The Australian Government has announced changes to the way video games are classified in Australia. Starting from September 22nd, 2024, two new rules will apply to games that include “in-game purchases with an element of chance,” such as loot boxes [now M], and games that feature “simulated gambling,” like casino games [now R18+].

all 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Strayce@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Be cool if they could do something about the amount of gambling ads attached to sports. But no, it must be video games that are bad.

Tbh I'm glad they're recognizing loot boxes as a problem, but this feels backwards. Like, a single, completely optional slot machine in an RPG that only takes and pays out in in-game currency gets you an R rating, but a predatory real-money gatcha mechanic is only worth an M.

[–] eureka@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

Be cool if they could do something about the amount of gambling ads attached to sports. But no, it must be video games that are bad.

Yes. And on the other hand, the video game loot boxes are gambling itself, ads are bad enough.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Simulated gambling in video games: R18+

Actual gambling in video games: M

...what?

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 5 points 2 days ago

Industry pressure is my guess. Easier to start with the "nuh dah" examples than get caught in the lootboxes == slots legal battles.

[–] lkdm@programming.dev 6 points 2 days ago

Waiting for them to ban pokies any day now

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 5 points 2 days ago

Good. The next step would be taxing and regulating loot box rubbish like casinos. Published and audited odds, fixed payout ratios, etc.

[–] PetulantBandicoot@aussie.zone 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pokemon Red and Blue being R18+ if they ever re-released would be funny as hell.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 3 points 2 days ago

Pokémon let's go (to the star for a cheeky one) Eeve

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

and games that feature “simulated gambling,” like casino games [now R18+]

So Pokémon Sapphire would be an R18+ game if released in 2025, then? That's fucking absurd. Gambling with in-game currency to win in-game currency or items in a single-player game should not have any impact on its rating. It gets more complicated if there are inter-personal dynamics, and obviously if real money is involved that completely changes the equation. But as that quote explains it, it's absurd.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Why?

Put aside your nostalgia for the game for a minute. Wouldn't it be better if the game didn't feature the slot machines? They're

a) not important mechanically, narratively, or artistically.

b) presenting something socially harmful and addictive with absolutely zero context as to those harms.

c) Potentially some of a generation's earliest exposure to gambling, and presented as an annodyne game with some mechanical benefits to playing.

The goal isn't to keep Pokémon out of the hands of kids, it's to encourage people to not include this stuff in children's games. Imagine if you could just light a ciggy at some point in the game to give your Pokémon 5 experience points or whatever, it's a completely gratuitous and possibly harmful.

[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago

Iirc the slots got you rare pokemon and skills as prizes. Including one exclusive pokemon. So it's actively detrimental since it conditions kids to accept gambling as normal.

[–] C126@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thank you government for protecting our children from Pokémon slots. I for one, can trace back my life going downhill to the exact moment I played slots in Pokémon red to get a Porygon. I often wonder what my life would be like if I hadn't been introduced to such contemptible content at such a young age. Thanks to strong government oversight, our children won't have to suffer these horrors.