Plague von Karma
Banned deucer.
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.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.
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.
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.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
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.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.
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.
Last edited: