Game Corners will now be rated PEGI 18 (equivalent to ESRB AO)

[Plague von Karma]

ultra-fictionalized depictions of gambling are so bad that they are significantly worse than things like arson, murder, or being a landlord, to the point where those can appear in games for children while gambling now cannot.

This is why the "cartoon violence" descriptor is in the rating system, yes. This was largely covered after the Mortal Kombat debacle in the 90s and has largely stayed static since. These have significantly different impacts on children compared to the compulsive impulses that simulated gambling brings. See: the countless Fifa UT incidents I'm sure you know about.

Pokémon's Game Corner has always been rather literal and not really "ultra-fictionised". Like, the original games, which are what fell under scrutiny even back then, are literal pachinko machines, down to the "Game Coins" as gambling for cash is illegal in Japan. At the time, pachinko was seen as amusement, but these days pachinko itself is facing extinction at the hands of new regulations. In fact, its representation in video games not by Konami have dropped off a cliff. This is partly why the Game Corner has not returned in recent years, because as I've explained, social norms change. The responsibility of an age rating firm is to identify what's socially acceptable to each age demographic and work with it so to not have governments regulate for them.

ultra-fictionalized depictions of gambling are worse than things like lootboxes and gacha games, which are actual gambling with IRL money and explicitly designed to encourage addictive behaviors in children

And here you fall into the same relative privation fallacy I mentioned before, seemingly ignoring what I said regarding it. Bigger issues existing does not exclude a smaller one from being addressed. In fact, history shows the opposite: they're steps in the correct direction and often lead to the greater goal. You don't run before you can walk in regulation, and this target was basically flashing in broad daylight.

You are trying to say that letting a kid play the slots in pokemon could lead to them going to a casino 10+ years later, a horrifying possibility that means that any game that includes a Mahjong minigame is dangerous to children. That's not going to be something that's easy for me to agree with. And yet actual gambling with IRL money in games aimed at getting kids to max out their parents' credit cards hasn't been addressed, and that's fine because they'll get to it eventually? You can see why that seems a bit uneven.

This isn't what I'm trying to say at all and I implore you to re-read my points. I feel as though you've missed something and I do want to engage in a good faith discussion on this.

Not once did I say it suddenly affects them 10 years later in some strange Freudian garbage, that's not how it works and we can agree on that. I said it can influence their development as children through encouraging compulsive behaviours. As in, it can encourage and reward that behaviour even at that age. Most children have no concept of the value of money: simulated gambling and lootboxes have very little difference. The "mom's credit card" meme is a very real, dangerous thing.

I do understand how it can seem uneven. The thing is, you also cannot expect rating firms to suddenly go all the way. This stuff takes time and action has actually been taken on this subject last year in the form of a warning.
https://pegi.info/news/pegi-introduces-feature-notice
https://www.thesixthaxis.com/2020/04/14/pegi-paid-random-items-rating-loot-boxes-in-game-purchases/
I personally don't see it as enough and it's a bit vague, but some people have acted as if it's been ignored entirely, which is false. My point regarding lootboxes was that this is a step in the right direction. As in, it's not fine and they should be pushed further. However, rather than act as if this decision is stupid as if it should be reversed, I want it to go further and extend to lootboxes. I have no idea how my post can be interpreted in any other way, but if you believe I worded it poorly I apologise for that.

The opinion I put across, overall, was that children should not be shown gambling in general. No form of gambling - accepting bets or other lottery in stuff like slots or poker for value - has any place in a game for people under 18. Be it the Game Corners, lootboxes, whatever. This isn't some groundbreaking claim, it's been a common opinion for at least a decade and you can probably date it further back if you go digging.

 

[MrHands]

Moral guardians never rest.

It is a video game. Establishing a connection between game gambling and real gambling is nearsighted as connecting violent games with violent crime. Especially in a game like Pokemon where they are worried about gambling when the core concept of the game has been compared to dogfighting. If they are worried about Little Johnny suddenly developing a gambling addiction, shouldn't they be concerned that Susie is going to take her little Yorkie to the fights?

And it is especially laughable when loot boxes are still allowed. Not that I am advocating for those to be banned (I am of the belief in hands off) but those pose more of a problem to children.

I think the problem is more deciding what is or is not acceptable. In Pokémon gambling is an extremely minor part of the game and arguably just an easy to program afterthought added to the game to increase depth. Voltorb Flip was an almost objectively superior replacement as it's a little more fun, much more strategic, and once you understand the basics pretty easy to play (with enough skill to unlock a TM or two).

Should it be banned? Of course not. No one who plays Pokémon is going to develop a gambling addiction, at least except for the people who ran Specs Focus Blast Lucario in 4th gen. But things like this are hard to quantify, so it's probably easiest to just blanket ban all casino-style games. You can question whether the ban has a point but in the end imo it's easier just to flip the switch completely and eliminate the concept of wager based gambling entirely. Again I am 100% sure the game corner didn't hurt any children but if you make an exception for one game you have to start reviewing each one.

Also Voltorb flip is super easy to cheese with an emulator and let's be real, Rom hacks are the best way to play Pokémon once you've spent more than a week or two at Smogon University.

 

[Ironmage]

Here's why I'm not confident that this will actually lead to tighter age restrictions on stuff like lootboxes. From my angle, the main dangerous part of gambling is the payment of money for the chance of a good outcome. So for me, the logical order is:
1. Go after games where real money is being paid for chances of good outcomes
2. Go after games where simulated money is being paid in the same structure, possibly at reduced severity

Now I'm willing to state that the game corners (though I would argue against voltorb flip, it has no buy-in and is more skill-based) would fall into category 2. But that's still action being taken against what is to me a less obvious category before action is being taken on the more obvious one.

As far as I can tell, the regulators instead start from the premise that a main aspect of gambling is the game being played. While probably easier to check at a glance, to me this runs the risk of both more false positives (such as if I wanted to load up Tabletop Simulator and play some cards with friends with no risk and a reward consisting of "congrats, you win") and more false negatives (missing something like a stock market that is very much gambling despite resembling what you think of as gambling less than a lootbox) compared to a different method of scrutiny. Even if they are smart enough to catch the false negatives eventually (which is currently uncertain), I have enough dice in my room that I'm still going to be concerned about the false positive rate.

Yes, it may work out fine, and it may not. We have no idea of the actual odds of either happening, so we state our claim on one or the other outcome for our own reasons. Isn't speculation interesting?

 

[Plague von Karma]

I have enough dice in my room that I'm still going to be concerned about the false positive rate

What dice? So far it's been extremely consistent on both fronts: simulated gambling has been given long overdue "gambling" labels and appropriate age rating increases, while microtransactions received labels. While certainly going slow as regulation justifiably does, PEGI has an immaculate track record on regulatory practices in the past and has been consistent here. I understand the uncertainty as change is wack but I fail to get where the stock is coming from. They're extremely thorough and it's not like the regulators don't play games, it's the contrary...they play more than you could imagine.

Now I'm willing to state that the game corners (though I would argue against voltorb flip, it has no buy-in and is more skill-based) would fall into category 2. But that's still action being taken against what is to me a less obvious category before action is being taken on the more obvious one.

The problem with the Game Corners was it featured accurate pachinko parlours, down to the prize exchange stores used to loophole gambling laws in real life. Nintendo had been catching fire for it since the beginning.

Voltorb Flip, at least to my knowledge, was a compromise attempt. It took away much of the gambling principles and to my knowledge is largely unrelated to the debacle. After all, it let HGSS get its age rating lowered internationally, yes?

 

[Pikachu315111]

Funfact: Pokemon casinos are rigged in such a way that its actually illegal if they try that thing on real life slots. The reason its very hard to get triple 7 i poke slots is that the game goes out of its way to make sure you never land that last 7.

Well, it is run by Team Rocket...

My Thoughts On Decision:
First, in the case of Pokemon, nowadays its sort of a moot point as we don't have Game Corners anymore. Could it make rereleasing the older games more difficult? Sure, but if forced to change/remove the Game Corner:

• Gen I: They'll rename it an "Arcade", make the slots unplayable, and possibly make Porygon obtainable via something like a Gift Pokemon.
• Gen II & III: Can completely remove (or at least made inaccessible).
• Diamond & Pearl: Can replace their Game Corner with Voltorb Flip.

This is also assuming they don't want to make new assets, if they do they could put Voltorb Flip into the first three gens.

And in recent remakes after FRLG we've seen them avoid putting in a Game Corner. HGSS had Voltorb Flip, ORAS just had it closed and the owner where it is giving the player three Poke Dolls, and now we see in BDSP it's been replaced with the clothing shop.

Is it sad to see the Game Corner go? Yes... but to be perfectly honest I don't care. Never used the Game Corner, I'm not one for gambling games. The most I'll miss about them are their catchy themes, but I got Youtube if I want to listen to them again.

Personally I would take an arcade with fun mini-games over Game Corner (heck, they could even recycle the name). Pokemon has released tons of mini/side games: Voltorb Flip, E-Reader, WiFi Plaza, Pokemon Mini, Pokemon Pinball, Puzzle League/Challenge, Trozei, Picross, Pokemon Stadium, Pokemon Channel, Surfing Pikachu/Pikachu's Beach, Dash, Fishing Rally, Battle Bingo, etc.. They could make an arcade where you can play these games and maybe new ones based on actual arcade games. Maybe even have us win BP (Bonus Points) which just so happens to stack with Battle Points. But this would take a LOT of effort so probably ain't gonna be happening.

I also once thought, if they want to do the original Game Corner, they could maybe have it be a out-of-game app on your mobile phone. However with PEGI taking gambling more seriously maybe it's time to drop the Game Corner as we know it.

 

[Rapti]

It's only tangentially related, but for those complaining about fictional depictions of gambling being addressed while lootboxes are untouched, know that the world's biggest market of gacha games is going through a wave of regulations

now if you read between the lines this might very well be just retaliation by the chinese government on Tencent for trying to highjack their economy with its own private currency
of course all of that is ultimately unrelated to the fact that gacha games and lootboxes are harmful and abusive is a fact we known for years

as for how does all of this affects Pokemon; well it's definitely gonna affect Pokemon Unite and hopefully Pokemon Masters if the japanese gaming industry is affected, even if only tangentially, by policy changes in China

 

[Bakugames]

casinos are bad, gatcha games are bad and loot boxes are bad and they should all be +18 no matter the circumstance. simple.

 

[Hugin]

This is why the "cartoon violence" descriptor is in the rating system, yes. This was largely covered after the Mortal Kombat debacle in the 90s and has largely stayed static since. These have significantly different impacts on children compared to the compulsive impulses that simulated gambling brings. See: the countless Fifa UT incidents I'm sure you know about.

Pokémon's Game Corner has always been rather literal and not really "ultra-fictionised". Like, the original games, which are what fell under scrutiny even back then, are literal pachinko machines, down to the "Game Coins" as gambling for cash is illegal in Japan. At the time, pachinko was seen as amusement, but these days pachinko itself is facing extinction at the hands of new regulations. In fact, its representation in video games not by Konami have dropped off a cliff. This is partly why the Game Corner has not returned in recent years, because as I've explained, social norms change. The responsibility of an age rating firm is to identify what's socially acceptable to each age demographic and work with it so to not have governments regulate for them.

But you can have simulated violence at PEGI 12. You can be a landlord at PEGI 3. Why is gambling where the line is drawn?

Actually, that's wrong. Gambling isn't where the line is drawn, because stuff like Pokemon battles with a prize at the end are still fine. It's only gambling that resembles a real-world game. That's just such a weird line to draw.

And here you fall into the same relative privation fallacy I mentioned before, seemingly ignoring what I said regarding it. Bigger issues existing does not exclude a smaller one from being addressed. In fact, history shows the opposite: they're steps in the correct direction and often lead to the greater goal. You don't run before you can walk in regulation, and this target was basically flashing in broad daylight.

But this is what we always see. Fix the small shit that doesn't matter, ignore the large stuff that's actually a problem because that's how corporations make money, then use fixing the small shit as proof that there's not a problem anymore. It happens constantly, and I'm really tired of it. They need to tackle the actual problems first, then rearrange the deck chairs. They added a notice to games with lootboxes, they basically banned the sale of games with casino games. It's clear they care more about looking like they're doing something than actually doing something.

Not once did I say it suddenly affects them 10 years later in some strange Freudian garbage, that's not how it works and we can agree on that. I said it can influence their development as children through encouraging compulsive behaviours. As in, it can encourage and reward that behaviour even at that age. Most children have no concept of the value of money: simulated gambling and lootboxes have very little difference. The "mom's credit card" meme is a very real, dangerous thing.

So if the issue is that gambling causes compulsive behavior, why not list all games with RNG elements as 18+? What's the difference between random crits designed to give you a dopamine rush and let you overcome unwinnable situations and 777 giving you a dopamine rush and letting you buy an in-game item?

 

[Rapti]

You are trying to say that letting a kid play the slots in pokemon could lead to them going to a casino 10+ years later, a horrifying possibility that means that any game that includes a Mahjong minigame is dangerous to children.

It's time for everybody's favorite game!

LET'S

SOURCE

OUR

STATEMENTS

data from a national population study in the U.S. pointed out that childhood exposure to gambling increased the likelihood of gambling in adulthood
https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1979.tb01042.x

commissions and official government reviews in a number of countries including the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand have all concluded that increased gambling availability has led to an increase in problem gambling and that future increases will generate additional problems
https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_34551_smxx.pdf

been allowed to gamble in videogame games increase player familiarity with gambling which may result in problem gambling behaviour given that increased familiarity with activities and products has been shown to reduce the level of hazard perceived, the likelihood of individuals warnings not being read, and can lead to an overconfidence in individual abilities
https://www.researchgate.net/public...the_Depiction_of_Gambling_in_Society_on_Youth

 

[Plague von Karma]

But you can have simulated violence at PEGI 12. You can be a landlord at PEGI 3. Why is gambling where the line is drawn?

I plainly explained this to you and you've seemingly ignored it: cartoon violence and gambling have significantly different impacts on children, as Rapti graciously helped explain. There are studies backing this up.

Actually, that's wrong. Gambling isn't where the line is drawn, because stuff like Pokemon battles with a prize at the end are still fine. It's only gambling that resembles a real-world game. That's just such a weird line to draw.

How is drawing the line at simulated real-world gambling weird? It's literally what PEGI is covering. Pokemon simulated among the most dangerous, legally dubious, addictive gambling practices in the world, resulting in Japan having a higher percentage problem gambler population than the United States.

I am somewhat inclined to agree with the dogfighting reference, but there are a few key things; Pokemon gives you significantly more control over the result compared to dogfighting. You command and train monsters to fight, rather than bet on what dog kills the other. Thus, it isn't a very realistic depiction of dogfighting either. Control is a massive part of why I see it as more acceptable, as both parties have a large impact on the result. Thus, I see Pokemon battles as more of a competition than gambling.

But this is what we always see. Fix the small shit that doesn't matter, ignore the large stuff that's actually a problem because that's how corporations make money, then use fixing the small shit as proof that there's not a problem anymore. It happens constantly, and I'm really tired of it. They need to tackle the actual problems first, then rearrange the deck chairs. They added a notice to games with lootboxes, they basically banned the sale of games with casino games. It's clear they care more about looking like they're doing something than actually doing something.

This isn't a very rational argument. By taking small steps, as I said, it makes a statement and helps show that we don't like lootboxes or simulated gambling in our games. This is progress, as much as you want to claim it isn't. I'm not satisfied either: as I said, I'd love to see more. "they need to fix the real issues" is an end goal, not an immediate one, and saying such ignores due process.

So if the issue is that gambling causes compulsive behavior, why not list all games with RNG elements as 18+? What's the difference between random crits designed to give you a dopamine rush and let you overcome unwinnable situations and 777 giving you a dopamine rush and letting you buy an in-game item?

RNG = / = Gambling. Gambling requires a clear monetary bet, or an equivalent, used in a game of chance you have very little control over, with the knowledge of either getting a higher or lower reward. For example, slot machines, pachinko, Poker, etc. All of these have significant, often multiple, chance-based elements. It is a very specific act and games that knowingly present that to children are very problematic. Random critical hits don't have the all-important act of betting, or really a monetary reward on their own.

 

[Coeur7]

Plague von Karma going hard on gambling but she mains RBY ?_?

(jk)

Serious post: while perhaps a minor point in this overall argument, I disagree strongly that poker is gambling and IMO it would be exactly one of the "false positives" Ironmage mentioned to rate it at 18+ when real money isn't involved (obviously, do rate it as such when it is... but not because of gambling, the issue is that it is an unlimited money sink -- if a site hard-capped you to $10 per month or whatever, I'd actually argue that allowing this at 16+ or whatever is probably a better potential life lesson -- except, of course, some inevitable schmuck would ruin themself by trying to break the rules... their damn fault technically, but teenagers are brain-damaged by design and in need of special protection, so I can grudgingly accept that this is a reason not to let minors play poker for money under any circumstance... I digress). If poker is gambling, so is competitive Pokemon, hands down (who cares that it's not for money, you'd be wasting your lifetime instead, which is merely not as obviously/immediately destructive, but destructive all the same)

I do think you are being too dismissive of Hugin. Video games do "encourage compulsive behavior" far more generally than just via lootboxes or simulated pachinko machines (in fact I'd vehemently argue that this contributed to their "mainstream" breakthrough); e.g. at preschooler age, I spent hours leveling up my Ivysaur to L28 or so in the grass before Mt Moon, "just to be prepared" for the stupid cave. Indeed, I spent hours grinding up mons to this or that level in general -- to complete the Pokedex or whatever. Breeding / RNGing also fall under "encouraged compulsive behavior", no doubt -- if not exactly gambling. Even when I should have been older and wiser, I spent a thousand hours chasing a "high streak" in the dumb in-game facilities, only to fail with nothing gained (Hugin's argument that Pokemon is casino-like in more ways than one cannot be dismissed out of hand: the more of the game is under one's control, the more short-term devastating is the residual luck -- which means everything when you can't lose even once). In fact, I'll just link this again because NMH is the most pertinent game to this thread's (sigh) discourse that I know of. (Hilariously, it's rated PEGI 18. Not that I disagree, e.g. because of what Holly does to herself.)

And somehow, despite this tendency, I never cared for the Game Corner and, like others in the thread, simply bought all my coins (and however many studies there are, I do agree with MrHands that the Rocket Game Corner taught me nothing else but that slot machines should be fucking avoided). I strongly believe that guaranteed grind-out/popamole "rewards" are the real source of damage done by video games to certain personalities. See also, just for one example, the obscene "success" of latter-day Paradox Interactive (by which I mean since 2011 or so).

Edit: Or the 999,999 Pokédollar Gen4 Ribbon. I think this is just as deleterious as the Game Corner.

I don't think Hugin's argument that regulatory bodies seem far less willing to interfere with video game gambling when it actually makes companies surplus money is irrational at all. "Impatient", sure, because I agree with you that PEGI's decision is a tangible change for the better, instead of being mere cargo cult legislation. But I agree with him and Ironmage that it's not some kind of necessary precondition for regulating lootboxes, which by all rights should have come first. Someone saying "progress can't be like you imagine" always invites someone else singing "Love Me, I'm A Liberal" -- IMO it's simply needless strife to argue who of the two is right.

PS. Mahjong is also not gambling. Neither the real game nor the stupid solitaire knockoff.

 

[Plague von Karma]

I mostly agree with you! However, there are some some minor areas I find interesting;

while perhaps a minor point in this overall argument, I disagree strongly that poker is gambling and IMO it would be exactly one of the "false positives" Ironmage mentioned to rate it at 18+ when real money isn't involved

I agree that it's generally ok when real money isn't involved, but when you extend this to video games, I find it difficult to agree when oftentimes it features a virtual equivalent.

Speaking as an ex-addict (feel free to do a search on my history if you want, it was awful), Poker generally is gambling, but pragmatically it can be seen as something else. Legally, it has been considered such in many countries, which is the criteria an age rating firm has to follow. Here's a website going over the topic, and an article on how Poker itself has led to gambling addiction. You could say the latter is related to where it's played (and thus, opportunity) but that's more of a stereotype. Poker is the most skill-based, control-heavy form of gambling in the current legal climate. I do concede that the definition is changing slowly, though, as this famous court case shows in the US. As it stands though, at least in Europe where PEGI largely resides, it's very much considered gambling and is highly regulated. In the US, you have the ESRB. For example, in the UK, high-stakes Poker has to be played in licensed casinos under the 2005 Gambling Act, while games in places like pubs are highly regulated.

You are right in that competitive Pokemon is legally gambling if you pay to enter a tournament, at least in the UK. This is because the participation fees (considered bets) and presence of chance-based elements bring it under the act. If Pokemon didn't feature RNG at all, it would be regulated akin to football or something similar. Is it dumb? I dunno, really, but we're veering significantly off-topic!

I do think you are being too dismissive of Hugin. Video games do "encourage compulsive behavior" far more generally than just via lootboxes or simulated pachinko machines (in fact I'd vehemently argue that this contributed to their "mainstream" breakthrough); e.g. at preschooler age, I spent hours leveling up my Ivysaur to L28 or so in the grass before Mt Moon, "just to be prepared" for the stupid cave. Indeed, I spent hours grinding up mons to this or that level in general -- to complete the Pokedex or whatever. Breeding / RNGing also fall under "encouraged compulsive behavior", no doubt -- if not exactly gambling. Even when I should have been older and wiser, I spent a thousand hours chasing a "high streak" in the dumb in-game facilities, only to fail with nothing gained (Hugin's argument that Pokemon is casino-like in more ways than one cannot be dismissed out of hand: the more of the game is under one's control, the more short-term devastating is the residual luck -- which means everything when you can't lose even once). In fact, I'll just link this again because NMH is the most pertinent game to this thread's (sigh) discourse that I know of. (Hilariously, it's rated PEGI 18.)

I agree that I worded "compulsive behaviour" poorly; I expected the context to fall under the "compulsive gambling" trope, and that vagary was unnecessary. Compulsion is a big part of the draw to video games and part of why they're fun to some degree. However, mounting this with gambling has, historically, been extremely damaging and is why this is even a discussion right now. That was my point, and I apologise for the poor framing.

And somehow, despite this tendency, I never cared for the Game Corner and, like others in the thread, simply bought all my coins (and however many studies there are, I do agree with MrHands that the Rocket Game Corner taught me nothing else but that slot machines should be fucking avoided).

This misses the point of why the age ratings got increased for old Pokemon games. They got increased because they taught kids exactly how the pachinko prize loophole works in Japan, it is completely accurate to how it works. PEGI's policy change, as I cited earlier, is "if it teaches gambling, it gets bumped up".

But I agree with him and Ironmage that it's not some kind of necessary precondition for regulating lootboxes, which by all rights should have come first.

I agree with the rest of the paragraph this is from, but this part also misses my position, which I've repeatedly stated to be "I agree that it isn't enough, but rather than lament it as 'irony' or 'wrong' it should be taken as an opportunity to push further". This isn't about a "precondition" or "progress isn't what you always imagine" - that's dumb as hell - but refocusing conversation on the subject of "where do we go from here". I disliked the initial framing this thread had because it discouraged productive discussion and was mostly fallacious.

 

[bdt2002]

So much of this goes against the principles of age rating that I don't know where to begin. This reeks of the "it's just cosmetic" spiel that's been beaten like a baby seal.

The point of gating off gambling-related content in video games is that studies have shown they're gateway drugs in practice with children. It is a poor decision for them to engage with it in the first place: an option that shouldn't be available. As an adult buying a game for your kid, you should rest easy knowing the age rating reflects the up to date one and isn't a poor influence. Gambling is, in every shape and form, not a good influence on a young mind. It promotes addictive personality traits. The guidelines change as the science and social norms shift, as they should, because many older games contain archaic concepts, and that's fine! Child development is still an emerging study in psychology, but we should use that science!

The point of age ratings is to ensure that the options the game provides to a player are appropriate for that stage in their life. To not get a high age rating, don't put those options in your game. Old games are from different periods of regulation, but that doesn't exclude them from it, yeah?

---

Anyway, I'm not sure why there's so much use of the tu quoque and relative privation fallacies here.

The logic here seems to be:

1. Lootboxes are happening
2. Lootboxes are worse than direct non-monetised gambling references
3. Therefore touching the latter is "unnecessary" (????????)
4. Therefore it's hypocritical that PEGI didn't address lootboxes first

And like...you see how counterproductive that logic is, right?

The video game gambling debacle has been progressing a lot ever since 2015ish and I believe this is among the first times a rating firm has taken direct action. In fact, this is by far the easiest step to take: rating direct, clear-cut gambling references and rating them accordingly. This is the perfect way to test the waters and see if the public truly wants gambling to be properly regulated. Even if lootboxes were touched first, I would wager (haha I'm so funny) that this would be the end result.

I don't see this as *retch* "iRoNiC" but a step in the correct direction. If anything this is a sign that PEGI is open to parley on the topic of regulation, rather than covering for the big companies like the ESRB has so openly done. This is probably because of increasing government and legal pressure in the past year. Like, when Belgium brought down the hammer, Overwatch had to completely revamp its economy. This is progress. If you want it to go further, move forwards, not backwards.

If you're interested in sourced, learned coverage of lootboxes and video game gambling, YongYea and Jim Sterling have done so for years. While I'm not entirely a fan of the somewhat reactionary turn they've taken recently, they're still the only channels that consistently cover the topic.

This is a much longer and much more informative version of what I had wanted to say, and at the time of making my original posts I was under the impression that content that can be avoided shouldn’t be affected.

 

[Coeur7]

Your first linked article invokes studies that strongly support poker being a game where skill dominates luck (that's inaccurately phrased, see link: it would be better to say that it's a high-skill, high-luck game; to demonstrate that these are not on the same sliding scale, imagine chess with a random 1/6 chance of the winner getting reversed after the game: it's exactly as skillful as chess and has the exact same strategy, yet luck plays a bigger role in it). It's just that Sturgeon's Law applies as always, not least because the rake wreaks brutality on the threshold of qualifying as a winning player. Isn't that ironic: when a skill-based game with luck elements gets regulated by the state, it makes more people lose money (to the state).

The minority opinion in law that poker is not gambling is also cited there (being effective law in three US states). You've acknowledged it already, of course. Basically: gambling is when no player has a positive expectation value -- but some people can demonstrably live off poker.

But if you really have time...

I'm guessing there isn't much overlap between the 40% of poker players who suffer from gambling problems and the 15-20% who make any money from poker, particularly since that study indicates that those 40% lose 2/3 of their lost money on any game but poker. Turning to luck-based games when you can't cut it at skill-based games is an arguably terrible coping mechanism at work -- but not the fault of the skill-based game. If anything, it's educational failure. Or some other sort of societal failure.

Instead of blaming poker for a Dionysian truth, maybe society should take this opportunity to reflect on why it expects the average person to land a (stable) marriage.

This misses the point of why the age ratings got increased for old Pokemon games. They got increased because they taught kids exactly how the pachinko prize loophole works in Japan, it is completely accurate to how it works. PEGI's policy change, as I cited earlier, is "if it teaches gambling, it gets bumped up".

I don't think I missed that. Point is, an accurate simulation of pachinko should teach the vast majority of kids that it's not a good idea to play pachinko. Any other result is due to short-term luck or lizard brain. The problem is that science shows that lizard brain is an unending pandemic, which is why PEGI has any ground to stand on. (Porygon being worth 9999 coins in Red and unobtainable by other means helps with weeding out short-term luck... but taps into the completionist aspect of lizard brain instead.)

Gen4 is particularly insidious because the frequent bonus rounds have grind-based mechanics that dominate the brief luck-based intervals, which is a dangerous misrepresentation of slot machines. (Gen2-3 may have had this as well. I don't remember.)

I'm not at all immune to lizard brain btw and I'm aware that the term is rooted in pseudoscience. I only use it because of lizard brain.

As for where I got "precondition" from:

In fact, history shows the opposite: they're steps in the correct direction and often lead to the greater goal. [...] My point regarding lootboxes was that this is a step in the right direction.

As you say, PEGI is only following long-existing legislation. They're not stepping forward so much as finally dragging a lagging leg into its proper position. I agree that it shouldn't be dismissed as ironic/wrong (thus I said "not cargo cult legislation"), but it is also disappointing that they're precisely not using it as an opportunity to push further.

Compulsion is a big part of the draw to video games and part of why they're fun to some degree. However, mounting this with gambling has, historically, been extremely damaging

I had meant to highlight that compulsive grind-based gameplay can be as hazardous as compulsive luck-based gameplay (i.e. gambling). What's more, these two are probably two ends of a spectrum in what kind of personality they cultivate addiction in. (But they do often occur together in games.)

IIRC the PEGI rating of Eve Online, the most brutally realistic video game ever made and the most depressing thing on the planet*, is Teen. I wonder.

* no it's not, but it does rank somewhere up there

 

[Worldie]

I'm guessing there isn't much overlap between the 40% of poker players who suffer from gambling problems and the 15-20% who make any money from poker, particularly since that study indicates that those 40% lose 2/3 of their lost money on any game but poker. Turning to luck-based games when you can't cut it at skill-based games is an arguably terrible coping mechanism at work -- but not the fault of the skill-based game.

Slightly off topic but I'd point that Poker itself is quite a special case as Poker competitions do have some degree of actual player skill, as both knowing when to bet or fold as well as learning to both read the opponent's hand from their micro facial emotions while at same time hiding yours are individual skills that require both attitude and training and that aren't present in... you know... playing slotmachines or similar completely luck based things.

 

[Plague von Karma]

Your first linked article invokes studies that strongly support poker being a game where skill dominates luck (that's inaccurately phrased, see link: it would be better to say that it's a high-skill, high-luck game; to demonstrate that these are not on the same sliding scale, imagine chess with a random 1/6 chance of the winner getting reversed after the game: it's exactly as skillful as chess and has the exact same strategy, yet luck plays a bigger role in it). It's just that Sturgeon's Law applies as always, not least because the rake wreaks brutality on the threshold of qualifying as a winning player. Isn't that ironic: when a skill-based game with luck elements gets regulated by the state, it makes more people lose money (to the state).

The minority opinion in law that poker is not gambling is also cited there (being effective law in three US states). You've acknowledged it already, of course. Basically: gambling is when no player has a positive expectation value -- but some people can demonstrably live off poker.

But if you really have time...

I'm guessing there isn't much overlap between the 40% of poker players who suffer from gambling problems and the 15-20% who make any money from poker, particularly since that study indicates that those 40% lose 2/3 of their lost money on any game but poker. Turning to luck-based games when you can't cut it at skill-based games is an arguably terrible coping mechanism at work -- but not the fault of the skill-based game. If anything, it's educational failure. Or some other sort of societal failure.

Instead of blaming poker for a Dionysian truth, maybe society should take this opportunity to reflect on why it expects the average person to land a (stable) marriage.

I know I've said this a lot to you and you're probably getting tired of it but my point wasn't to sway your opinion but explain that it is legally considered gambling, and yes, it's changing! PEGI has to follow the law to be an age rating firm worth a damn over here; it's about following the status quo to support a culture that supports the law, first and foremost. Part of the reason poker is considered gambling over here is the presence of "high-luck" factors, eg. if you read the UK Gambling Act of 2005, which is also why eSports titles can fall under it. You need virtually no chance-based elements at all to not be considered gambling. Ergo, most card games are legally such in paid tournament play, as payment is considered betting. I personally see the definition as somewhat archaic, but as it stands, PEGI has to follow these types of laws when giving out age ratings so the government doesn't end up regulating for it. It's a very delicate balance.

As you say, PEGI is only following long-existing legislation. They're not stepping forward so much as finally dragging a lagging leg into its proper position. I agree that it shouldn't be dismissed as ironic/wrong (thus I said "not cargo cult legislation"), but it is also disappointing that they're precisely not using it as an opportunity to push further.

I agree! The only "progressive" things game companies have done so far in this department is attempts to establish lootboxes as "surprise mechanics" that are actually a good thing. Is it actually regressive? Yes, and it's why lootboxes are being investigated right now.

I had meant to highlight that compulsive grind-based gameplay can be as hazardous as compulsive luck-based gameplay (i.e. gambling). What's more, these two are probably two ends of a spectrum in what kind of personality they cultivate addiction in. (But they do often occur together in games.)

I don't disagree but I don't entirely agree either, this seems to be more preference. Compulsive behaviour can absolutely set you up for an all manner of exploitative practices, but it isn't necessarily as direct as gambling-type content. The reason for this is that gambling content specifically goads you into a loop of betting on largely luck-based games with the aim of an uncertain reward. If you're looking at gambling according to its definition then it's not only worse morally but it's also just not good game design, not gonna lie haha

IIRC the PEGI rating of Eve Online, the most brutally realistic video game ever made and the most depressing thing on the planet*, is Teen. I wonder.

* no it's not, but it does rank somewhere up there

NAH NAH IT IS SPEAK THOSE FACTS LOUD AND PROUD

 

[wtset]

On the comparison of the pokemon slot machines to pachinko machines, it might be worth noting that at least in FR/LG (and I assume also in the original Gen 1 games because I don't see why they would bother changing that), the slot machines in Celadon have a positive expected value for the player which probably doesn't reflect the behaviour of real life pachinko machines at all.
(I assume this is also true for the slot machines in other generations but I don't know for sure)

So for the people in this thread saying that the slot machines in Pokemon taught them that pachinko machines are a bad idea either

• had too few coins to start out with and had some bad luck and went to zero coins, which is the only way you can actually lose coins if you just keep playing for long enough.
• realized that winning pokemon battles and prize money, and converting this prize money to coins is more enjoyable than repeatedly using the slot machine.