are you absolutely positive that this is the definition and not just how you wish it would be?
paying money to go fishing...would be gambling just as much as paying money to maybe (catch a fish) i mean open a door
Your intentions are good... but you are a little off here. The reason why paying for fishing is not gambling isnt because the fish have no value (they do). It is because it is not deemed to be a game of chance.
Now a slot machine (or loot box) that returned fish for money would likely be considered gambling. Welcome to our new mackerel based economy.
Its not even that fishing is not deemed to be a game of chance.
When you pay to go fishing, you are not paying for the fish themselves. You are paying for the resources required to go fishing - access to a lake, use of a boat, hire of fishing rods, fishing licences etc. You get exactly what you pay for - the ability to fish.
are you absolutely positive that this is the definition and not just how you wish it would be?
paying money to go fishing...would be gambling just as much as paying money to maybe (catch a fish) i mean open a door
Your intentions are good... but you are a little off here. The reason why paying for fishing is not gambling isnt because the fish have no value (they do). It is because it is not deemed to be a game of chance.
Now a slot machine (or loot box) that returned fish for money would likely be considered gambling. Welcome to our new mackerel based economy.
Its not even that fishing is not deemed to be a game of chance.
When you pay to go fishing, you are not paying for the fish themselves. You are paying for the resources required to go fishing - access to a lake, use of a boat, hire of fishing rods, fishing licences etc. You get exactly what you pay for - the ability to fish.
'not deemed'..by who exactly?
I dont think you have really thought this thru a lot. That fishing example I came up within about 5 seconds. I am sure we can provide examples all day long, there can be TONS of examples.
Its hard to make the case that gambling doesnt require something of value to be a possible return. If you make the case that paying for RNG is it...full stop..nothing else required, that opens up a HUGE door in logic.
Think about it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
are you absolutely positive that this is the definition and not just how you wish it would be?
paying money to go fishing...would be gambling just as much as paying money to maybe (catch a fish) i mean open a door
Your intentions are good... but you are a little off here. The reason why paying for fishing is not gambling isnt because the fish have no value (they do). It is because it is not deemed to be a game of chance.
Now a slot machine (or loot box) that returned fish for money would likely be considered gambling. Welcome to our new mackerel based economy.
invert it then.
Postulation:
Any payment for RNG REGARDLESS of possible outcome is gambling.
ergo payment for RNG is gambling in ALL context.
Fishing is just one example I came up with in about 5 seconds, should we spend all day knocking down all of them?
Or maybe...just maybe....take the view that the UK and US takes which is VALUE has to be possible of exchange.
which incidently exact what was stated on this subject from the UK in one of the aritlces linked. I can look if desired
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Everyone knows who I'm talking about, so I don't have to name names. Either the person is a certified troll, psychologically unstable, or mentally challenged. There is no other excuse for that level of daft. None.
You can literally google the legal definition of gambling and it's black and white. The false equivalence I'm reading, is at the highest level of absurdity and it can only be met with a strong slap to the back of the head, or medications.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Everyone knows who I'm talking about, so I don't have to name names. Either the person is a certified troll, psychologically unstable, or mentally challenged. There is no other excuse for that level of daft. None.
You can literally google the legal definition of gambling and it's black and white. The false equivalence I'm reading, is at the highest level of absurdity and it can only be met with a strong slap to the back of the head, or medications.
get back on subject please or just dont post.
getting personal is a waste of time
the article on this subject of lootboxes LITERALLY stated 'black and white' that they feel monitary value needs to be possible as a reward.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
'According to the UK Gambling Commission, since the prizes unlocked in loot boxes are usable only in the games in which they're won, and can't be cashed-out, they don't fit the bill for "licensable gambling '
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well one way to look at it is that they can be fun, if done right. After all the entire MMO endgame is pretty much built on the same idea as loot boxes.. only these boxes fight back.
That is... click container and have the chance of getting something cool... even if you for the most get zilch.
Now the problem ofc is that it is hard to ignore the potential revenue that come from this... It is pretty much a money printing machine.. Low cost and massive return. And that is when it usually goes to shit.
For now a pretty good system can be found in Forza 7 (i say "for now" as they do not sell any money packs afaik) with the car crates. You either save up and buy the cars you like or you spin the wheel spending some of your in-game currency on lady luck. Sometimes you get a Veyron.. sometimes you get a Ford Fiesta...
Also we have to understand that between the "arcade" generation and the "mobile f2p" generation we are the odd one out.
I understand that parallels can be drawn comparing them to end game RNG loot systems. But do we actually like those too?
Personally I've always preferred the systems that give you tokens for doing that type of end-game content that you can then exchange for exactly what you want.
Not to mention placing RNG behind playing the game is not nearly the same as offering up direct RNG rolls for cash.
Well one way to look at it is that they can be fun, if done right. After all the entire MMO endgame is pretty much built on the same idea as loot boxes.. only these boxes fight back.
That is... click container and have the chance of getting something cool... even if you for the most get zilch.
Now the problem ofc is that it is hard to ignore the potential revenue that come from this... It is pretty much a money printing machine.. Low cost and massive return. And that is when it usually goes to shit.
For now a pretty good system can be found in Forza 7 (i say "for now" as they do not sell any money packs afaik) with the car crates. You either save up and buy the cars you like or you spin the wheel spending some of your in-game currency on lady luck. Sometimes you get a Veyron.. sometimes you get a Ford Fiesta...
Also we have to understand that between the "arcade" generation and the "mobile f2p" generation we are the odd one out.
I understand that parallels can be drawn comparing them to end game RNG loot systems. But do we actually like those too?
Personally I've always preferred the systems that give you tokens for doing that type of end-game content that you can then exchange for exactly what you want.
Not to mention placing RNG behind playing the game is not nearly the same as offering up direct RNG rolls for cash.
but you also cant litigate a bad developer choice into good developer choices
at somepoint one needs to leave SOMETHING to the market forces instead of regulating every single solitary possible design choice
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Gambling is for money or real life items that have monitary value. It would be really hard to argue with a judge that RNG lootbox of crafting materials is gambling but having your character scavange for the same thing is not.
predatory has specific meaning. its not WHAT is being sold its HOW its being sold that makes someting predatory.
basic elementary stuff here
/facepalm
Gambling is any time you spend money for a chance at a return. ....
jesus H christ you just described 100% of gathering in all games.
RNG is a very important part of ALL games, gambling from a legal standpoint has to be for something of monetary value. Not rolling your damn dice to figure out hitpoints.
Ever play D&D table top? hmmm?
Learn to read.
Gambling = PAYING MONEY for a CHANCE
The paying money bit is critical. I do not have to pay money every time I mine a node. I do not have to pay money every time my character attacks an enemy.
RNG = Chance Paying Money for RNG = gambling Paying Money for RNG with monetary return = regulated gambling
From Wikipedia
Gambling is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning money or material goods
As of yet, digital access to a door instead of a digital hat is not something that is universally agreed on as 'something of value', let alone a material good
because otherwise you just described paying money for a ticket to a football game in which the outcome can be random
Its not my definition. Its in the English dictionary.
And your ticket analogy is, as always, full of shit. When you buy a ticket to a football game, you are paying to watch the football game. You are getting a guaranteed return - being able to watch.
dude...you have to have a definition that clearly does NOT mean 'I bought a game (money) and it has RNG in it thus its gambling'
any definition that doesnt avoid that problem is bullshit for reasons that I should not have to explain but will. because it would mean ALL games are gambling.
its value in exchange for value. Can you make the case the the FDIC that winning a battle in a game is of value?
When I pay money for a game, the return is the game. Not a chance of the game, but the game. So, buying something that contains RNG is not gambling, never has been, never will be. What is being advertised (the game) is what you get (100% success rate of the purchase).
When I buy a lockbox, I have no idea what the return will be. I could get something awesome, I could get nothing. It is a gamble. I am directly paying money without knowing what I'll get in return.
I can't really say anything else about it without just straight up insulting you, so I'll just stop.
are you absolutely positive that this is the definition and not just how you wish it would be?
paying money to go fishing...would be gambling just as much as paying money to maybe (catch a fish) i mean open a door
No, it wouldn't. Paying money to engage in an activity that contains chance is not the same as gambling. Paying to enter a jousting tournament is not gambling. Paying to enter a flag football tournament is not gambling. Paying to enter a fishing tournament is not gambling. Those are competitions.
Your inability to reason logically is the issue here, not camel's assertion.
No, it wouldn't. Paying money to engage in an activity that contains chance is not the same as gambling. Paying to enter a jousting tournament is not gambling. Paying to enter a flag football tournament is not gambling. Paying to enter a fishing tournament is not gambling. Those are competitions.
Your inability to reason logically is the issue here, not camel's assertion.
what I am posutlating here is that for it to be gambling a return of VALUE is required to be possible.
---------now please read below very closely-----------------------------
UK GAMBLING COMMISSION DETERMINES LOOT BOXES AREN'T GAMBLING UNDER BRITISH LAW
and as a side note the law does not state thta 'paying for RNG' if its a 'put in context here' matters. It doesnt matter if the event is called a competition, a cookoff, a fund raiser or a circle jerk, ....or...wait for it...GAME. Paying for RNG in ANY context doesnt matter.
the dispute is over the return part of the equation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No, it wouldn't. Paying money to engage in an activity that contains chance is not the same as gambling. Paying to enter a jousting tournament is not gambling. Paying to enter a flag football tournament is not gambling. Paying to enter a fishing tournament is not gambling. Those are competitions.
Your inability to reason logically is the issue here, not camel's assertion.
what I am posutlating here is that for it to be gambling a return of VALUE is required to be possible.
---------now please read below very closely-----------------------------
UK GAMBLING COMMISSION DETERMINES LOOT BOXES AREN'T GAMBLING UNDER BRITISH LAW
and as a side note the law does not state thta 'paying for RNG' if its a 'put in context here' matters. It doesnt matter if the event is called a competition, a cookoff, a fund raiser or a circle jerk, ....or...wait for it...GAME. Paying for RNG in ANY context doesnt matter.
the dispute is over the return part of the
No, you attempted to twist @cameltosis point to try and make it seem absurd, and only succeeded in making yourself look ignorant. Even with that post, you ignore an operative word in the part you fucking quote.
Now you wanna try and ignore the original context on which I replied to move to another argument because you have no idea what you're even really talking about precisely 99% of the time, you just keep throwing shit out there until you beat someone over the head with so much senseless BS they quit responding and you call yourself the victor.
GG, this is why most folks only respond to your posts to let you know how irrelevant or misguided your posts are.
No, it wouldn't. Paying money to engage in an activity that contains chance is not the same as gambling. Paying to enter a jousting tournament is not gambling. Paying to enter a flag football tournament is not gambling. Paying to enter a fishing tournament is not gambling. Those are competitions.
Your inability to reason logically is the issue here, not camel's assertion.
what I am posutlating here is that for it to be gambling a return of VALUE is required to be possible.
---------now please read below very closely-----------------------------
UK GAMBLING COMMISSION DETERMINES LOOT BOXES AREN'T GAMBLING UNDER BRITISH LAW
and as a side note the law does not state thta 'paying for RNG' if its a 'put in context here' matters. It doesnt matter if the event is called a competition, a cookoff, a fund raiser or a circle jerk, ....or...wait for it...GAME. Paying for RNG in ANY context doesnt matter.
the dispute is over the return part of the
No, you attempted to twist @cameltosis point to try and make it seem absurd, and only succeeded in making yourself look ignorant. Even with that post, you ignore an operative word in the part you fucking quote.
Now you wanna try and ignore the original context on which I replied to move to another argument because you have no idea what you're even really talking about precisely 99% of the time, you just keep throwing shit out there until you beat someone over the head with so much senseless BS they quit responding and you call yourself the victor.
GG, this is why most folks only respond to your posts to let you know how irrelevant or misguided your posts are.
your missing the point.
Not sure why this is so hard
ME: Gambling needs something of value to be possible as a return cameltosis: Gambling does not need something of value to be returned
can we just focus on getting that part understood? The law says you cant just have payment for RNG with nothing of value to return as a possible. The reason is because most of life is fucking RNG for christ sake! you cant go around saying people who are paying to have access to somethign that is RNG is illegal. it is (as the law states) a value return that is required as part of the equation.
Now once we get that remedial part understood we can then talk about the question of what is and is not value and how do we as a society determine it.
but right now we havent even gotten the class out of basics 101 yet
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
<sigh> since calling a spade a spade in this instance would only result in your reporting me, I'll just chuckle at your willful lack of understanding, for lack of a better term, and leave it at that.
<sigh> since calling a spade a spade in this instance would only result in your reporting me, I'll just chuckle at your willful lack of understanding, for lack of a better term, and leave it at that.
I would LOVE to take this conversation to the next level of the very intresting question of how society determines value but first I need to get some agreement.
--------------------READ HERE
ME: Gambling needs something of value to be possible as a return cameltosis: Gambling does not need something of value to be returned
--------------------END HERE
do you agree with me or cameltosis on ONLY what I wrote above between the words READ HERE and END HERE or do you disagree with me and the UK and US law around gambling?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
'According to the UK Gambling Commission, since the prizes unlocked in loot boxes are usable only in the games in which they're won, and can't be cashed-out, they don't fit the bill for "licensable gambling '
'According to the UK Gambling Commission, since the prizes unlocked in loot boxes are usable only in the games in which they're won, and can't be cashed-out, they don't fit the bill for "licensable gambling '
For now, that will take time to change.
the reason it is not 'paying RNG for anything even things of no value' is this
literally 'nothing' as in Null can qualify as 'no value' thus paying someone to roll dice for absolutely no reason with no desired outcome would be considered 'gambling'. So it really has to have a value. The next question is how do you measure value in this context.
that is a problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
'According to the UK Gambling Commission, since the prizes unlocked in loot boxes are usable only in the games in which they're won, and can't be cashed-out, they don't fit the bill for "licensable gambling '
For now, that will take time to change.
the reason it is not 'paying RNG for anything even things of no value' is this
literally 'nothing' as in Null can qualify as 'no value' thus paying someone to roll dice for absolutely no reason with no desired outcome would be considered 'gambling'. So it really has to have a value. The next question is how do you measure value in this context.
that is a problem
Actually that's not a problem at all. You can measure the value of digital items by the price and rarity to obtain them.
Also if I sit here rolling dice for no reason and tell my friends I was gambling all night they would look at me like I was a moron. Rolling dice for no reason is not gambling, there needs to be a wager.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
'According to the UK Gambling Commission, since the prizes unlocked in loot boxes are usable only in the games in which they're won, and can't be cashed-out, they don't fit the bill for "licensable gambling '
For now, that will take time to change.
the reason it is not 'paying RNG for anything even things of no value' is this
literally 'nothing' as in Null can qualify as 'no value' thus paying someone to roll dice for absolutely no reason with no desired outcome would be considered 'gambling'. So it really has to have a value. The next question is how do you measure value in this context.
that is a problem
Actually that's not a problem at all. You can measure the value of digital items by the price and rarity to obtain them.
Also if I sit here rolling dice for no reason and tell my friends I was gambling all night they would look at me like I was a moron. Rolling dice for no reason is not gambling, there needs to be a wager.
now your getting it! finally we can get to interesting part of the conversation.
So we agree something has to have value...ok fair enough.
For example, if your playing D&D and you pay me to roll dice and if you get 11 i say 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' ok..well is the statement of 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' of value? how do you measure that? its just random words. ok, well its words in the context of what? well a made up rule set.
so you see where it gets tricky? a game is purely imaginary, everthing you 'win' at the RNG in a video game or a board game is pure fiction....or is it?
we place value on vanity? we even have dollar amounts for it. Porche can charge more for a purse because it has the word Porche on it. How different is that from a rouge +2.
Not saying I have the answers I am saying its not a easy simple equation when its something that is not money or physical material.
see?
this is why the courts made the decision they did because that kind of value is unresolved from a legal standpoint.
The future as I see it is that digital virtual items WILL have a recognized legal value, we are not far from that and in the legal world I would imagine its a very intresting and exciting topic, but for now its not enough to take it to the level of gambling
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
<sigh> since calling a spade a spade in this instance would only result in your reporting me, I'll just chuckle at your willful lack of understanding, for lack of a better term, and leave it at that.
I would LOVE to take this conversation to the next level of the very intresting question of how society determines value but first I need to get some agreement.
--------------------READ HERE
ME: Gambling needs something of value to be possible as a return cameltosis: Gambling does not need something of value to be returned
--------------------END HERE
do you agree with me or cameltosis on ONLY what I wrote above between the words READ HERE and END HERE or do you disagree with me and the UK and US law around gambling?
----------READ HERE
You're completely missing camel's point, and it's obvious at this point you either lack the acuity to understand the (relatively easy to understand) nuance of his position, or you're just trolling by moving goalposts around as your normally do.
<sigh> since calling a spade a spade in this instance would only result in your reporting me, I'll just chuckle at your willful lack of understanding, for lack of a better term, and leave it at that.
I would LOVE to take this conversation to the next level of the very intresting question of how society determines value but first I need to get some agreement.
--------------------READ HERE
ME: Gambling needs something of value to be possible as a return cameltosis: Gambling does not need something of value to be returned
--------------------END HERE
do you agree with me or cameltosis on ONLY what I wrote above between the words READ HERE and END HERE or do you disagree with me and the UK and US law around gambling?
----------READ HERE
You're completely missing camel's point, and it's obvious at this point you either lack the acuity to understand the (relatively easy to understand) nuance of his position, or you're just trolling by moving goalposts around as your normally do.
-----------END HERE
answer me this:
Do you believe that something can be legally considered gambling even if its not possible for it to return anything of value?
yes
or
no
i dont care about anything else from you...nothing, so side points, or obfucated conversation just a yes or no or stop replying.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Nothing in my gaming rotation has them. I simply decided I'd rather play co-op games like Divinity OS 2 and the like than get bogged down in games with piecemeal offerings. I haven't touched an MMORPG in ages it feels... IN turn I have a lot more fun gaming than I have in quite a few years.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Nothing in my gaming rotation has them. I simply decided I'd rather play co-op games like Divinity OS 2 and the like than get bogged down in games with piecemeal offerings. I haven't touched an MMORPG in ages it feels... IN turn I have a lot more fun gaming than I have in quite a few years.
yes and that touches on my other set of points.
One can not expect to litigate a bad developer into making good games. Its better to just be open minded and find games that are...well...basically good instead of bad to be completely frank.
I mean games like Star wars battlefront to anyone who is not blind it very literally an exact copy of BF but with different skins, falling for that shit right off the bat means one is going to be suckered.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
<sigh> since calling a spade a spade in this instance would only result in your reporting me, I'll just chuckle at your willful lack of understanding, for lack of a better term, and leave it at that.
I would LOVE to take this conversation to the next level of the very intresting question of how society determines value but first I need to get some agreement.
--------------------READ HERE
ME: Gambling needs something of value to be possible as a return cameltosis: Gambling does not need something of value to be returned
--------------------END HERE
do you agree with me or cameltosis on ONLY what I wrote above between the words READ HERE and END HERE or do you disagree with me and the UK and US law around gambling?
----------READ HERE
You're completely missing camel's point, and it's obvious at this point you either lack the acuity to understand the (relatively easy to understand) nuance of his position, or you're just trolling by moving goalposts around as your normally do.
-----------END HERE
answer me this:
Do you believe that something can be legally considered gambling even if its not possible for it to return anything of value?
yes
or
no
i dont care about anything else from you...nothing, so side points, or obfucated conversation just a yes or no or stop replying.
And, quite frankly, I don't give a shit to answer your question to entertain more drivel from you.
You fail to understand, and you're flipping out to move the goalposts to something you can understand. Sucks to suck.
Do you believe that something can be legally considered gambling even if its not possible for it to return anything of value?
yes
or
no
i dont care about anything else from you...nothing, so side points, or obfucated conversation just a yes or no or stop replying.
And, quite frankly, I don't give a shit to answer your question to entertain more drivel from you.
You fail to understand, and you're flipping out to move the goalposts to something you can understand. Sucks to suck.
Do you believe that something can be legally considered gambling even if its not possible for it to return anything of value? yes or no.
its been my point for days now, its all i have talked about on this thread best I can recall, its been 100% of my essence, my point, my discussion, my obsession anything other than that is a distraction.
are you trying to say others successfully lured me away from my point and now I am not address that non-point I was making.
This is all I am about...my hyper focus. only until this is understood can I take you to the next level.
Do you believe that something can be legally considered gambling even if its not possible for it to return anything of value? yes or no.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
When you pay to go fishing, you are not paying for the fish themselves. You are paying for the resources required to go fishing - access to a lake, use of a boat, hire of fishing rods, fishing licences etc. You get exactly what you pay for - the ability to fish.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Postulation: Any payment for RNG REGARDLESS of possible outcome is gambling. ergo payment for RNG is gambling in ALL context.
Fishing is just one example I came up with in about 5 seconds, should we spend all day knocking down all of them?
Or maybe...just maybe....take the view that the UK and US takes which is VALUE has to be possible of exchange.
which incidently exact what was stated on this subject from the UK in one of the aritlces linked. I can look if desired
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You can literally google the legal definition of gambling and it's black and white. The false equivalence I'm reading, is at the highest level of absurdity and it can only be met with a strong slap to the back of the head, or medications.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
getting personal is a waste of time
the article on this subject of lootboxes LITERALLY stated 'black and white' that they feel monitary value needs to be possible as a reward.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
UK GAMBLING COMMISSION DETERMINES LOOT BOXES AREN'T GAMBLING UNDER BRITISH LAW
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/25/uk-gambling-commission-determines-loot-boxes-arent-gambling-under-british-law
'According to the UK Gambling Commission, since the prizes unlocked in loot boxes are usable only in the games in which they're won, and can't be cashed-out, they don't fit the bill for "licensable gambling '
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
at somepoint one needs to leave SOMETHING to the market forces instead of regulating every single solitary possible design choice
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Your inability to reason logically is the issue here, not camel's assertion.
---------now please read below very closely-----------------------------
UK GAMBLING COMMISSION DETERMINES LOOT BOXES AREN'T GAMBLING UNDER BRITISH LAW
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/11/25/uk-gambling-commission-determines-loot-boxes-arent-gambling-under-british-law
'According to the UK Gambling Commission, since the prizes unlocked in loot boxes are usable only in the games in which they're won, and can't be cashed-out, they don't fit the bill for "licensable gambling '
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469967/why-would-you-want-loot-boxes-in-your-games/p5#ue04wSFaSTBGlkrH.99
and as a side note the law does not state thta 'paying for RNG' if its a 'put in context here' matters. It doesnt matter if the event is called a competition, a cookoff, a fund raiser or a circle jerk, ....or...wait for it...GAME. Paying for RNG in ANY context doesnt matter.
the dispute is over the return part of the equation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Now you wanna try and ignore the original context on which I replied to move to another argument because you have no idea what you're even really talking about precisely 99% of the time, you just keep throwing shit out there until you beat someone over the head with so much senseless BS they quit responding and you call yourself the victor.
GG, this is why most folks only respond to your posts to let you know how irrelevant or misguided your posts are.
Not sure why this is so hard
ME: Gambling needs something of value to be possible as a return
cameltosis: Gambling does not need something of value to be returned
can we just focus on getting that part understood? The law says you cant just have payment for RNG with nothing of value to return as a possible. The reason is because most of life is fucking RNG for christ sake! you cant go around saying people who are paying to have access to somethign that is RNG is illegal. it is (as the law states) a value return that is required as part of the equation.
Now once we get that remedial part understood we can then talk about the question of what is and is not value and how do we as a society determine it.
but right now we havent even gotten the class out of basics 101 yet
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
--------------------READ HERE
ME: Gambling needs something of value to be possible as a return
cameltosis: Gambling does not need something of value to be returned
--------------------END HERE
do you agree with me or cameltosis on ONLY what I wrote above between the words READ HERE and END HERE or do you disagree with me and the UK and US law around gambling?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For now, that will take time to change.
literally 'nothing' as in Null can qualify as 'no value' thus paying someone to roll dice for absolutely no reason with no desired outcome would be considered 'gambling'. So it really has to have a value. The next question is how do you measure value in this context.
that is a problem
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Also if I sit here rolling dice for no reason and tell my friends I was gambling all night they would look at me like I was a moron. Rolling dice for no reason is not gambling, there needs to be a wager.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/So we agree something has to have value...ok fair enough.
For example, if your playing D&D and you pay me to roll dice and if you get 11 i say 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' ok..well is the statement of 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' of value? how do you measure that? its just random words. ok, well its words in the context of what? well a made up rule set.
so you see where it gets tricky? a game is purely imaginary, everthing you 'win' at the RNG in a video game or a board game is pure fiction....or is it?
we place value on vanity? we even have dollar amounts for it. Porche can charge more for a purse because it has the word Porche on it. How different is that from a rouge +2.
Not saying I have the answers I am saying its not a easy simple equation when its something that is not money or physical material.
see?
this is why the courts made the decision they did because that kind of value is unresolved from a legal standpoint.
The future as I see it is that digital virtual items WILL have a recognized legal value, we are not far from that and in the legal world I would imagine its a very intresting and exciting topic, but for now its not enough to take it to the level of gambling
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You're completely missing camel's point, and it's obvious at this point you either lack the acuity to understand the (relatively easy to understand) nuance of his position, or you're just trolling by moving goalposts around as your normally do.
-----------END HERE
Do you believe that something can be legally considered gambling even if its not possible for it to return anything of value?
yes
or
no
i dont care about anything else from you...nothing, so side points, or obfucated conversation just a yes or no or stop replying.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
One can not expect to litigate a bad developer into making good games. Its better to just be open minded and find games that are...well...basically good instead of bad to be completely frank.
I mean games like Star wars battlefront to anyone who is not blind it very literally an exact copy of BF but with different skins, falling for that shit right off the bat means one is going to be suckered.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You fail to understand, and you're flipping out to move the goalposts to something you can understand. Sucks to suck.
yes or no.
its been my point for days now, its all i have talked about on this thread best I can recall, its been 100% of my essence, my point, my discussion, my obsession anything other than that is a distraction.
are you trying to say others successfully lured me away from my point and now I am not address that non-point I was making.
This is all I am about...my hyper focus. only until this is understood can I take you to the next level.
Do you believe that something can be legally considered gambling even if its not possible for it to return anything of value?
yes or no.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
is that gambling? if it is, is the words 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds' has value? now how do you measure that in a legal sense?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me