Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

13468920

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    I agree that may be much better than an outright ban.

    The gamer in me wants to see them go away completely for the reasons @Iselin describes.  However, it may not be a realistic goal in any way at this point.

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,705
    Quizzical said:
    Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking.  Why not just tax loot boxes?  I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

    The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

    So what counts as a loot box?  Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box.  However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box.  A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax.  That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

    Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money.  Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things.  How much money was spent on loot boxes?

    Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies.  But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
    1)  assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
    2)  assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

    Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed.  They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

    So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax?  Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes.  For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month.  And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

    The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time.  They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more.  That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

    But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes.  What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to.  Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose.  Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.
    Because as soon as you open the door to tax "lootboxes".. governments will want to tax the "winnings" from the boxes.  That leads down a road of perpetual taxes.

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,511
    In addition to second-hand smoke there is third-hand smoke that is what layers on to surfaces. It has been shown to be harmful in mice exposed to third hand smoke. 

    I am currently preparing an IRB approved study to test the effects of third-hand smoke on children. It will be the first of its kind.

    This is a study and the final author is the one i'm working with. 
    (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28001376)

    For example, if you go into the VA in Roxbury, MA the whole place smells like an ashtray. I bet you that is not good for the people that work there. 

    Any way, in many arguments, it is difficult to argue things on a spectrum. What you should and shouldn't tax is on a spectrum. 

    I personally, would tax the hell out of Smoking and alcohol and subsidize condoms :)

    Cryomatrix
    Asm0deust0nyd
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Utterly amazed by the people on this thread who oppose the Belgian ban on gambling in games. Particularly those made by @DMKano. They seem to me to fall into three main categories.
    1. It's an attack on our FreeDumb! We must be free to be as stupid as we like.
    2. How dare Belgium, or indeed any country, have the audacity to attempt to restrict the rapacious activities of U.S. companies.
    3. Gambling is good because it funds our game play at the expense of the naive and stupid.

    The arrogance of a section of U.S. citizens always amazes me. Surely any restriction on this blatant and deceitful cash grab is a social good. One we should all be encouraging. After all it is in our own interests.
    Asm0deusLackingMMORhoklawkjempff
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Quizzical said:
    Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking.  Why not just tax loot boxes?  I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

    The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

    So what counts as a loot box?  Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box.  However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box.  A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax.  That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

    Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money.  Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things.  How much money was spent on loot boxes?

    Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies.  But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
    1)  assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
    2)  assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

    Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed.  They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

    So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax?  Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes.  For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month.  And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

    The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time.  They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more.  That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

    But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes.  What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to.  Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose.  Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.
    Because as soon as you open the door to tax "lootboxes".. governments will want to tax the "winnings" from the boxes.  That leads down a road of perpetual taxes.
    Which would only further serve to discourage the monetization technique, though.

    image
  • Slapshot1188Slapshot1188 Member LegendaryPosts: 10,705
    Quizzical said:
    Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking.  Why not just tax loot boxes?  I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

    The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

    So what counts as a loot box?  Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box.  However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box.  A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax.  That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

    Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money.  Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things.  How much money was spent on loot boxes?

    Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies.  But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
    1)  assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
    2)  assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

    Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed.  They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

    So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax?  Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes.  For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month.  And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

    The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time.  They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more.  That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

    But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes.  What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to.  Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose.  Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.
    Because as soon as you open the door to tax "lootboxes".. governments will want to tax the "winnings" from the boxes.  That leads down a road of perpetual taxes.
    Which would only further serve to discourage the monetization technique, though.
    Sure.  Kind of like drinking Drain-O to kill the bacteria in your stomach. You really want the tax guy expecting you to list all your "virtual items" at the end of the year and having you pay a certain % of their "value"?


    craftseekerLeFantome

    "I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator

    Starvault's reponse to criticism related to having a handful of players as the official "test" team for a supposed MMO: "We've just have another 10ish folk kind enough to voulenteer added tot the test team" (SIC) This explains much about the state of the game :-)

    Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017. 

    Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018

    "Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018

    My ignore list finally has one occupant after 12 years. I am the strongest supporter of free speech on here, but free speech does not mean forced listening. Have fun my friend. Hope you find a new stalking target.

  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 2,877
    I don't play games with loot boxes.
    craftseekerSlapshot1188

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer



  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited May 2018
    Quizzical said:
    Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking.  Why not just tax loot boxes?  I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

    The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

    So what counts as a loot box?  Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box.  However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box.  A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax.  That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

    Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money.  Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things.  How much money was spent on loot boxes?

    Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies.  But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
    1)  assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
    2)  assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

    Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed.  They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

    So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax?  Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes.  For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month.  And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

    The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time.  They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more.  That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

    But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes.  What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to.  Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose.  Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.
    Because as soon as you open the door to tax "lootboxes".. governments will want to tax the "winnings" from the boxes.  That leads down a road of perpetual taxes.
    Which would only further serve to discourage the monetization technique, though.
    Sure.  Kind of like drinking Drain-O to kill the bacteria in your stomach. You really want the tax guy expecting you to list all your "virtual items" at the end of the year and having you pay a certain % of their "value"?


    No, certainly not, but unless there's an RMT market for things you get outta the lootbox, how would the government calculate any value other than $1 or whatever you put in?  Winnings cannot be quantified like cash prizes or real property because there's no actual ownership for the consumer and the value is wholly at the whim of the developer even after the transaction (again, assuming there's no legal RMT market).

    image
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,636
    Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

    The only variable, is you are paying to roll.
    Shaigh
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Ungood said:
    Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

    The only variable, is you are paying to roll.
    Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 20,787
    Utterly amazed by the people on this thread who oppose the Belgian ban on gambling in games. Particularly those made by @DMKano. They seem to me to fall into three main categories.
    1. It's an attack on our FreeDumb! We must be free to be as stupid as we like.
    2. How dare Belgium, or indeed any country, have the audacity to attempt to restrict the rapacious activities of U.S. companies.
    3. Gambling is good because it funds our game play at the expense of the naive and stupid.

    The arrogance of a section of U.S. citizens always amazes me. Surely any restriction on this blatant and deceitful cash grab is a social good. One we should all be encouraging. After all it is in our own interests.
    You could probably devise one policy that I'd support that could reasonably be labeled a loot box ban, and another policy that I'd oppose that could also reasonably be labeled a loot box ban.  The details matter tremendously, and to insist otherwise is to not seriously engage the issue.
  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 2,636
    Ungood said:
    Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

    The only variable, is you are paying to roll.
    Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.
    I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.
    Iselin
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 12,454
    Ungood said:
    Ungood said:
    Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

    The only variable, is you are paying to roll.
    Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.
    I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.
    Well you're definitely toeing the ESRB party line.

    That line of thinking has always made me wonder if a casino can get around the gambling regulations by always giving you something, You think that'd fly?
    Asm0deuscraftseeker
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus Member EpicPosts: 2,841
    Quizzical said:
    Utterly amazed by the people on this thread who oppose the Belgian ban on gambling in games. Particularly those made by @DMKano. They seem to me to fall into three main categories.
    1. It's an attack on our FreeDumb! We must be free to be as stupid as we like.
    2. How dare Belgium, or indeed any country, have the audacity to attempt to restrict the rapacious activities of U.S. companies.
    3. Gambling is good because it funds our game play at the expense of the naive and stupid.

    The arrogance of a section of U.S. citizens always amazes me. Surely any restriction on this blatant and deceitful cash grab is a social good. One we should all be encouraging. After all it is in our own interests.
    You could probably devise one policy that I'd support that could reasonably be labeled a loot box ban, and another policy that I'd oppose that could also reasonably be labeled a loot box ban.  The details matter tremendously, and to insist otherwise is to not seriously engage the issue.
    Indeed but this is a first baby step into define gambling in the internet online era as used by the gaming industry.

    First steps need to be made before refining or getting into deep details...common on you know as well as others here a first iteration needs to be made and refining that will follow.
    craftseeker

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, samsung evo 860 500gb SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • DimmizerDimmizer Member UncommonPosts: 17
    I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..


    Keep it simple I say..

    gam·ble
    ˈɡambəl/
    verb
    1. 1.
      play games of chance for money; bet.
    2. 2.
      take risky action in the hope of a desired result.



      IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

      Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.
  • DimmizerDimmizer Member UncommonPosts: 17
    It's shit how companies can get away with things like this and no ones held accountable.. no ones arrested or anything.. and government just allows this to happen.. cause ofc they get their cut too.
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,511
    Dimmizer said:
    It's shit how companies can get away with things like this and no ones held accountable.. no ones arrested or anything.. and government just allows this to happen.. cause ofc they get their cut too.
    You know what is funny, the US government state sponsored lottery makes like twice as much a year as the video game industry. FACT!
    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 20,471
    Dimmizer said:
    It's shit how companies can get away with things like this and no ones held accountable.. no ones arrested or anything.. and government just allows this to happen.. cause ofc they get their cut too.
    The gang and the government are no different...
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 20,471
    Ungood said:
    Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling. 

    The only variable, is you are paying to roll.
    Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

    It's not the same

    A lootbox gives you something every time.

    A slot machine doesn't give you anything most of the time.

    That alone is a huge difference.


    A lootbox can give you items that are not tradable and bound to your account, so it's of no use at all in the real world, it can't be exchanged for any real life goods.

    A slot machine winning gives you money that is tradable and usable anywhere in the real world.

    There are clearly differences.

    So talk about false analogy.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Dimmizer said:
    It's shit how companies can get away with things like this and no ones held accountable.. no ones arrested or anything.. and government just allows this to happen.. cause ofc they get their cut too.
    You know what is funny, the US government state sponsored lottery makes like twice as much a year as the video game industry. FACT!
    And they earmark that, at least in Florida and Tennessee, for scholarships for higher education.

    Damned governments!  Trying to take a negative and pull some positive out of it! ;)

    image
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 20,471
    edited May 2018
    Dimmizer said:
    I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..


    Keep it simple I say..

    gam·ble
    ˈɡambəl/
    verb
    1. 1.
      play games of chance for money; bet.
    2. 2.
      take risky action in the hope of a desired result.



      IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

      Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.


    It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

    Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

    Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

    Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

    Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching consequences way beyond lootboxes in videogames.

    Like buying  card pack for Magic the Gathering or Pokeman - you are RNG buying - there are probably cards you desire - but you get 90% of the time you get the stuff you don't need.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    DMKano said:
    Dimmizer said:
    I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..


    Keep it simple I say..

    gam·ble
    ˈɡambəl/
    verb
    1. 1.
      play games of chance for money; bet.
    2. 2.
      take risky action in the hope of a desired result.



      IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

      Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.


    It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

    Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

    Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

    Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

    Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.
    If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word.  You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to.  Different, indeed.

    image
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 20,471
    DMKano said:
    Dimmizer said:
    I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..


    Keep it simple I say..

    gam·ble
    ˈɡambəl/
    verb
    1. 1.
      play games of chance for money; bet.
    2. 2.
      take risky action in the hope of a desired result.



      IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

      Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.


    It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

    Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

    Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

    Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

    Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.
    If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word.  You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to.  Different, indeed.

    If lootboxes are gambling - so is this - card booster packs:



    Yep.

    And a ton of different things that are "RNG buying".
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    Dimmizer said:
    I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..


    Keep it simple I say..

    gam·ble
    ˈɡambəl/
    verb
    1. 1.
      play games of chance for money; bet.
    2. 2.
      take risky action in the hope of a desired result.



      IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

      Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.


    It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

    Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

    Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

    Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

    Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.
    If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word.  You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to.  Different, indeed.

    If lootboxes are gambling - so is this - card booster packs:



    Yep.

    And a ton of different things that are "RNG buying".
    You own those cards.  Can the manufacturers force you to forfeit them at their whim?

    image
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 20,471
    edited May 2018
    DMKano said:
    DMKano said:
    Dimmizer said:
    I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..


    Keep it simple I say..

    gam·ble
    ˈɡambəl/
    verb
    1. 1.
      play games of chance for money; bet.
    2. 2.
      take risky action in the hope of a desired result.



      IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

      Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.


    It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

    Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

    Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

    Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

    Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.
    If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word.  You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to.  Different, indeed.

    If lootboxes are gambling - so is this - card booster packs:



    Yep.

    And a ton of different things that are "RNG buying".
    You own those cards.  Can the manufacturers force you to forfeit them at their whim?
    The manufacturers can introduce new cards with new rules, making old cards completely worthless.

    Basically completely change the rules of the card game and make old cards irrelevant. 

    But I don't see how this is relevant (virtual goods vs material goods)- because in real gambling you win money - and that's something that's physically in your possession and it still falls 100% under gambling laws. 
This discussion has been closed.