Only a small portion of the regulations-Article 18-contains information on spending limits. I truly don't have the time or energy to translate everything and provide context for why things weren't as they seemed. The draft of the proposed regulations is 27 pages long. Most were simply cheering without even knowing the context at all. We've had classic silly threads like 'The Chinese government is pro-feminist because the CCP forbade Genshin from showing too much skin,' and the same thing happens this time. I'm willing to believe that the Chinese government doesn't have good intentions for this, but I'm also not going to pretend that I suddenly think spending caps on gacha games are a bad idea when I already thought that spending caps on gacha games are something that should be pursued even before I clicked on this thread.

The design of gacha games is also often made to encourage players to spend more, so making the game unappealing is also fine if it targets that aspect of how the games are made. I don't have any problem with people paying money for a game they enjoy, even things like subscription models for games which are based on a constant stream of content, but this particular is distinctly unhealthy specifically because there's no barrier to spending unreasonable amounts and so the model should not be allowed to continue.

Click to shrink.I mean, I think to a certain degree that seems totally fine to me? The financial model is based on subsidizing a large amount of users using vulnerable people who will spend way more money than it safe.

No deposit casino extreme 2017 october