Some say the same thing about literally everything besides working 80 hours a week for minimum wage and sucking your boss’s dick for the pleasure.
You want to create an educational and rehabilitation program for the folks who have problems with it, knock yourself out, otherwise stop insisting on your right to control other people.
No it is the best way to be competitive and provides the best service possible for that price, plus I know that from the story where no one will pirate it because it provides the best service possible.
Loot boxes should be banned and in game currency needs to be banned as well. I’m so tired of this just accepted practice of scamming people out of money with shitty in game currency prices.
And it's written in pretty much the same way as the UK anti-porn thing, where age ratings alone won't cut it, so if you want to make smut games in Brazil you need to have some sort of "effective" age gating on top of parental controls to allow parents to close it off to their kids.
Art. 12. Os provedores de lojas de aplicações de internet e de sistemas operacionais de terminais deverão:
I – tomar medidas proporcionais, auditáveis e tecnicamente seguras para aferir a idade ou a faixa etária dos usuários, observados os princípios previstos no art. 6º da Lei nº 13.709, de 14 de agosto de 2018 (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais);
II – permitir que os pais ou responsáveis legais configurem mecanismos de supervisão parental voluntários e supervisionem, de forma ativa, o acesso de crianças e de adolescentes a aplicativos e conteúdos; e
III – possibilitar, por meio de Interface de Programação de Aplicações (Application Programming Interface – API) segura e pautada pela proteção da privacidade desde o padrão, o fornecimento de sinal de idade aos provedores de aplicações de internet, exclusivamente para o cumprimento das finalidades desta Lei e com salvaguardas técnicas adequadas.
So where are we on this one? We gonna be the "fuck free speech, I hate loot boxes" or "fuck thinking of the children, we like our smutty stuff"?
How are they different? They're both activities we allow for adults but not for children. For, arguably, good reasons.
I mean, you can be into one more than into another, and you can argue whether or not loot boxes should qualify as gambling, but for practical purposes when it comes to regulation they are fairly interchangeable.
Not that it matters, because regardless of what you and I think, they are listed together in the law. I'm not mixing diffferent issues, the law is specifically, explicitly applying the exact same regulation to porn and loot boxes. Doesn't matter how you feel about it, the Brazilian regulators think they're the same here.
They are the same in the law. They will be treated the same way.
Also, what is your point anyway? That porn should be accessible to children but loot boxes shouldn't? Are you not OK with porn being for adults? The question here isn't whether the content is adults-only, we probably should all agree that's the case. The question is how that's enforced.
I mean, if you want to tell me what you actually think about that I'm happy to listen, but going "these two things feel different to me" doesn't bring anything to this conversation.
My point was pointing out your logical mistake. These two things are separate things which should be discussed separately. Just because they are grouped together in one piece of official document, doesn’t make it the UNIVERSAL truth.
or are you telling me the Braziling government doesn’t discriminate between gambling and porn in other settings?
(Also maybe I missed it: Where did I cast any judgement about it being accessible to children?)
No, see, there is no logical mistake because at no point was there an argument about universal truths anywhere. There was a note that, despite the headline and article not flagging it, the same regulation covers porn and has some of the issues that anti-porn age verification has had in the past.
You're just doing the thing where you read something on the Internet and it made you angry by not immediately reinforcing your preferences so you nitpicked a random bit you thought didn't check out regardless of whether it was part of the argument or not.
The point is that, despite being in the same bill, they shouldn’t be. One is already covered in existing law, related to adult exclusive activities recognized as such the world over (porn for clarity). The other is defining a new phenomenon that has yet to be defined as being exclusive to adults and currently exists within spaces for children to the point of predation and is akin to existing child targeted products (loot boxes again for clarity).
Lumping even seemingly similar things is a bad practice that is more meant to poison pill bills (among other things) than actually execute legislative duties.
Whose point is that? Because I don't think it's the previous guy's point, and it certainly isn't mine.
I mean, the law (not a bill, this isn't the US and it has been approved, as per the text) outright bans loot boxes in games "targeted at children or teenagers". No qualifiers. Doesn't even say "paid loot boxes", so technically all videogames are now illegal if they have a loot table anywhere. I'm going to assume cooler heads will prevail and a categorization will come from courts or specific regulatory development, but it's certainly not in the law.
So if you don't like this for doing both at once... well, that's weird, that's why laws have multiple articles. If you're worried that the inclusion is meant to stall the bill that's irrelevant, this has been published and comes in force in six months. If you think they're overreaching by outright banning loot boxes... well, I agree, but I don't think that's the point as the rest of the thread is defining it.
EDIT: Someone in a different thread pointed out that despite referencing slightly differently there IS a definition of lootbox in the law and it does include a requirement for them to be paid, so I'm correcting the record here:
IV – caixa de recompensa: funcionalidade disponível em certos jogos eletrônicos que permite a aquisição, mediante pagamento, pelo jogador, de itens virtuais consumíveis ou de vantagens aleatórias, resgatáveis pelo jogador ou usuário, sem conhecimento prévio de seu conteúdo ou garantia de sua efetiva utilidade;
Trump has already shown that greenness of cards means nothing to him, so it’s not like these people would be losing any immigration safe ground by not suing.
one would think Nintendo would want to get back at the Trump admin for fucking with their money so much via tariffs. but I guess they don’t see it that way. Nintendo has always been cautious/conservative to a fault.
what’s that? Nintendo’s supporting the Department of Homeland Security? I’m enraged. These woke devs putting politics in our games! I’m never buying another Nintendo product again! (If enough of us say it, maybe we can pressure Nintendo to sue?)
AI tools can be a “power multiplier” he said, though insisted this isn’t “corporate speak” but “words we’re hearing from studio heads and heads of production”.
So not from the people actually doing the work or buying the products.
I also don’t see any acknowledgement of the training source data, so I’m assuming that despite his assurances about authorship, it’s been trained on license violations.
It is sort of funny to think that a developer that was resurrected from the dead, might somehow, successfully pull off episodic gaming now when they couldn’t before they died.
If Valve couldn’t do it, I sort of doubt anyone can really do it. Video games are soul-crushing to develop.
The issue with valve is not they couldn’t do it, it’s because how they develop game. If no one pick up the project then the project just die. That’s how hl2ep3 die. If they run like how every other company is, we would already finished the series.
The flip side of that is we get stuff like Steam Deck, Index, Alyx, and Proton.
Telltale was severely mismanaged. They expanded way too quickly and created incredible amounts of debt based on the idea that all their games would be as successful as The Walking Dead. I do believe that there is a place for episodic adventure games, just with a small enough scope and expectations.
yeah i’m skeptical for the same reason. “Episodic” seems to always end in disaster for devs, but hey, who knows? The market has changed a lot in the past few years, maybe episodic makes more sense now?
With regards to taletells implimentation of it, I found it pretty badly done. IE namely they used it for choice based story games… but I felt them pretty damn weak in that area. (in the sense that 99.9% of the story is pretty set in stone, and usually based on the most common choice, you go back and do the opposite, and everything plays out pretty much identically except maybe one or 2 one liners will change).
IE I remember the walking dead… Kenny was a mostly cool guy, who was always in conflict with a hot head old man, obviously the natural way most people play is to take kenny’s side in the conflicts. In the end the hothead leaves you for dead and kenny saves you.
then replaying it… basically with constantly taking hotheads side, being a jerk to kenny at every juncture along the way. so you get the alternate ending, where hothead punches you out, and kenny saves you… but adds in the comment “even if you are an asshole”. while rescuing you.
and honestly the episodes just branch that further in story, largely they clearly didn’t have the resources to make a wide ever branching story that you think it is… so you just get little bits that all merge back into the same path overall.
I think the only game that really let you branch out with your choices was Detroit: Become Human. You could literally delete fully playable characters and their storylines from the game by the first choice you make with them.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne