“gROwth” e o idee bună, incredibil de prost aplicată

Guvernul României, condus de Viorica Dăncilă și dominat de Partidul Social Democrat, a decis că trebuie să se ocupe de viitorul țării și a adoptat o ordonanță de urgență prin care creează un program numit gROwth (n-au găsit nici un joc de cuvinte relevant în română probabil), teoretic construit ca să ajute copii României printr-o soluție de economisire pe termen lung.

OUG-ul e plin de fraze pompoase și cam greu de citit dar Edupedu are o sinteză bine construită a ideilor care definesc programul și care scot la lumină o idee bună dar care este implementată probabil în cel mai prost mod posibil.

Pentru început contul de economii Junior, principalul mecanism asociat cu gROwth, este dechis automat, fără să fie nevoie de acordul părinților sau reprezentanților legali, la Trezorerie. Lipsa de consultare a celor care nu sunt interesați nu există pentru statul român. Băncile comerciale, care pot să construiască și să ofere conturi cu caracteristici interesante, nu sunt luate în considerare. Trezoreria, o instituție cu limitări technologice li care are deja destule atribuții, trebuie să lucreze cu încă 3 milioane și ceva de conturi. În mod ciudat toți copii priumesc un astfel de cont, nu doar cei care sunt născuți după adoptarea ordonanței.

Teoretic statul contribuie cu o primă de 600 de lei dacă în contul unui copil sunt depuși cel puțin 1.200 lei (100 pe lună, o sumă destul de mare pentru o țară unde majoritatea populației nu poate să pună atât într-un cont de economii) și oferă o dobândă de 3%. Problemele sunt legate de faptul că primele nu intră în cont decât atunci când un beneficiar ajunge la 18 ani și că dobânda nu li se aplică. Părinții trebuie să depună sprând că programul nu dispare și că statul găsește banii de prime la finalul peroadei. OUG nu clarifică nici dacă bobanda, oricum mică, este capitalizată pentru fiecare an sau dacă ea apare doar la finalul perioadei.

Un program gROwth bine construit virează contribuțiile statului în fiecare an și le supune dobânzii, garantând astfel o sumă semnificativ mai mare pentru un beneficiar, care are potențialul să îl ajute cu adevărat. Orice altceva riscă să ofere un randament sub cel al unui instrument bine construit din spațiul bancar.

Există probleme reale legate de retragerea înainte de vârsta de 18 ani, de modul în care acești bani sunt sau nu folosiți de stat în acestă perioadă, de garanțiile legate de modul în care contul Junior interacționează cu posibile devalorizări ale leului sau cu trecerea la Euro.

Chiar dacă programul gROwth este implementat corect el este în mod clar construit prost pentru o țară relativ săracă pentru că oferă avantaje clasei de mijloc și celor relativ bogați fără să livreze ceva pentru cei săraci. Mai mult el este o idee a PSD, partid care se declară social-democrat și care are ca obiectiv limitarea sărăciei, mai ales când e vorba de copii.

Un guvern care este interesat de viitorul copiilor și care vrea să abordeze problema dintr-un unghi pur legat de economisire poate să costruiască conturi care să primească contribuție și dobândă garantată de la stat. Mai bine, poate să construiască o scutire de taxe pentru cei care creează o soluție de economisire sau poate pur și simplu să ofere o sumă garantată direct părinților cu condiția ca ea să fie folosită doar pentru nevoi de dezvoltare ale copiilor.

The Loot Box Problem Will Be Solved Using Laws, Self-Regulation and Developer Innovation

Loot boxes have been the “next big thing” in gaming for quite a while and the backlash seems to be hitting in waves now, with many developers renouncing their use, gamers clamoring for their removal and authorities investigating whether they amount to gambling and how they should be regulated.

A loot box can be implemented in many ways, ranging from a simple mechanism to deliver already known items/powers, characters (or anything else related to a video game) to a complex package that offers something guaranteed for the player who opens one while enticing them to buy more until they pick up one of the items that has a very small chance to appear. There are loot boxes that can be picked up for free, based on in-game actions, those that are linked to currency that can be gained inside a game and others that are only offered to those willing to spend real-world money.

With the FTC saying that it is aiming to investigate how they are implemented, following in the footsteps of countries like Belgium and the UK, the reactions from video game industry bodies have been somewhat predictable, designed to protect developers and to slow down any kind of direct regulation.

That’s understandable but the industry fails to see that their best bet is not to clamor for full freedom (there are some really exploitative practices, especially in the mobile space) or for self-regulation (after all the industry has so far shown little appetite for clear rules that bind all creators who use loot boxes). The best bet for industry representatives, like the ESA and IGDA, is to work directly with governments in order to create simple and clear laws while also finding ways to innovate so that loot boxes serve the needs of their titles rather than simply their bottom line.

I play a lot of Star Trek: Timelines, a title that was first offered only on mobiles and is also now available on the PC, which has loot boxes. They do not feel exploitative to someone like me, who has good control over his desire to acquire characters and boosts and sees the game experience as a long term one. The same is surely not applicable to a gamer who wants instant gratification and is ready to spend money in order to get his hands on that super-rare Picard version.

Developers, industry representatives and lawmakers should work to find the worst practices linked to loot boxes and ban them outright, forcing everyone to make sure that gamers, especially the more vulnerable ones, are not directly targeted and exploited.

Then the industry needs to work within itself to further make sure that loot boxes are somewhat standardized and that there’s little chance for someone to be fooled when moving from one title to another or from one store ecosystem to another.

Finally, developers themselves need to find interesting ways to use the concept and make sure that it enhances a game experience rather than detract from it. There are plenty of ways to do this, ranging from making sure that there are limits on the rarity of stuff associated with them to introducing new ways to earn the currency linked to the loot box system.

It’s normal for the video game industry to feel somewhat targeted when it comes to regulation, especially given the rapid pace of change and the fact that many regulators do not fully understand the medium. But a combination of laws, regulation and innovation is the best way to solve the loot box conundrum and to make sure that it does not become another long-term fruitless discussion like the one linked to video game violence.

Violence Associated with Violence or What a Meta-Study Cannot Tell Us

A recent meta-study from Dartmouth College shows a association between real world violent behavior and violent videogames when played by people between the ages of 9 and 19, based on information drawn from more than 17,000 adolescents from all over the world.

The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and USA Today has a good summary and some statements from those involved in the process. And, although they state that even such a major study can only show a correlation and not a causation, I believe that they are pushing their findings a little too far.

When boiled down to its essence the meta-study (based on 24 previously pushed investigations) shows that exposure to violence leads to more violent behavior, which is surely a non-controversial statements regardless of whether it is linked to videogames, movies, music, the behavior of others or philosophy.

The authors state that the effect is relatively small and that there’s a doubling of the risk of a kid who plays violent games to be sent to the principal’s office during a eight month period. They state that they have controlled for other factors.

But the study has not done the most important work: a comparison between the effects of violent video games (which are relatively poorly defined) with other video game types, other kinds of media and maybe even exposure to violent speech or violent behavior by other people. If the risk associated with the video games remains higher then we need to have a conversation about the way we can limit exposure or the way sale can be curbed to make sure that the most vulnerable people are not affected by violence.

If the link between violent videogames and violent behavior is similar to that between violent movies and violent behavior then we need to have an even wider analysis of how violence permeates society and what are the ways to eliminate it when it comes to those that can be influenced (what ages? what backgrounds? which kinds of exposures?).