<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.
Due to your childish inability to understand logic and admit you are wrong, you have moved the goal posts.
You have now twisted the argument from "what constitutes gambling" to "what constitutes legally considered gambling".
I've said all along that there is a difference, but that never sinks in with you. Regulated gambling differs from country to country, i.e. gambling controlled by law. But the definition of what gambling is remains the same worldwide.
and again...if I have in my hand D&D Dice and I tell you if you pay me and roll an 11 I will say 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds'
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?
again, yes that is gambling, but it would be considered unregulated gambling in most countries.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
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.
Lol, dude, way to fuck up your own argument.
For days, you have been arguing that something can only be called gambling if the reward for winning has a monetary value. On this point, you are 100% wrong. Open up any dictionary, look up gambling and read the definition. It is very clear and obvious that you are wrong. The reward has nothing to do with whether it is gambling or not.
Now, you seem like you might finally be realising you are wrong, so you've changed your argument what constitutes gambling, to what constitutes legally controlled gambling.
So, what constitutes legally controlled gambling depends on what country you live in, but for most it does match what you are saying - legally controlled gambling is usually defined by a monetary reward. Belgium and the UK have already confirmed this months ago, and reiterated recently.
The discussion, the whole debate, is about whether more types of gambling, specifically lootboxes, should be legally controlled.
I like loot boxes. You achieve some goal and you get a little box....'ooooh, what's inside... Doh, I have that or woot, I wanted that.'. I enjoy the little thrill of a small goodie. Why is that so bad and why do so many get overly critical of them?
Can the mechanic be abused? Of course. Just like any other mechanic. However, when done right, I think they are A OK!
Done wrong and overly aggressively, then sure, I think they are a negative. Like all things on life, moderation is they key. This applies to both the developer AND players.
I like loot boxes. You achieve some goal and you get a little box....'ooooh, what's inside... Dog, have that or woot, I wanted that.'. I enjoy the little thrill of a small goodie. Why is that so bad and why do so many get overly critical of them?
You can achieve the same without paying real money for it. It is more about games being designed around loot box. For example games are made unnecessary more grindy to lure people to buy loot box. Or people being lured to buy loot box in order to compete with those massive spender on loot box.
Does it really matter whether loot boxes are technically gambling or not? Is anyone confused about what it does?
It matters because if it is gambling, there are laws already in place to regulate it.
If it is not, there are currently no laws regulating it, unless they add new laws to regulate it.
Now we are talking about LEGAL definition, not English definition. You know very well that legal definition is not about what the dictionary says, or any half-baked (or even fully baked) some random guy on the internet comes up with.
In fact, it almost does not matter what the legal definition is. It is about someone (like Belgium) will try to argue that it is, and a court has to rule.
The discussion, the whole debate, is about whether more types of gambling, specifically lootboxes, should be legally controlled.
I say no. If some whales want to dump his whole life savings into little digital things, it is not my problem.
Even Gambling is not controlled that well in many states (though it *is* regulated, of course) and while there are certainly some social problems, it is not bringing down the nation.
This is no different than alcohol, pot, or a long list of vice. You cannot really regulate all stupidity away. There are plenty of other ways people can make bad decisions. I am very much opposed to a nanny state.
Conventional wisdom in gaming circles is that loot boxes are very lucrative so players must be buying lots of them.
Let's leave the discussion of gambling and addiction for some other thread. I'm not interested in having that discussion again.
But I honesty do not get the appeal of loot boxes in games. To me they are at best something I can and do ignore when they're implemented in a mostly harmless way and at worst something that impacts the rest of the game in a negative way by redirecting the typical game rewards into those boxes.
I also don't want to discuss yet again in this thread whether games need to have loot boxes in order to make whatever profit they want to make.
But whenever a pro and con discussion about games that have loot boxes happens, there are always voices that object to their removal on the basis that they don't want others telling them what they enjoy or don't enjoy.
I can understand not caring whether they are there or not but I'm having a hard time understanding why from the perspective of the gamer, someone would actually prefer having them in the game.
So please explain it to me. If you actually like having loot boxes in games and would miss them if they're gone, why?
Loot boxes are not generally introduced because players ask for them (I am in the industry, and have never heard of them being specifically asked for by players). They are introduced by publishers as a way divide the cost of the (higher priced) chase items across multiple people/sales. However, that does not mean that players have not asked for the RESULTS that lootboxes bring.
The first, and most obvious is that it allows a player to get an item that they would otherwise not be able too. Players want items cheaper/faster/easier. Lootboxes bring a chance for this to happen, when it would not otherwise be possible. This is the same reason that loot drops are randomized.
The second (in games where lootbox items are tradeable) thing that it can bring is a large supply of the non chase items. This allows player economies to be fluid, and for common items to be available to all. In games where the items are not tradeable, but that lootboxes are available from means other than direct purchase, it also provides a steady flow of consumables and low value items to all players. This is again, a process that is very similar to the RNG used for loot drops.
The third is that it generally reduces the price of gameplay for those that do not use them (or use them very little). This allows customers to have cheap(er) more available games that they can play, because someone else pays the bills for them.
The results of having lootboxes are generally what players ask for, not the actual lootboxes themselves.
The discussion, the whole debate, is about whether more types of gambling, specifically lootboxes, should be legally controlled.
I say no. If some whales want to dump his whole life savings into little digital things, it is not my problem.
Even Gambling is not controlled that well in many states (though it *is* regulated, of course) and while there are certainly some social problems, it is not bringing down the nation.
This is no different than alcohol, pot, or a long list of vice. You cannot really regulate all stupidity away. There are plenty of other ways people can make bad decisions. I am very much opposed to a nanny state.
You've actually addressed the point of the discussion and given your own opinion! I can hardly believe my eyes! Well done narius!
I'm under no illusions that regulating paid-for-lootboxes would get rid of stupidity. The likely outcome of any new regulations would just be an age restriction that gets more strictly enforced than PEGI ratings. Adults would still be free to be as stupid as they wanted, it is just some minors that would get protected.
Does it really matter whether loot boxes are technically gambling or not? Is anyone confused about what it does?
It matters because if it is gambling, there are laws already in place to regulate it.
If it is not, there are currently no laws regulating it, unless they add new laws to regulate it.
Now we are talking about LEGAL definition, not English definition. You know very well that legal definition is not about what the dictionary says, or any half-baked (or even fully baked) some random guy on the internet comes up with.
In fact, it almost does not matter what the legal definition is. It is about someone (like Belgium) will try to argue that it is, and a court has to rule.
It does matter to some degree.
What matters is the LOGICAL definition and the extension of that logic.
So for example, if we say 'gambling is paying for RNG regardless of possible outcome' and that is bad and should be made illegal.
Ok...well that means you paying me money to roll dice and tell you 'your rouge just got +2 for 2 rounds' would be illegal. In fact, me rolling the dice with no promise of anything at all would be illegal.
So the definition has to stick with logic per ones objective.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
and again...if I have in my hand D&D Dice and I tell you if you pay me and roll an 11 I will say 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds'
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?
again, yes that is gambling, but it would be considered unregulated gambling in most countries.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
your not following the logic and your incredibly wrong.
By the arguements made here if you gave me money to roll dice. it should be illegal.
The outcome of that dice roll can be literally nothing...zip. no possiblity of an outcome, at all, just me saying nothing and rolling dice.
why? becaues 'your rouge has +2 for 2 rounds' IS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!! its imaginary.
The goverment is not about to start making such absurd laws about imaginary outcomes that have no value whatsoever in any context.
also...its really cute to use the arguement of 'well its still gambling but its unregulated' because that is completely and totally immaterial. We can have a debate over what the word foobar means all day long but if in the end the word has no material point or change of outcome then its just intellectual masterbation.
lets see if that makes sense to ANYONE
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
and again...if I have in my hand D&D Dice and I tell you if you pay me and roll an 11 I will say 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds'
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?
again, yes that is gambling, but it would be considered unregulated gambling in most countries.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
your not following the logic and your incredibly wrong.
By the arguements made here if you gave me money to roll dice. it should be illegal.
The outcome of that dice roll can be literally nothing...zip. no possiblity of an outcome, at all, just me saying nothing and rolling dice.
why? becaues 'your rouge has +2 for 2 rounds' IS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!! its imaginary.
The goverment is not about to start making such absurd laws about imaginary outcomes that have no value whatsoever in any context.
also...its really cute to use the arguement of 'well its still gambling but its unregulated' because that is completely and totally immaterial. We can have a debate over what the word foobar means all day long but if in the end the word has no material point or change of outcome then its just intellectual masterbation.
lets see if that makes sense to ANYONE
Lol, moving the goal posts again.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. That is you twisting others arguments.
Second, if I am just paying you money to roll the dice, that is not gambling. There is no chance involved. I am paying you to perform an action. I am guaranteed that you will roll the dice.
Third, differentiating between regulated and unregulated is important, since that what this entire discussion is about. I've tried explaining the reasoning behind why some is regulated and some isn't, but you are too stubborn to even attempt to understand it. I'll try again though, just in case!
Gambling, in-and-of-itself, is simply paying money for a chance. It is not inherently good or bad, that's just what it is. This is why gambling, in general, is unregulated.
Repeated gambling causes problems. There is a ton of scientific research and consensus that repeated gambling alters your brain chemistry in a negative way. It alters it in the same way that a drug-addicts brain is altered. This change in brain chemistry can then lead on to a variety of other issues.
Governments around the world have determined that gambling for money has a significant chance of leading to repeated gambling - participants are highly motivated to take part (they want the money) and the reward at the end is big enough to cause your brain to change (big dopamine release).
Thus, governments around the world regulate gambling for money. They have done this to safeguard minors from the harmful effects of repeat gambling whilst still allowing adults to be idiots.
The actual money involved is not relevant to the definition of gambling, it is simply the catalyst that leads to repeat gambling. So, this is where the lootbox debate comes in. Do paid-for-lootboxes cause the same harmful effects as gambling for money? Are developers encouraging children to engage in repeat gambling? Is getting a good item from a lootbox providing a similar feeling to winning money on a slot machine?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then paid-for-lootboxes need regulation.
I like loot boxes. You achieve some goal and you get a little box....'ooooh, what's inside... Dog, have that or woot, I wanted that.'. I enjoy the little thrill of a small goodie. Why is that so bad and why do so many get overly critical of them?
Can the mechanic be abused? Of course. Just like any other mechanic. However, when done right, I think they are A OK!
Done wrong and overly aggressively, then sure, I think they are a negative. Like all things on life, moderation is they key. This applies to both the developer and. AND players.
This is a great post and mostly how I feel about it. It's not that I particularly like them or want to focus on them, but I don't mind opening some occasionally. When I do get them I enjoy opening them.
ESO and SWL both have a decent loot crate interface. SWL lists what you can get in the window (no drop rates) and getting that stuff is fun. ESO has a cool tarot like card game.
I still stand by the opinion that predatory design practices supersede and predate loot crates by a good margin. I'm talking about RNG monetization, but also game time rental, both of which can easily become very predatory.
To answer the question why? Because the people that don't like them aren't winning the war of "don't play it". They don't play but others do and pay so the games are still being made. So they have an agenda to attack publishers and gamers they can't control and they're trying to do that through scare tactics to trigger government regulation. There is no evidence that any of this is problematic.
And you still ignore that RNG on mob drops and purchasing game time is monetizing what the hobby is for- time spent playing the game. Buying lootboxes for items is attempting to avoid spending time to get said item. It directly conflicts with what the point of video games are. It's incompatible with a hobby to simply purchase your way past time spent with the hobby. It's akin to someone claiming that the best way to go fishing is to hit the local supermarket and buy frozen fish.
and again...if I have in my hand D&D Dice and I tell you if you pay me and roll an 11 I will say 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds'
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?
again, yes that is gambling, but it would be considered unregulated gambling in most countries.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
your not following the logic and your incredibly wrong.
By the arguements made here if you gave me money to roll dice. it should be illegal.
The outcome of that dice roll can be literally nothing...zip. no possiblity of an outcome, at all, just me saying nothing and rolling dice.
why? becaues 'your rouge has +2 for 2 rounds' IS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!! its imaginary.
The goverment is not about to start making such absurd laws about imaginary outcomes that have no value whatsoever in any context.
also...its really cute to use the arguement of 'well its still gambling but its unregulated' because that is completely and totally immaterial. We can have a debate over what the word foobar means all day long but if in the end the word has no material point or change of outcome then its just intellectual masterbation.
lets see if that makes sense to ANYONE
Lol, moving the goal posts again.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. ....
that is also immaterial.
The same arguement applies if you want to regulate, make illegal, tax, or slightly begin rules ANYTHING that involves the law.
The reason is because its absurd to make any legal construct at all around the concept of you giving me money to roll dice for no reason whatsoever at all .
you have consitently avoided the very core point of my arguement which is the possible return of NOTHING WHATSOEVER is not only aburd make ANY legal construct around its also hardly damaging as an 'addiction'.
are you saying if I give an addict dice and empty room he will not become addicted, but if I charge him he will.
ZERO outcome of the dice roll. money makes it an addiction?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. That is you twisting others arguments.
Gambling is already illegal or regulated in 99% of the world. If lootboxes were gambling, they would fall under those rules. It is because they are NOT gambling, that they are not already illegal/regulated.
and again...if I have in my hand D&D Dice and I tell you if you pay me and roll an 11 I will say 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds'
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?
again, yes that is gambling, but it would be considered unregulated gambling in most countries.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
your not following the logic and your incredibly wrong.
By the arguements made here if you gave me money to roll dice. it should be illegal.
The outcome of that dice roll can be literally nothing...zip. no possiblity of an outcome, at all, just me saying nothing and rolling dice.
why? becaues 'your rouge has +2 for 2 rounds' IS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!! its imaginary.
The goverment is not about to start making such absurd laws about imaginary outcomes that have no value whatsoever in any context.
also...its really cute to use the arguement of 'well its still gambling but its unregulated' because that is completely and totally immaterial. We can have a debate over what the word foobar means all day long but if in the end the word has no material point or change of outcome then its just intellectual masterbation.
lets see if that makes sense to ANYONE
Lol, moving the goal posts again.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. ....
that is also immaterial.
The same arguement applies if you want to regulate, make illegal, tax, or slightly begin rules ANYTHING that involves the law.
The reason is because its absurd to make any legal construct at all around the concept of you giving me money to roll dice for no reason whatsoever at all .
you have consitently avoided the very core point of my arguement which is the possible return of NOTHING WHATSOEVER is not only aburd make ANY legal construct around its also hardly damaging as an 'addiction'.
are you saying if I give an addict dice and empty room he will not become addicted, but if I charge him he will.
ZERO outcome of the dice roll. money makes it an addiction?
A suitably good reward causes the brain to release dopamine which makes us feel good.
Regularly repeating the activity that causes the dopamine release causes changes in the way the brain works in a negative way.
So, lets look at your childish example: giving an addict some dice to play with. Whats the reward? Nothing. Therefore there is no dopamine release and repeatedly rolling the dice has no effect on your brain. Whether you charge money for it or allow them to do it for free doesn't matter - it is not gambling in the first place and there are no harmful effects.
Perhaps this is the bit you are missing: gambling is paying money for a chance at a reward. You seem to get hung up on the reward having to be monetary, now you're getting hung up on thinking that there doesn't need to be a reward at all. All this points to your inability to read as this has all been explained countless times in every thread on this subject.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. That is you twisting others arguments.
Gambling is already illegal or regulated in 99% of the world. If lootboxes were gambling, they would fall under those rules. It is because they are NOT gambling, that they are not already illegal/regulated.
Loot boxes are a niche that's in the process of going main stream to the masses. Now that it's been brought to the attention of the regulators, it will probably be regulated because that's what they love to do. Unless the big game companies develop strong lobbies to donate to politicians wars chests for helping them pass legislation that allow such things. You don't make billions without the government getting involved.
I don't buy loot boxes but did go through a short phase when I later realized it's better/cheaper to know what your buying in advance.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
and again...if I have in my hand D&D Dice and I tell you if you pay me and roll an 11 I will say 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds'
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?
again, yes that is gambling, but it would be considered unregulated gambling in most countries.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
your not following the logic and your incredibly wrong.
By the arguements made here if you gave me money to roll dice. it should be illegal.
The outcome of that dice roll can be literally nothing...zip. no possiblity of an outcome, at all, just me saying nothing and rolling dice.
why? becaues 'your rouge has +2 for 2 rounds' IS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!! its imaginary.
The goverment is not about to start making such absurd laws about imaginary outcomes that have no value whatsoever in any context.
also...its really cute to use the arguement of 'well its still gambling but its unregulated' because that is completely and totally immaterial. We can have a debate over what the word foobar means all day long but if in the end the word has no material point or change of outcome then its just intellectual masterbation.
lets see if that makes sense to ANYONE
Lol, moving the goal posts again.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. ....
that is also immaterial.
The same arguement applies if you want to regulate, make illegal, tax, or slightly begin rules ANYTHING that involves the law.
The reason is because its absurd to make any legal construct at all around the concept of you giving me money to roll dice for no reason whatsoever at all .
you have consitently avoided the very core point of my arguement which is the possible return of NOTHING WHATSOEVER is not only aburd make ANY legal construct around its also hardly damaging as an 'addiction'.
are you saying if I give an addict dice and empty room he will not become addicted, but if I charge him he will.
ZERO outcome of the dice roll. money makes it an addiction?
A suitably good reward causes the brain to release dopamine which makes us feel good.
.....
hello?
I am saying the possible return is LITERALLY NOTHING.
that is the whole cornerstone of my point.
if you can apply a legal instrument to 'your rouge get +2 for two rounds' as a return then you can also apply a legal instrument to NOTHING as a return. UNLESS you proove that 'your rouge gets +2 for two rounds' has value. If it does not have value then it is nothing.
Thus....by extension it would mean a legal instrument can be applied to you getting paid to roll the dice in an empty room by yourself with nothing as a return or possible return.
I keep saying this over and over again eventually you will get it.
you have to make the arguement that the words 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds' is not nothing. can you do that?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
and again...if I have in my hand D&D Dice and I tell you if you pay me and roll an 11 I will say 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds'
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?
again, yes that is gambling, but it would be considered unregulated gambling in most countries.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
your not following the logic and your incredibly wrong.
By the arguements made here if you gave me money to roll dice. it should be illegal.
The outcome of that dice roll can be literally nothing...zip. no possiblity of an outcome, at all, just me saying nothing and rolling dice.
why? becaues 'your rouge has +2 for 2 rounds' IS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!! its imaginary.
The goverment is not about to start making such absurd laws about imaginary outcomes that have no value whatsoever in any context.
also...its really cute to use the arguement of 'well its still gambling but its unregulated' because that is completely and totally immaterial. We can have a debate over what the word foobar means all day long but if in the end the word has no material point or change of outcome then its just intellectual masterbation.
lets see if that makes sense to ANYONE
Lol, moving the goal posts again.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. ....
that is also immaterial.
The same arguement applies if you want to regulate, make illegal, tax, or slightly begin rules ANYTHING that involves the law.
The reason is because its absurd to make any legal construct at all around the concept of you giving me money to roll dice for no reason whatsoever at all .
you have consitently avoided the very core point of my arguement which is the possible return of NOTHING WHATSOEVER is not only aburd make ANY legal construct around its also hardly damaging as an 'addiction'.
are you saying if I give an addict dice and empty room he will not become addicted, but if I charge him he will.
ZERO outcome of the dice roll. money makes it an addiction?
A suitably good reward causes the brain to release dopamine which makes us feel good.
.....
hello?
I am saying the possible return is LITERALLY NOTHING.
that is the whole cornerstone of my point.
if you can apply a legal instrument to 'your rouge get +2 for two rounds' as a return then you can also apply a legal instrument to NOTHING as a return. UNLESS you proove that 'your rouge gets +2 for two rounds' has value. If it does not have value then it is nothing.
Thus....by extension it would mean a legal instrument can be applied to you getting paid to roll the dice in an empty room by yourself with nothing as a return or possible return.
I keep saying this over and over again eventually you will get it.
you have to make the arguement that the words 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds' is not nothing. can you do that?
"Your ROGUE gets +2 for 2 rounds" is not nothing. I can make that argument. Because it's not nothing. It is something.
We've now regressed into logic a 3 year old could understand but you still struggle with.
and again...if I have in my hand D&D Dice and I tell you if you pay me and roll an 11 I will say 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds'
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?
again, yes that is gambling, but it would be considered unregulated gambling in most countries.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
your not following the logic and your incredibly wrong.
By the arguements made here if you gave me money to roll dice. it should be illegal.
The outcome of that dice roll can be literally nothing...zip. no possiblity of an outcome, at all, just me saying nothing and rolling dice.
why? becaues 'your rouge has +2 for 2 rounds' IS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!! its imaginary.
The goverment is not about to start making such absurd laws about imaginary outcomes that have no value whatsoever in any context.
also...its really cute to use the arguement of 'well its still gambling but its unregulated' because that is completely and totally immaterial. We can have a debate over what the word foobar means all day long but if in the end the word has no material point or change of outcome then its just intellectual masterbation.
lets see if that makes sense to ANYONE
Lol, moving the goal posts again.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. ....
that is also immaterial.
The same arguement applies if you want to regulate, make illegal, tax, or slightly begin rules ANYTHING that involves the law.
The reason is because its absurd to make any legal construct at all around the concept of you giving me money to roll dice for no reason whatsoever at all .
you have consitently avoided the very core point of my arguement which is the possible return of NOTHING WHATSOEVER is not only aburd make ANY legal construct around its also hardly damaging as an 'addiction'.
are you saying if I give an addict dice and empty room he will not become addicted, but if I charge him he will.
ZERO outcome of the dice roll. money makes it an addiction?
A suitably good reward causes the brain to release dopamine which makes us feel good.
.....
hello?
I am saying the possible return is LITERALLY NOTHING.
that is the whole cornerstone of my point.
if you can apply a legal instrument to 'your rouge get +2 for two rounds' as a return then you can also apply a legal instrument to NOTHING as a return. UNLESS you proove that 'your rouge gets +2 for two rounds' has value. If it does not have value then it is nothing.
Thus....by extension it would mean a legal instrument can be applied to you getting paid to roll the dice in an empty room by yourself with nothing as a return or possible return.
I keep saying this over and over again eventually you will get it.
you have to make the arguement that the words 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds' is not nothing. can you do that?
"Your ROGUE gets +2 for 2 rounds" is not nothing. I can make that argument. Because it's not nothing. It is something.
We've now regressed into logic a 3 year old could understand but you still struggle with.
finally catching on!
now...your standing in front of a judge, explain to him how the words 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds' and thus should have a legal construct around it just like anything else of value.
because as it stands, they are not going to take what is basically an imagination as remotely seriously as cash or a car.
your turn
Incidentally: I think the argument can be made too however you have to grasp how HUGE the concept is. to argue that ideas in a book, or rules in a game are 'something' in a context that legal instruments can be applied.
That is a HUGE statement socially much larger then people are aware because if it is something, then it can be owned. which means an idea can be owned like property which is already true in some cases but when we start to micro it...then it becomes tricky
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Now as I see it there are three main questions here
1. Is thought and imagination applied to a game....a something. Is it something that legal instruments can be applied. D&D in effect is really just 5 people talking with dice. are we saying that if money is involved in that, then we can legislate and regulate what is in essence...thought.
2. Gambling as it is written in the law itself I personally have issue with. RNG is a HUGE part of real life. Why isnt the stock market regulated in the same way as gambling? what about farming, there is a lot of economic RNG in farming. So I personally take issue with the existing laws aroung gambling HOWEVER, I do think the persuasive methods one might take to get someone to gamble can be question, but the act of gambling itself is part of life frankly.
3. EA is in general a shitty developer. They took a game they made in 2002 and just copied it and changed the skins for more than a decade. They never added any new features to a game from when the pentium was king. One can not via litegation and regulation turn a bad developer into a good developer.If you win this battle you have to keep in mind they are still the developer that WANTS to exploit you, so how focused are they going to be on making a good game in the first place? People need to get off the EA tit and find other games to play
so two separate things I hope we dont confuse all that
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. That is you twisting others arguments.
Gambling is already illegal or regulated in 99% of the world. If lootboxes were gambling, they would fall under those rules. It is because they are NOT gambling, that they are not already illegal/regulated.
Loot boxes are a niche that's in the process of going main stream to the masses. Now that it's been brought to the attention of the regulators, it will probably be regulated because that's what they love to do. Unless the big game companies develop strong lobbies to donate to politicians wars chests for helping them pass legislation that allow such things. You don't make billions without the government getting involved.
I don't buy loot boxes but did go through a short phase when I later realized it's better/cheaper to know what your buying in advance.
Gambling (and related laws/regulations) are not something new. This has been around for thousands of years, and is something well codified in international and most national laws. This is why it is fairly easy to determine if something meets the legal definition of gambling. I cant just create a new game/contest and have it be exempt from the laws because they have not specifically defined that exact scenario.
Lootboxes have already been examined using legal standards, and have not been found to be gambling. This happened long before they were for sale, and has been re-examined multiple times since then. No lobby was ever needed to deal with this, because no laws needed to be changed.
Lootboxes being gambling, and lootboxes being regulated are not dependent on each other. It is only at the insistence of the uneducated masses that the two are linked, and by linking them, have prevented regulation to move forward. It is only the public creation, and insistence on beating on the gambling straw men that has delayed/impeded the reigning in of lootboxes.
I will outright admit that the industry feeds this strawman frenzy, because it has allowed them to be more aggressive without being exposed. It is only now that some wiser people have gotten worn down by the excess of this battle against the gambling strawman that they are looking at making changes, in order to avoid having to keep hearing the debate that they know is mute.
I've never liked the idea of RNG tied to a reward system. I've always felt that rewards should be a direct reflection of what ever you did to achieve that reward. Of course that's not without it's flaws too. DKP concepts originated from this idea but they created as many issues as they solved.
But loot boxes, no, they take things to a level that should never have been reached.
Comments
Does it really matter whether loot boxes are technically gambling or not? Is anyone confused about what it does?
If it is not, there are currently no laws regulating it, unless they add new laws to regulate it.
You have now twisted the argument from "what constitutes gambling" to "what constitutes legally considered gambling".
I've said all along that there is a difference, but that never sinks in with you. Regulated gambling differs from country to country, i.e. gambling controlled by law. But the definition of what gambling is remains the same worldwide.
It is unregulated in most countries because the reward is without monetary value. But it is still gambling, because you are paying money for a chance at a return.
This whole discussion is about whether paid-for-lootboxes (which are unregulated gambling) should become regulated. So there is first the ethical question - should we regulate them? You haven't weighed in on this at all, probably because you have no ethics.
The second question is how to regulate them - this becomes really tricky. As you have pointed out, there are loads of types of gambling out there that aren't regulated and it would be massively impractical to regulate every single type of gambling. So, how to we regulate lootboxes specifically without screwing over your local fundraising raffle?
For days, you have been arguing that something can only be called gambling if the reward for winning has a monetary value. On this point, you are 100% wrong. Open up any dictionary, look up gambling and read the definition. It is very clear and obvious that you are wrong. The reward has nothing to do with whether it is gambling or not.
Now, you seem like you might finally be realising you are wrong, so you've changed your argument what constitutes gambling, to what constitutes legally controlled gambling.
So, what constitutes legally controlled gambling depends on what country you live in, but for most it does match what you are saying - legally controlled gambling is usually defined by a monetary reward. Belgium and the UK have already confirmed this months ago, and reiterated recently.
The discussion, the whole debate, is about whether more types of gambling, specifically lootboxes, should be legally controlled.
Can the mechanic be abused? Of course. Just like any other mechanic. However, when done right, I think they are A OK!
Done wrong and overly aggressively, then sure, I think they are a negative. Like all things on life, moderation is they key. This applies to both the developer AND players.
I self identify as a monkey.
Now we are talking about LEGAL definition, not English definition. You know very well that legal definition is not about what the dictionary says, or any half-baked (or even fully baked) some random guy on the internet comes up with.
In fact, it almost does not matter what the legal definition is. It is about someone (like Belgium) will try to argue that it is, and a court has to rule.
I say no. If some whales want to dump his whole life savings into little digital things, it is not my problem.
Even Gambling is not controlled that well in many states (though it *is* regulated, of course) and while there are certainly some social problems, it is not bringing down the nation.
This is no different than alcohol, pot, or a long list of vice. You cannot really regulate all stupidity away. There are plenty of other ways people can make bad decisions. I am very much opposed to a nanny state.
The first, and most obvious is that it allows a player to get an item that they would otherwise not be able too. Players want items cheaper/faster/easier. Lootboxes bring a chance for this to happen, when it would not otherwise be possible. This is the same reason that loot drops are randomized.
The second (in games where lootbox items are tradeable) thing that it can bring is a large supply of the non chase items. This allows player economies to be fluid, and for common items to be available to all. In games where the items are not tradeable, but that lootboxes are available from means other than direct purchase, it also provides a steady flow of consumables and low value items to all players. This is again, a process that is very similar to the RNG used for loot drops.
The third is that it generally reduces the price of gameplay for those that do not use them (or use them very little). This allows customers to have cheap(er) more available games that they can play, because someone else pays the bills for them.
The results of having lootboxes are generally what players ask for, not the actual lootboxes themselves.
I'm under no illusions that regulating paid-for-lootboxes would get rid of stupidity. The likely outcome of any new regulations would just be an age restriction that gets more strictly enforced than PEGI ratings. Adults would still be free to be as stupid as they wanted, it is just some minors that would get protected.
What matters is the LOGICAL definition and the extension of that logic.
So for example, if we say 'gambling is paying for RNG regardless of possible outcome' and that is bad and should be made illegal.
Ok...well that means you paying me money to roll dice and tell you 'your rouge just got +2 for 2 rounds' would be illegal. In fact, me rolling the dice with no promise of anything at all would be illegal.
So the definition has to stick with logic per ones objective.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
By the arguements made here if you gave me money to roll dice. it should be illegal.
The outcome of that dice roll can be literally nothing...zip. no possiblity of an outcome, at all, just me saying nothing and rolling dice.
why? becaues 'your rouge has +2 for 2 rounds' IS NOT REAL!!!!!!!!!!!! its imaginary.
The goverment is not about to start making such absurd laws about imaginary outcomes that have no value whatsoever in any context.
also...its really cute to use the arguement of 'well its still gambling but its unregulated' because that is completely and totally immaterial. We can have a debate over what the word foobar means all day long but if in the end the word has no material point or change of outcome then its just intellectual masterbation.
lets see if that makes sense to ANYONE
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No one here is arguing to make gambling illegal. That is you twisting others arguments.
Second, if I am just paying you money to roll the dice, that is not gambling. There is no chance involved. I am paying you to perform an action. I am guaranteed that you will roll the dice.
Third, differentiating between regulated and unregulated is important, since that what this entire discussion is about. I've tried explaining the reasoning behind why some is regulated and some isn't, but you are too stubborn to even attempt to understand it. I'll try again though, just in case!
Gambling, in-and-of-itself, is simply paying money for a chance. It is not inherently good or bad, that's just what it is. This is why gambling, in general, is unregulated.
Repeated gambling causes problems. There is a ton of scientific research and consensus that repeated gambling alters your brain chemistry in a negative way. It alters it in the same way that a drug-addicts brain is altered. This change in brain chemistry can then lead on to a variety of other issues.
Governments around the world have determined that gambling for money has a significant chance of leading to repeated gambling - participants are highly motivated to take part (they want the money) and the reward at the end is big enough to cause your brain to change (big dopamine release).
Thus, governments around the world regulate gambling for money. They have done this to safeguard minors from the harmful effects of repeat gambling whilst still allowing adults to be idiots.
The actual money involved is not relevant to the definition of gambling, it is simply the catalyst that leads to repeat gambling. So, this is where the lootbox debate comes in. Do paid-for-lootboxes cause the same harmful effects as gambling for money? Are developers encouraging children to engage in repeat gambling? Is getting a good item from a lootbox providing a similar feeling to winning money on a slot machine?
If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then paid-for-lootboxes need regulation.
The same arguement applies if you want to regulate, make illegal, tax, or slightly begin rules ANYTHING that involves the law.
The reason is because its absurd to make any legal construct at all around the concept of you giving me money to roll dice for no reason whatsoever at all .
you have consitently avoided the very core point of my arguement which is the possible return of NOTHING WHATSOEVER is not only aburd make ANY legal construct around its also hardly damaging as an 'addiction'.
are you saying if I give an addict dice and empty room he will not become addicted, but if I charge him he will.
ZERO outcome of the dice roll. money makes it an addiction?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Regularly repeating the activity that causes the dopamine release causes changes in the way the brain works in a negative way.
So, lets look at your childish example: giving an addict some dice to play with. Whats the reward? Nothing. Therefore there is no dopamine release and repeatedly rolling the dice has no effect on your brain. Whether you charge money for it or allow them to do it for free doesn't matter - it is not gambling in the first place and there are no harmful effects.
Perhaps this is the bit you are missing: gambling is paying money for a chance at a reward. You seem to get hung up on the reward having to be monetary, now you're getting hung up on thinking that there doesn't need to be a reward at all. All this points to your inability to read as this has all been explained countless times in every thread on this subject.
I don't buy loot boxes but did go through a short phase when I later realized it's better/cheaper to know what your buying in advance.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I am saying the possible return is LITERALLY NOTHING.
that is the whole cornerstone of my point.
if you can apply a legal instrument to 'your rouge get +2 for two rounds' as a return then you can also apply a legal instrument to NOTHING as a return. UNLESS you proove that 'your rouge gets +2 for two rounds' has value. If it does not have value then it is nothing.
Thus....by extension it would mean a legal instrument can be applied to you getting paid to roll the dice in an empty room by yourself with nothing as a return or possible return.
I keep saying this over and over again eventually you will get it.
you have to make the arguement that the words 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds' is not nothing. can you do that?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
We've now regressed into logic a 3 year old could understand but you still struggle with.
now...your standing in front of a judge, explain to him how the words 'your rouge gets +2 for 2 rounds' and thus should have a legal construct around it just like anything else of value.
because as it stands, they are not going to take what is basically an imagination as remotely seriously as cash or a car.
your turn
Incidentally: I think the argument can be made too however you have to grasp how HUGE the concept is. to argue that ideas in a book, or rules in a game are 'something' in a context that legal instruments can be applied.
That is a HUGE statement socially much larger then people are aware because if it is something, then it can be owned. which means an idea can be owned like property which is already true in some cases but when we start to micro it...then it becomes tricky
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. Is thought and imagination applied to a game....a something. Is it something that legal instruments can be applied. D&D in effect is really just 5 people talking with dice. are we saying that if money is involved in that, then we can legislate and regulate what is in essence...thought.
2. Gambling as it is written in the law itself I personally have issue with. RNG is a HUGE part of real life. Why isnt the stock market regulated in the same way as gambling? what about farming, there is a lot of economic RNG in farming. So I personally take issue with the existing laws aroung gambling HOWEVER, I do think the persuasive methods one might take to get someone to gamble can be question, but the act of gambling itself is part of life frankly.
3. EA is in general a shitty developer. They took a game they made in 2002 and just copied it and changed the skins for more than a decade. They never added any new features to a game from when the pentium was king. One can not via litegation and regulation turn a bad developer into a good developer.If you win this battle you have to keep in mind they are still the developer that WANTS to exploit you, so how focused are they going to be on making a good game in the first place? People need to get off the EA tit and find other games to play
so two separate things I hope we dont confuse all that
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Lootboxes have already been examined using legal standards, and have not been found to be gambling. This happened long before they were for sale, and has been re-examined multiple times since then. No lobby was ever needed to deal with this, because no laws needed to be changed.
Lootboxes being gambling, and lootboxes being regulated are not dependent on each other. It is only at the insistence of the uneducated masses that the two are linked, and by linking them, have prevented regulation to move forward. It is only the public creation, and insistence on beating on the gambling straw men that has delayed/impeded the reigning in of lootboxes.
I will outright admit that the industry feeds this strawman frenzy, because it has allowed them to be more aggressive without being exposed. It is only now that some wiser people have gotten worn down by the excess of this battle against the gambling strawman that they are looking at making changes, in order to avoid having to keep hearing the debate that they know is mute.
But loot boxes, no, they take things to a level that should never have been reached.