I’m impressed they actually thought to include loot boxes you buy with in game currency you can pay to get more of, I was expecting that to be a loophole
I think anyone who’s tried one of these games or is the parent of someone who’s tried one of these games figures out this loophole (or alternatively , predatory practice) pretty quickly.
Let them cook, we only got steam refunds thanks to them.
What does that even do? There are little children play call of duty
Many places won’t sell M rated games to minors without a guardian present. It also allows guardians to make better informed decisions about what they’re about to buy for their children. It may not be a silver bullet, but it might start to put some pressure on studios to think twice about putting gambling in games targeted towards children.
Yeah, sometimes it’s not about finding the “perfect” solution, but taking 100 small steps that each move things in the right direction.
I wonder if they care about not selling M rated Fifa to minors though
I can’t think of many minors who would be able to afford a game, so it’ll be the parents buying it anyway.
I could see it helping.
“I have to inform you that this game is rated M for Mature, and isn’t suitable for minors.”
“What? It’s just football, isn’t it?”
“It says this game has gambling that uses real world money.”
I don’t know how many sales it’d stop, but at least parents would know.
This will put pressure on studios that make E and T rated games with loot boxes (for example: Fifa). Now they have to decide between letting the game get bumped up to a M rating, losing initial sales of the game, or removing loot boxes and other gambling features.
Dumb. They’re giving restricted 18 to “simulated gambling” where money doesn’t even change hands but actual gacha gambling that hits all the reward centers with real money and exchanges is M? I think they’ve got their wires crossed.
While I’m happy they’re doing something, they got it backwards. In my opinion games that have simulated gambling but don’t take any real world money should be mature (age 15 suggested) or even unregulated, and games that have real world money that control an element of chance should be 18+ (legally required).
Here’s some games/series that would be 18+ if released under this law: Pokemon Red and Blue, Ni No Kuni, Knights of the Old Republic, Witcher, Yakuza, Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Fable, Mass Effect, Jade Empire, many more.
Simulated gambling isn’t really a problem it’s the real world money tied to elements of chance that’s the problem.
Simulated gambling still cause the brain to become addicted to gambling, which then in turn leads to serious issues.
I think “cause” is a little bit of a strong word here unless there are studies I haven’t seen. The studies I’ve read are about correlation between simulated gambling and problem gambling. A child who spends a lot of time on simulated casino games is more likely to problematic gamble as an adult - but that’s not a causal link. The child could like the simulated gambling and real gambling because they were already predisposed to gambling in general.
The problem with loot boxes and micro-transactions tied to chance is they let kids actually problematic gamble. And this lootbox/real world money style of gambling is also correlated with problematic gambling in adulthood yet they’re being left at mature instead of 18+. It really doesn’t make sense treating simulated only gambling harsher.
You form positive associations with the act of gambling in a young age. That problematic.
They should take out the gambling and instead implement games that you can win reliable trough skill. That way you form positive associations with putting in the work.
The title says “paid lootboxes,” and I don’t think they mean in-game currency.Maybe not then, read reply
Read the article, they mean both.
It’s a sensible move by the Australian Government to restrict games with “in-game purchases with an element of chance” from being recommended to children under 15. These types of purchases, often linked to loot boxes or similar mechanics, can foster gambling-like behavior at a young age. Protecting children from exposure to such features helps promote healthier gaming habits and prevents the potential normalization of gambling risks. Additionally, with the rise of AI stores offering personalized game recommendations, it’s even more important to ensure that children aren’t exposed to content that could lead to harmful behaviors. Protecting their gaming experience now will help foster a more responsible gaming culture in the future.
Mario Party could also be effected if they feature a Casino or Casino-like minigame.
… I’m sorry, what?
Do … does any Mario Party game even have microtransactions? You know, specific game content unlocked by an additional purchase with real world currency? Much less ones where the outcome of a purchase is substantially randomized?
EDIT:
Games that feature “simulated gambling,” such as casino games, will be legally restricted to adults aged 18 and over with a minimum classification of ‘R 18+.’ Projects that were classified before September 22 won’t need to be reclassified unless they lose their current rating due to “revocation or modification.”
This sounds like it isn’t a retroactive change, its a going forward change. It’s explained further in the actual guidelines:
Situations where video games may require reclassification Video games that were classified prior to 22 September 2024, but add in-game purchases linked to elements of chance or simulated gambling content may require reclassification if adding this content is likely to affect the classification of the game. For example: – video games classified G or PG that add in-game purchases linked to elements of chance after 22 September 2024 are likely to require reclassification – video games classified G, PG, M or MA 15+ that add simulated gambling content after 22 September 2024 are likely to require reclassification
So… yeah, Mario Party games would have to be patched or re released or something to add more gambling content.
It does seem to indicate that, going forward, a Mario Party game that simulates casino like gambling would get an R 18+ rating, but the Mario Party franchise does not seem to me to have had any minigames that even sort of resemble a casino type game, even with neutered or non existent betting/staking mechanics, in about a decade.
The upcoming Super Mario Jamboree, though public info on the minigames is incomplete, also does not appear to depict any casino like games.
Did you read the article?
This doesn’t just cover microtransactions. In fact, the new law is harsher on fake gambling than it is on real gambling - loot boxes get classified as M, but a poker minigame is an automatic R18.
That’s just ridiculous, you can also just play poker without any money for fun
Apologies for editing after you replied, I have a tendency of making a quick point and then expanding on it with an edit.
Hard to copy and paste lots of shit on a shitty phone.
But basically, its not a retroactive re rating of any game unless the game is patched to add in simulated gambling or loot boxes.
While sure, Mario Party 3 has simulated gambling minigames, I doubt its getting patched any time soon, and the upcoming Super Mario Party Jamboree does not appear to have any mini games simulating a casino type game.
EDIT: sorry for another edit lol, but yes, I do think its stupid that a poker minigame with in game currency only, which cannot be purchased or redeemed for real currency, is rated worse than a game with lootboxes.
But basically, its not a retroactive re rating of any game unless the game is patched to add in simulated gambling or loot boxes.
This FAQ say titles will need reclassification if the modify their loot box payouts, so any ongoing live service game will get an updated classification eventually.
Q. Would changing the rewards within an existing paid loot box, cause the video game to require reclassification?
A. Adding new rewards to existing paid loot boxes constitutes adding new in-game purchases linked to elements of chance and may cause a video game to become unclassified and require reclassification depending on the original classification of the video game.
“The definition of simulated gambling applies to any interactive activity within a video game and does not consider how much of the game consists of simulated gambling,” reads the FAQ, which also notes the test for simulated gambling “does not consider the type of currency (in-game versus purchasable) used.”
You don’t need micro transactions to get the legal Restricted 18 label. The gacha games that you spend real money on get an M while any instance of casino games gets you an R18. I wanna know if they’re including poker in that.
Same apologies to you for my edit, but again as with the other similar reply, games are not retroactively rated R 18+ unless simulated gambling is added after September 22.
Yes, if older Mario Party games were patched or updated or remastered and released in a week, they’d be R 18+, but thats probably not gonna happen, and the upcoming Mario Party game doesn’t appear to have any casino like minigames.
I love when people comment and vote before they actually read the article.
Mario 64 DS had Luigi’s Casino, and Mario Kart had the Wario (?) themed Casino map. Its not outlandish to think Mario Party could include such elements in the future.
… Its totally fine to include a casino as a setting so long as interactive gambling is not a thing the player can do.
Did you read the article or the actual government literature it links to and quotes from?
Nothing is going to change about existing Mario game ratings.
I’d say it would be outlandish for family friendly Nintendo to suddenly reverse course on general world cultural/legal perspectives and re introduce gambling games when they have not done so in years, the same years many countries have been cracking down on lootboxes/gambling in games for their target demo, kids.
Finally, I didn’t downvote you. I only downvote people who are being exceptionally idiotic or abrasive or rude. I almost always prefer to engage with ideas or comments I take issue with but are not presented horrifically: the point of a discussion board should be discussion, not an internet points contest.
I was not saying that this was retroactive. Merely that new games in the Mario Party series could be rated R18+ because of this, perhaps I was not concise enough. Of course, this also applies to any game, Mario Party was only an example because even if a casino is not explicitly used, gameplay which imitates gambling such as a slot machine or some other “randomized reward” element of a game, is gameplay that is pretty common to Mario Party’s minigames.
Fire Emblem Heroes is a mobile gacha game by Nintendo that is still ongoing and was released in 2017. In just 3 years the game grossed $656 million USD globally, which makes it Nintendo’s most lucrative mobile game. Gacha is considered gambling by this regulation.
I agree with engaging in discussion. I was voicing my frustration at a behaviour that was common to Reddit, and Lemmy is supposed to be different from Reddit. Better. So I was both disappointed and frustrated to see the exact same behaviour as what happened over there. Because someone will say something someone else follows it up and then everyone bases their entire opinion on the reply, then regardless of if the second comment is edited or not people.just completely disregard everything the first commenter says. Its a terrible way to foster a community and a behaviour I hope dies off very quickly. Unfortunately it would seem that social media is conditioning people to do the opposite.
No one cares about game ratings in Australia, do they?
Australians do. As do international companies selling to the Australian market.
As clarification I meant: “do people in Australia care about the tiny black and white sticker on the box which says “M - rated for mature audiences” now?”
and not: “why should the global community give a damn about Australia…”.
I remember cinemas were always strict with entry into movies, but game shops never used to ask for ID. Has this changed?
Penalties will vary between states but for NSW the maximum fines for selling games with restricted classifications to underage customers are:
. MA15+ R18+ sold by individual $5.5k $11k sold by corporation $11k $22k https://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cfacgea1995596/s30.html
https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa1999278/s17.htmlThese seem steep enough to encourage compliance.
But G, PG, or M? The customers age is none of their business and I wouldn’t expect them to take an interest.
Edit: to put those penalties in perspective the sentencing for supplying alcohol to minors scales up a maximum of $11k and/or 12 months incarceration.
https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/la2007107/s117.htmlWhile for tobacco the maximum penalties are:
. first offence subsequent offences sold by individual $11k $55k sold by corporation $55k $110k https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/pha2008178/s22.html
So it looks like it is penalized significantly more lightly than alcohol or tobacco.
Ah, that is not how your initial comment came across. Though I guess you realise that now.
I honestly don’t recall ever encountering any bars on buying video games as a kid, or even knowing that ratings existed, though it could just be because my parents bought most of my games. I think you’re right that very few people in Australia care about ratings. To me, it’s clear that ratings are almost entirely arbitrary. It’s obvious that big developers get more leeway in how their products are rated than smaller developers anyway.
Europe does, at least for Nintendo e-shop. For some reason Nintendo keeps managing both at the same time. When PEGI (Europe’s own ratings) is totally okay with a game, but Australia has a brain fart and thinks a retro-style shoot’m up with pixellated little spaceships shooting at each other needs to be mature, the game is suspended form the e-shop for both regions, generally for months.
There’s some weird ripple effect going on I think, it goes through an international rating system of which Australia’s one of the biggest member. But the fact still is a game that passes the (mostly) reasonable PEGI can still be removed from the shop if a very stupid butterfly flaps its wings on the other side of the world.
I think you mean Earth. When is the last time anyone checked the rating?
