Because the monetization mechanics in this games rely on predatory practices employed by casinos which we already regulate?
Casinos shouldn't be regulated too. If nobody is forcing anyone to attend into something (like going to a casino or playing a pay-to-win game) nobody should have the right to change or regulate the inner dynamics.
As long as the game doesn't clearly lie (e.g. telling a lootbox does something that it doesn't) everybody knows what a lootbox is. Playing the game is a voluntary action taken by an individual, just like going to a casino. They are responsible for their own actions, and blocking a certain demographics' (e.g. people in Netherlands) to access to a game/mechanics (e.g. Diablo Immortal + lootboxes) is fundamentally against people's freedom of choosing to play a game or not.
It's their money, they can spend $1m if they want to, on lootboxes.
Would I? Definitely not. But blocking someone who does want to from doing it, whereas it doesn't have negative effects to society (e.g. Doesn't affect anyone but the person themselves) is ridiculous.
In theory, humans are rational, and in theory, spherical cows are an excellent basis for economics.
Human brains have bugs, and these industries exploit them. It's predatory, and utterly reprehensible.
Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated.
Human brains also have a bug making many of them social media addicts.
Human brains have so many bugs. At the end of the day regulating these businesses will hurt more people who voluntarily want to be involved than saving potential addicts.
The real solution is never preventing people from doing things (of course as long as they affect only the person and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating.
If those governments placed their efforts into educating the people about addiction mechanics of those games/casinos etc. instead of blocking/regulating altogether, it would be much more beneficial than blocking people from their own decisions.
"It's OK if people's lives are intentionally ruined purely for corporate profits, so long as it's at least partly those people's fault. They shouldn't let themselves be tricked."
> Human brains also have a bug around sugar consumption. I've yet to see selling people sugar or sugar-containing foods/beverages being regulated.
By the way, San Francisco taxes sugary drinks and requires them to have a warning label.
> The real solution is never preventing people from doing things (of course as long as they affect only the person and not the others' rights), instead, it's educating.
These approaches are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps it's best to find a balance between them?
And see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax .
Also, NYC tried to ban some sales of sugary beverages over 16 oz, thrown out by the courts.
I do not support them, I only hate the idea of banning anything more.
I believe education is the key but never see that done enough. (Not only about these topics but pretty much anything).
Banning should really, really be the last option.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax#United_King...
This might not quite meet your threshold, but it's probably close. More regulation around sugar is definitely around the corner.
Just because they shared a similar view on this doesn't mean that I'm also an addict too.
While you didn't explicitly tell such a thing, directly replying with this example implies that.
I don't do them but have respect to one's own opinion about their own body even if that means poisoning/killing themselves.
This is, of course, a position that is yours to hold. But I do hope that you recognize that it's quite a small, fringe one. It's a bit strange to use a fringe opinion about casino regulation as the stepping stone for an implication that loot boxes shouldn't be regulated.
[0] See it as "individualism" here on the first map: https://geerthofstede.com/culture-geert-hofstede-gert-jan-ho...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling#Signs_and_sym...
The same argument can be made for other regulated activities like drinking alcohol or smoking (whether you agree or not, that's how it is in a lot of places today). Those are voluntary activities too.
> whereas it doesn't have negative effects to society
Addiction _does_ have negative effects on society, which is why these rules get introduced. It looks like this ban [1] is enforcement of gambling laws, because the loot is transferrable it's deemed to have value. I'm curious in this case to know how much of an impact banning these particular games actually has though.
[1] https://www.thegamer.com/netherlands-loot-box-ban/
edit; haha, lots of people spotted this same argument.