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.
I heard a lecture about the core aspects of a game. It was boiled down that two aspects involve all good games.
One is ability for the players to test out different methods. The arguement is that a game is a simulation of choices to test out outcomes. The other aspect is...RNG.
reason is life is RNG, so you want to test your options against RNG. This is why I have a lot of problems with the arguments against gambling. LIFE itself is a great deal about RNG
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There is a wiki on loot box. I read China actually required company to post drop rate and forbid the selling of loot box directly.
I personally don't think loot box would be regulated simply because it is too niche of a problem. There seemed to be growing concern only because lootbox become more mainstream. But it still don't seemed like a significant enough problem government would try to regulate it.
I remember when loot boxes were regular drops that were free. Then someone came up with the idea of locked loot boxes that you could buy keys for. Then why not just sell special loot boxes outright. Next someone came up with the idea of selling loot boxes that made progression faster and people stronger in PvP. There is a growth to this thing that has led to cry's for regulation.
The loot box of yesterday is not the loot box of today. Of course companies won't like it because no one likes to see a potential source of income that is doing well be reduced through regulation. I would probably be all for loot boxes if those sales affected my bonus.
"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 remember when loot boxes were regular drops that were free. Then someone came up with the idea of locked loot boxes that you could buy keys for. Then why not just sell special loot boxes outright. Next someone came up with the idea of selling loot boxes that made progression faster and people stronger in PvP. There is a growth to this thing that has led to cry's for regulation.
The loot box of yesterday is not the loot box of today. Of course companies won't like it because no one likes to see a potential source of income that is doing well be reduced through regulation. I would probably be all for loot boxes if those sales affected my bonus.
and here is the thing to think about.
literally NONE of those strategies exist in any of the games I play personally.
I think the main problem is people being basically brainwashed into thinking that there are only certain games that are consider possible options to play and for people who fall for that shit, the exploiters are ready
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There is a wiki on loot box. I read China actually required company to post drop rate and forbid the selling of loot box directly.
I personally don't think loot box would be regulated simply because it is too niche of a problem. There seemed to be growing concern only because lootbox become more mainstream. But it still don't seemed like a significant enough problem government would try to regulate it.
China made it legally required to post the drop rate for loot boxes that are sold. Overwatch was the first game to circumvent this by giving them away for free... with purchase of in game currency:
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.
You're speaking to the legal definition, which is stricter than the accepted English definition, which is part of camel's point.
The legal definition is written that way to specify certain types of gambling that the law feels should be legally regulated. As you have said, legally regulated gambling does require real money value rewards and the possibility of winning nothing. Gambling in its basic form does not, however. It simply requires taking a risk at a chance for a desired results.
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.
You're speaking to the legal definition, which is stricter than the accepted English definition, which is part of camel's point.
The legal definition is written that way to specify certain types of gambling that the law feels should be legally regulated. As you have said, legally regulated gambling does require real money value rewards and the possibility of winning nothing. Gambling in its basic form does not, however. It simply requires taking a risk at a chance for a desired results.
but isnt it rather a mute point.
ok...so the english definition of gambling means something that in part (specifically things we are talking about here) can not be regulated ok then! now its just semantics and it can not be regulated for the reason I have described regardless of what you call it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I've bought a lot of things before, but never a loot box. But I have read from many people that buy them. Maybe they just have that kind of money to burn.
So please explain it to me. If you actually like having loot boxes in games and would miss them if they're gone, why?
Because whales buy them, and we can free ride?
You don't honestly think I will buy them, do you?
ha! That money is pure profit right in the executives pocket. That game isn't free because of whales. After all, they can pay. Its free to bring in the sheep so the whales have someone to conquer.
So please explain it to me. If you actually like having loot boxes in games and would miss them if they're gone, why?
Because whales buy them, and we can free ride?
You don't honestly think I will buy them, do you?
ha! That money is pure profit right in the executives pocket. That game isn't free because of whales. After all, they can pay. Its free to bring in the sheep so the whales have someone to conquer.
hmm .. how is it not free when i play nothing and have fun? Don't tell me you count my electricity bill.
And how does someone "conquer" me when i am playing a PvE game like warframe? In fact, how can anyone even interact with me if I play solo?
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
I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea how to go about legislating paid-for-lootboxes!
But, that doesn't matter, that is what governments and lawyers are for. They will work out the legal construct, not me.
The core point, which you still ignore, is that repeated gambling leads to problems. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling, but unregulated. So, we are exposing children and adults to something that as a society we have already deemed to be harmful, without warning them or trying to protect them, simply because of semantics.
You still seem to be getting hung up on assigning some sort of monetary or numeric value to the reward for gambling, and now you're introducing the idea of possession. Why? It still doesn't matter. The only thing that matters, in the context of determining the potential harm, is what winning that reward means to the gambler.
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.
You're speaking to the legal definition, which is stricter than the accepted English definition, which is part of camel's point.
The legal definition is written that way to specify certain types of gambling that the law feels should be legally regulated. As you have said, legally regulated gambling does require real money value rewards and the possibility of winning nothing. Gambling in its basic form does not, however. It simply requires taking a risk at a chance for a desired results.
but isnt it rather a mute point.
ok...so the english definition of gambling means something that in part (specifically things we are talking about here) can not be regulated ok then! now its just semantics and it can not be regulated for the reason I have described regardless of what you call it
Uggh, learn to read.
I've bolded the part of your reply that is retarded. You've twisted words again. Did you fail English at school? Have you even finished school?
The english definition of gambling is PAYING MONEY FOR A CHANCE AT A REWARD.
Where in that definition does it say anything about regulation? In English law, it states that only gambling where the reward is monetary is regulated. Again, that doesn't mean other stuff can't be regulated, regulations change all the time! It just means other forms of gambling are not currently regulated.
I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea how to go about legislating paid-for-lootboxes!
But, that doesn't matter, that is what governments and lawyers are for. They will work out the legal construct, not me.
The core point, which you still ignore, is that repeated gambling leads to problems. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling, but unregulated. So, we are exposing children and adults to something that as a society we have already deemed to be harmful, without warning them or trying to protect them, simply because of semantics.
You still seem to be getting hung up on assigning some sort of monetary or numeric value to the reward for gambling, and now you're introducing the idea of possession. Why? It still doesn't matter. The only thing that matters, in the context of determining the potential harm, is what winning that reward means to the gambler.
your talking about something different from what I am talking about.
You want to talk about gambling as an addiction which I think is horeshit but I am not even talking about that.
What I am talking about is for gambling to work...for it to be ever 'addictive' it HAS to have the chance of getting something of value in return.
If you can not make the case that the words 'your rouge gets a +2 for the next two rounds' is of value to someone who is not a gamer then its fucking useless.
its nothing.....gambling for the 100% chance of nothing in return cant remotely be addictive.
what you dont understand is that LIFE is gambling. Stock market is gambling, buying trading cards is gambling, fucking farming is gambling.
RNG is a very large part of life
and to say 'well yeah trading cards would not be addictive if money was not involved in the purchse' is absurd.
not to mention farmers every year have no idea how much money they are getting with the crops which they...spent money on..
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
Here's another aspect of it. In the end, the consumer gets nothing. The publisher retains all ownership of all digital content. Your accounts, Your character, Your character's inventory everything. You do not own anything in those loot boxes. When (not if) the publisher eventually pulls the plug on the game, or if you lose your account, if you get banned, whatever, if you stop playing the game, you don't get to take your "reward" to your next game. But you bought it right?
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
Here's another aspect of it. In the end, the consumer gets nothing. The publisher retains all ownership of all digital content. Your accounts, Your character, Your character's inventory everything. You do not own anything in those loot boxes. When (not if) the publisher eventually pulls the plug on the game, or if you lose your account, if you get banned, whatever, if you stop playing the game, you don't get to take your "reward" to your next game. But you bought it right?
or did you really buy an 'experience'
you have to remember its hard for anyone outside of gaming to remotely understand that a 'virtual item' is real. If the argument can be made (and people claim they can do it but havent actually done it) that fictional virtual items are 'real' then they might have some traction to regulate it. Its a bit like a novel, yeah the ink is real, but the description of the bookcase in the novel doesnt make the bookcase real..its still only a reference to an imagination.
That said, I personally hold two positions regarding gambling. 1. I dont think gambling itself should be regulated at all in any context, I think advertising for gambling should and 2. the bottom line is if a developer is making bad design choices you cant force them to make good ones, only to NOT make bad ones. so best find other games.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
Here's another aspect of it. In the end, the consumer gets nothing. The publisher retains all ownership of all digital content. Your accounts, Your character, Your character's inventory everything. You do not own anything in those loot boxes. When (not if) the publisher eventually pulls the plug on the game, or if you lose your account, if you get banned, whatever, if you stop playing the game, you don't get to take your "reward" to your next game. But you bought it right?
When talking about mmorpgs you don't buy the game. You buy a temporary right to use the game. The software you download or have a disc for is irrelevant, you still need to log into the server to actually access the game. The EULA states you are entering into a right of use agreement, not a purchase.
There is a difference between online games and non-online games.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
Here's another aspect of it. In the end, the consumer gets nothing. The publisher retains all ownership of all digital content. Your accounts, Your character, Your character's inventory everything. You do not own anything in those loot boxes. When (not if) the publisher eventually pulls the plug on the game, or if you lose your account, if you get banned, whatever, if you stop playing the game, you don't get to take your "reward" to your next game. But you bought it right?
When talking about mmorpgs you don't buy the game. You buy a temporary right to use the game. The software you download or have a disc for is irrelevant, you still need to log into the server to actually access the game. The EULA states you are entering into a right of use agreement, not a purchase.
There is a difference between online games and non-online games.
yeah I think it is considered purchasing an experience rather than a thing when it comes to loot items
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
uggh, failed logic again.
Nothing, ever, has value without context.
Money has no value if you live in a society without money. A car has no value if you live on the moon. A holiday trip has no value if you can't leave the country.
Value is always contextual.
(Also, glad to see you've changed your argument again, we're now back to value - which was my argument - instead of you insisting on it being monetary).
So, an in game bonus has value to the gamer. It does not matter that it doesn't have value for non-gamers. Context. I know that is probably too complicated for you to understand, but please try.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
uggh, failed logic again.
Nothing, ever, has value without context.
Money has no value if you live in a society without money. A car has no value if you live on the moon. A holiday trip has no value if you can't leave the country.
Value is always contextual.
(Also, glad to see you've changed your argument again, we're now back to value - which was my argument - instead of you insisting on it being monetary).
So, an in game bonus has value to the gamer. It does not matter that it doesn't have value for non-gamers. Context. I know that is probably too complicated for you to understand, but please try.
you need to be able to explain how a novels description of a bookcase means that bookcase is something.
can you do that?
games are FICTIONAL...10000000% fictional, all aspects of it, all items, all wins, all things. If one can make a GOOD arguement that items in a game have value then that is a huge step forward.
I am not saying the argument cant be made but I am saying you aint doing it
The danger here is that if we decide we can regulate THOUGHT...IMAGINATION...its then thought police.
If you come into my office and say 'you are awesome!' that is a reward. can we start to regulate based on that? i hope not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
uggh, failed logic again.
Nothing, ever, has value without context.
Money has no value if you live in a society without money. A car has no value if you live on the moon. A holiday trip has no value if you can't leave the country.
Value is always contextual.
(Also, glad to see you've changed your argument again, we're now back to value - which was my argument - instead of you insisting on it being monetary).
So, an in game bonus has value to the gamer. It does not matter that it doesn't have value for non-gamers. Context. I know that is probably too complicated for you to understand, but please try.
you need to be able to explain how a novels description of a bookcase means that bookcase is something.
can you do that?
games are FICTIONAL...10000000% fictional, all aspects of it, all items, all wins, all things. If one can make a GOOD arguement that items in a game have value then that is a huge step forward.
I am not saying the argument cant be made but I am saying you aint doing it
The danger here is that if we decide we can regulate THOUGHT...IMAGINATION...its then thought police.
If you come into my office and say 'you are awesome!' that is a reward. can we start to regulate based on that? i hope not
English comprehension was never your strong suit was it?
You've now done your usual straw man argument - ignoring the vast majority of what people are posting, fixating on a single aspect, twisting it to ridiculous proportions and then discrediting an argument that no-one has ever made.
No-one is talking about regulating thought No-one is talking about regulating imagination No-one is talking about regulating RNG
Those are all your straw-man arguments. That is you either deliberately trolling, or just being dumb.
I'll try again, in dumbed-down, easy to read format.
1. Gambling is defined as paying money for a chance at a return. This is a fact. The return can be anything, literally anything - money, objects, words, feelings. Do you agree with this definition?
2. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling - you are paying money for a chance at a return. Do you agree with this statement?
3. Repeated gambling causes problems. It alters the way the brain works in the same way that repeated drug use does. There is scientific consensus that this is true, spend a few minutes googling to verify. Do you agree with this statement?
4. Countries around the world regulate certain types of gambling. It differs from country to country. The purpose of regulating gambling is to prevent harm, particularly to minors. Do you agree with this statement?
I don't care about any of your straw man arguments or your fixation on assigning value to the reward. Just look at these 4 simple statements and answer yes or no. You should be able to answer yes to all of them, but at least if you answer no then we'll know where you are failing.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
uggh, failed logic again.
Nothing, ever, has value without context.
Money has no value if you live in a society without money. A car has no value if you live on the moon. A holiday trip has no value if you can't leave the country.
Value is always contextual.
(Also, glad to see you've changed your argument again, we're now back to value - which was my argument - instead of you insisting on it being monetary).
So, an in game bonus has value to the gamer. It does not matter that it doesn't have value for non-gamers. Context. I know that is probably too complicated for you to understand, but please try.
you need to be able to explain how a novels description of a bookcase means that bookcase is something.
can you do that?
games are FICTIONAL...10000000% fictional, all aspects of it, all items, all wins, all things. If one can make a GOOD arguement that items in a game have value then that is a huge step forward.
I am not saying the argument cant be made but I am saying you aint doing it
The danger here is that if we decide we can regulate THOUGHT...IMAGINATION...its then thought police.
If you come into my office and say 'you are awesome!' that is a reward. can we start to regulate based on that? i hope not
English comprehension was never your strong suit was it? ....
look I am going to dial this down and ask you (and me) to stop escalting the conversation in this way with every post.
I am not reading anything you have to say until you dial the insults to ...zero
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
Here's another aspect of it. In the end, the consumer gets nothing. The publisher retains all ownership of all digital content. Your accounts, Your character, Your character's inventory everything. You do not own anything in those loot boxes. When (not if) the publisher eventually pulls the plug on the game, or if you lose your account, if you get banned, whatever, if you stop playing the game, you don't get to take your "reward" to your next game. But you bought it right?
Maybe that is another reason they can claim no real world value for digital purchases because at any time it can all go poof.
I'm much less likely to spend money on an online game now unless I think it's going to make it for the long haul. It's not just money either. My time has value to me so I don't want to invest a bunch of my time and effort into something that will evaporate in a few months. It's why I don't do grindy games unless I find that grind cathartic.
On the other hand, "ownership" in this context, to me, means that I don't have to pay a rental fee just to check out the digital content I've already paid for. I mean if "buying" digital content is a joke, then buying it and subsequently renting access to it is a double frackin poke. But here I am, subbed to WoW and going to renew the LotRO sub in a couple of weeks for winter festival fun and after that back to ESO.
The idea that there is no true ownership for the consumer does throw another wrinkle in the entire situation.
I've done the same thing with Wildstar before; it seems fun enough, but I didn't wanna put time into a character only to have the rug pulled out front under me just as I reached the endgame activities. I really think Wildstar suffers a lot from that very thing.
your still not following me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is NOT a reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
for anyone outside of gaming 'your rouge gets +2 for the next two rounds' is nothing more than two people talking together making up shit. It has no REAL value at all...zip...nada...nothing
Here's another aspect of it. In the end, the consumer gets nothing. The publisher retains all ownership of all digital content. Your accounts, Your character, Your character's inventory everything. You do not own anything in those loot boxes. When (not if) the publisher eventually pulls the plug on the game, or if you lose your account, if you get banned, whatever, if you stop playing the game, you don't get to take your "reward" to your next game. But you bought it right?
Maybe that is another reason they can claim no real world value for digital purchases because at any time it can all go poof.
I'm much less likely to spend money on an online game now unless I think it's going to make it for the long haul. It's not just money either. My time has value to me so I don't want to invest a bunch of my time and effort into something that will evaporate in a few months. It's why I don't do grindy games unless I find that grind cathartic.
On the other hand, "ownership" in this context, to me, means that I don't have to pay a rental fee just to check out the digital content I've already paid for. I mean if "buying" digital content is a joke, then buying it and subsequently renting access to it is a double frackin poke. But here I am, subbed to WoW and going to renew the LotRO sub in a couple of weeks for winter festival fun and after that back to ESO.
The idea that there is no true ownership for the consumer does throw another wrinkle in the entire situation.
I've done the same thing with Wildstar before; it seems fun enough, but I didn't wanna put time into a character only to have the rug pulled out front under me just as I reached the endgame activities. I really think Wildstar suffers a lot from that very thing.
It only complicates things immensely.
think about it in terms of a table top game for a second.
You play a table top game for ages, your character sheet...is that 'true ownership'? that castle the DM put on the map..is that really a 'thing'?
you going to trade and barter it? tax it? regulate it?
reality is something that are pure intimation ARE considered real, but its dangerous thought policing to just arbitrary do it without giving it thought
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
One is ability for the players to test out different methods. The arguement is that a game is a simulation of choices to test out outcomes. The other aspect is...RNG.
reason is life is RNG, so you want to test your options against RNG. This is why I have a lot of problems with the arguments against gambling. LIFE itself is a great deal about RNG
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I personally don't think loot box would be regulated simply because it is too niche of a problem. There seemed to be growing concern only because lootbox become more mainstream. But it still don't seemed like a significant enough problem government would try to regulate it.
The loot box of yesterday is not the loot box of today. Of course companies won't like it because no one likes to see a potential source of income that is doing well be reduced through regulation. I would probably be all for loot boxes if those sales affected my bonus.
"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
literally NONE of those strategies exist in any of the games I play personally.
I think the main problem is people being basically brainwashed into thinking that there are only certain games that are consider possible options to play and for people who fall for that shit, the exploiters are ready
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2017-06-06-blizzard-avoids-chinas-loot-box-laws-by-selling-in-game-currency
The legal definition is written that way to specify certain types of gambling that the law feels should be legally regulated. As you have said, legally regulated gambling does require real money value rewards and the possibility of winning nothing. Gambling in its basic form does not, however. It simply requires taking a risk at a chance for a desired results.
ok...so the english definition of gambling means something that in part (specifically things we are talking about here) can not be regulated ok then! now its just semantics and it can not be regulated for the reason I have described regardless of what you call it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
And how does someone "conquer" me when i am playing a PvE game like warframe? In fact, how can anyone even interact with me if I play solo?
But, that doesn't matter, that is what governments and lawyers are for. They will work out the legal construct, not me.
The core point, which you still ignore, is that repeated gambling leads to problems. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling, but unregulated. So, we are exposing children and adults to something that as a society we have already deemed to be harmful, without warning them or trying to protect them, simply because of semantics.
You still seem to be getting hung up on assigning some sort of monetary or numeric value to the reward for gambling, and now you're introducing the idea of possession. Why? It still doesn't matter. The only thing that matters, in the context of determining the potential harm, is what winning that reward means to the gambler.
I've bolded the part of your reply that is retarded. You've twisted words again. Did you fail English at school? Have you even finished school?
The english definition of gambling is PAYING MONEY FOR A CHANCE AT A REWARD.
Where in that definition does it say anything about regulation? In English law, it states that only gambling where the reward is monetary is regulated. Again, that doesn't mean other stuff can't be regulated, regulations change all the time! It just means other forms of gambling are not currently regulated.
You want to talk about gambling as an addiction which I think is horeshit but I am not even talking about that.
What I am talking about is for gambling to work...for it to be ever 'addictive' it HAS to have the chance of getting something of value in return.
If you can not make the case that the words 'your rouge gets a +2 for the next two rounds' is of value to someone who is not a gamer then its fucking useless.
its nothing.....gambling for the 100% chance of nothing in return cant remotely be addictive.
what you dont understand is that LIFE is gambling. Stock market is gambling, buying trading cards is gambling, fucking farming is gambling.
RNG is a very large part of life
and to say 'well yeah trading cards would not be addictive if money was not involved in the purchse' is absurd.
not to mention farmers every year have no idea how much money they are getting with the crops which they...spent money on..
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In the end, the consumer gets nothing.
The publisher retains all ownership of all digital content. Your accounts, Your character, Your character's inventory everything. You do not own anything in those loot boxes. When (not if) the publisher eventually pulls the plug on the game, or if you lose your account, if you get banned, whatever, if you stop playing the game, you don't get to take your "reward" to your next game. But you bought it right?
you have to remember its hard for anyone outside of gaming to remotely understand that a 'virtual item' is real.
If the argument can be made (and people claim they can do it but havent actually done it) that fictional virtual items are 'real' then they might have some traction to regulate it. Its a bit like a novel, yeah the ink is real, but the description of the bookcase in the novel doesnt make the bookcase real..its still only a reference to an imagination.
That said, I personally hold two positions regarding gambling. 1. I dont think gambling itself should be regulated at all in any context, I think advertising for gambling should and 2. the bottom line is if a developer is making bad design choices you cant force them to make good ones, only to NOT make bad ones. so best find other games.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There is a difference between online games and non-online games.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Nothing, ever, has value without context.
Money has no value if you live in a society without money. A car has no value if you live on the moon. A holiday trip has no value if you can't leave the country.
Value is always contextual.
(Also, glad to see you've changed your argument again, we're now back to value - which was my argument - instead of you insisting on it being monetary).
So, an in game bonus has value to the gamer. It does not matter that it doesn't have value for non-gamers. Context. I know that is probably too complicated for you to understand, but please try.
can you do that?
games are FICTIONAL...10000000% fictional, all aspects of it, all items, all wins, all things. If one can make a GOOD arguement that items in a game have value then that is a huge step forward.
I am not saying the argument cant be made but I am saying you aint doing it
The danger here is that if we decide we can regulate THOUGHT...IMAGINATION...its then thought police.
If you come into my office and say 'you are awesome!' that is a reward. can we start to regulate based on that? i hope not
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You've now done your usual straw man argument - ignoring the vast majority of what people are posting, fixating on a single aspect, twisting it to ridiculous proportions and then discrediting an argument that no-one has ever made.
No-one is talking about regulating thought
No-one is talking about regulating imagination
No-one is talking about regulating RNG
Those are all your straw-man arguments. That is you either deliberately trolling, or just being dumb.
I'll try again, in dumbed-down, easy to read format.
1. Gambling is defined as paying money for a chance at a return. This is a fact. The return can be anything, literally anything - money, objects, words, feelings. Do you agree with this definition?
2. Paid-for-lootboxes are gambling - you are paying money for a chance at a return. Do you agree with this statement?
3. Repeated gambling causes problems. It alters the way the brain works in the same way that repeated drug use does. There is scientific consensus that this is true, spend a few minutes googling to verify. Do you agree with this statement?
4. Countries around the world regulate certain types of gambling. It differs from country to country. The purpose of regulating gambling is to prevent harm, particularly to minors. Do you agree with this statement?
I don't care about any of your straw man arguments or your fixation on assigning value to the reward. Just look at these 4 simple statements and answer yes or no. You should be able to answer yes to all of them, but at least if you answer no then we'll know where you are failing.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I've done the same thing with Wildstar before; it seems fun enough, but I didn't wanna put time into a character only to have the rug pulled out front under me just as I reached the endgame activities. I really think Wildstar suffers a lot from that very thing.
It only complicates things immensely.
You play a table top game for ages, your character sheet...is that 'true ownership'? that castle the DM put on the map..is that really a 'thing'?
you going to trade and barter it? tax it? regulate it?
reality is something that are pure intimation ARE considered real, but its dangerous thought policing to just arbitrary do it without giving it thought
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me