I'm still not seeing how this is any different than Pokemon cards where I saw the same behavior in kids back then. Is it because these days companies have thrown far more psychology at optimizing it?
The difference is you walked into a shop with cash and couldn't accidentally buy 100 packets in the space of five minutes. They couldn't take your parent's bank card and let you spend thousands of dollars because your parents would come back to the store. The transaction amount and cash exchange was not deliberately obfuscated with layers of contrived pseudo-currencies when we bought packets of cards either.
It seems in this case, the use of a fake virtual currency to disassociate it from real money is the underlying problem. And in that case, I do not see any analogies to existing TCG booster packs. Also, it would mean the problem extends to more than just loot boxes, and as such even in games where there aren't lootboxes regulation would still be needed when virtual currency can be bought with actual currency.
It's not okay to say "something has been done before" or "this is like that".
As human beings, we are learning what types of things are destructive. When we learn about these problems, it's not healthy to justify doing another thing wrong because we happened to live through doing it wrong before.
For example, people who say "I didn't wear a helmet when I was a kid" are being irresponsible. No, you didn't. But thankfully, science, data, and time have shown us that wearing a helmet makes far more sense for our health and safety, so that's what we do now. We learn, we change, we adapt. It's part of the process.
So, Pokemon, and Baseball cards, etc, were all gambling. The whole ordeal of spending money in hopes of getting what you want, then every once in a while getting a jackpot is very unhealthy and can be destructive in our development.
Are we okay after going through all that? Pretty much. But would we not be far better without having had that in our lives? Maybe. So now we know. And now we must stop these destructive business practices.
I agree. But if you look at one of those wrongs and don't actually think it is wrong, then it may mean the other wrong isn't wrong as well.
My point is NOT:
1: TCG booster packs are like loot boxes.
C: Therefore people should have a problem with loot boxes.
My point is:
1: TCG booster packs are like loot boxes.
2: People don't have a problem with TCG booster packs.
C: Therefore people should have a problem with loot boxes.
The inclusion of the second idea is very important.
Also, as someone else pointed out in a different comment threat, the problem seems to be with the way virtual currency is used. In this case, that is a chance that has no analogy with TCG booster packs, and as such my argument doesn't apply.
>For example, people who say "I didn't wear a helmet when I was a kid" are being irresponsible. No, you didn't. But thankfully, science, data, and time have shown us that wearing a helmet makes far more sense for our health and safety, so that's what we do now. We learn, we change, we adapt. It's part of the process.
In this case, what is being said is that you should've wore an helmet when you were a kid, but we can't go back and change the past. Imagine if science instead said that in the past people shouldn't have worn helmets but kids these days should. I would definitely want more information. But in this case, both past and present are being condemned so there is consistency.
>So, Pokemon, and Baseball cards, etc, were all gambling.
They are still a think, but I don't see people calling them gambling even today. Thus my question about a potential lack of consistency.
My entire COUNTRY didn't wear a bike helmet when they were young. (this is a historical fact, am I being irresponsible?)
Thankfully due to science and data, we now know that providing infrastructure, bike lanes, good traffic rules for bikes, lessons in school for biking, car driving lessons including bike safety and just being the nr.1 method of transportation besides legs, increases safety AND public health AND bike usage AND decreases car usage with all its negative externalities.
There is no brain damage epidemic here. But maybe we don't wear helmets, but we DO regulate the ever loving shit out of what we can advertise and sell to children.
> Is it because these days companies have thrown far more psychology at optimizing it?
Absolutely. Including hiring former casino personnel. Cards don't have flashy lights, music, nor the concept of a near miss.
You could call them the same only if you ignore all the context around it. For example, I know of no cards where you can purchase a more expensive card pack that has slightly higher odds of getting something good. Different loot boxes costing different amounts of money with the only difference being a slight increase in percentages are a completely common occurence.
Do they? I've only ever seen major TCGs sold three ways (not counting secondhand): Regular booster packs (fixed number of cards, odds of rarities in small print on the back), preconstructed decks (fully known, no randomness), and bundles (box with five or ten regular packs plus one specific card or random known-rarity card).
