Err, you're aware bartenders may be liable when serving alcohol to visibly overintoxicated patrons, right?

But for the record:

If I have a restaurant and some food addict weighing 900 lbs eats there every day, am I responsible for his addiction. Of course not.

There are many who say restaurants, especially fast food ones, are partially responsible for the obesity crisis.

If someone keeps ordering unhealthy amounts of food, the right thing to do is to refuse to serve more.

You can't hold others responsible for your weakness.

This argument is dumb. Should we remove laws that hold me responsible for your weakness against getting stabbed when I stab you?

Laws exist to protect the weak.

You can't justify making others pay because some idiot is a salty neckbeard.

I'm offended.

Firstly: whales are not salty neckbeards. You clearly have no grasp on how addiction and lack of social interaction affect eachother if you think so.

Secondly: Removing lootboxes is making you pay? I hope this means that you're an investor who owns large amounts of stock of video game publishers.

Because otherwise, get out. Loot boxes are in no way a benefit to the consumer. Even the notion is ludicrous.

But that is even being generous and assuming you ment loot boxes, because I was talking about whales.

Games that depend on whales for any sizeable portion of their revenue don't deserve to exist. Their monetization model is a cancer and plenty of mobile developers avoid it like the plague, proving mobile games do not depend on it. There is no debate to be had.