion that I wasn't playing because I was having fun, I was playing for the thrill of the loot drop rng.
Diablo III made it even easier to get all the set gear (I have several sets on Switch and I only play casually) and it became about designing builds around gear that could survive the highest torment difficulties.
Other games like Borderlands with similar item systems also don't rely on the player getting the absolute best gear to progress either.
These pay-to-play games on the other hand, force you to hand over cash to progress and the fun often stops if you try to play for free.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioural-public-p...
If you can make money, you MUST make it.
Someday I hope we find some way as a society to give value to other things. Its not really working out.
It would be great if we could stop spreading this misunderstanding. Fiduciary duty is a duty not to deliberately destroy shareholder value. Basically you can't set it on fire or loot it. It is not and has never been a duty to do absolutely anything anyone can possibly conceive of that will enrich the shareholders. Leaders are free morally and legally free to consider intangible factors that bear on the long term health and viability of the company and indeed do so every day.
This. Otherwise Apple and Disney would be forced to sell porn. But they don't because of their moral (one could argue prude) stance which makes less money for the investor.
Also the PR storm of such a reversal would significantly damage their stock prices. More importantly, stockholders suing either company to force them to reverse the policy would be an even bigger story.
It's not a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as possible, it's to maximize value for shareholders which means stock price rivals revenue.
Like the PR storm from searching the customer's device for evidence of illegal material they could pass on to the police?
> stockholders suing either company
What would be the basis for the lawsuit, prudishness is not codified in law.
You just got to look at a company like Boeing and how it changed over the years. The fiduciary duty of the directors didn’t change; but the directors certainly did.
Larry Fink disagrees, and companies like Exxon have learned that not only is it not the only option, it's not an option at all. In fact, it's to the point that politicians like Mike Pence are talking about the big bad shareholders terrorizing companies.
> If you can make money, you MUST make it.
This is a common sentiment at all levels. Who wants to do good if they can make 3 times as much helping big tech sell ads?
Common myth but utterly false:
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
I mean I don't think I even need to give examples of corporations breaking the law because they thought they could get away with it. Corporations, like any group of people, can fail to see the big picture. Short term profits for the risk of a big slap on the wrist is a gamble a lot of companies take.
1 - some children have no parents
2 - we have data to prove that parents don't know what their children do online, and never did. This is a complete fabrication
3 - children do have access to creditcards, both legally from the age of 14 or 16 depending on jurisdiction, and illegally
4 - there are many non-credit-card ways of paying for ingame items, including crypto
Anyway, given your views, I presume you are in favour of legalising cocaine and other drugs? Otherwise this whole line of argument would be hypocritical.
I am addicted to Dota2. Good game. I spent little money on it. I play for more than 3000 hours. I wish I didn't.