Are shard packs considered gambling?!

YouSpendCash

Seeing how EA was accused recently of gambling with the loot crates in Battlefront II, I'm seeing similarities in how they structure the shard packs and various game packs. You are asked to, in some cases, pay up to 2500 crystals for an unknown amount of consideration in return based totally on chance. It sounds like gambling to me......

dad2my3

There is no chance in the game where money is involved. The chance happens when you spend purple crystals, not money. When you pay money for crystals, you get the exact number of crystals they specify. Then you can gamble your crystals.

If they offer a $9.99 or $19.99 or $49.99 character pack, they show you exactly what’s in it, and that’s exactly what you get. If they offer a character or vehicle shard purchase that “sells” for 1200 or 2500 crystals, they aren’t technically selling something for money and can make it a gamble with unpredictable results.

Spend money = exact results.
Spend crystals = a chance at something good.

__ZIPPY__

So when you buy chips in the casino, its not gambling, because you are spending plastic coins and you got what you paid for?

dad2my3

I think the video game companies are just protecting themselves. You can’t sue them, because all they promised was 15,000 crystals for $100, and that’s what you got. What you do with those crystals is up to you and a matter of chance.

Dok

In essence, it's gambling (for the 5-330 packs at least), but the fact you aren't directly using money to buy the packs creates a legal loophole. You're buying the crystals, not the pack, and you get the same crystals either way. They really should be required to post odds, at least.

Antisora

Yes it’s gambling, but they get less flack because the game is f2p.

sneeyatch

it's not gambling if you're guaranteed to win a prize. If you spend real money in this game and you get something for your money, then it's a legit transaction.

It's gambling if you spend real money and have the chance of not getting a single thing in return.

NicWester

YouSpendCash wrote: »

Seeing how EA was accused recently of gambling with the loot crates in Battlefront II, I'm seeing similarities in how they structure the shard packs and various game packs. You are asked to, in some cases, pay up to 2500 crystals for an unknown amount of consideration in return based totally on chance. It sounds like gambling to me......

That’s a misrepresentation of what’s happening.

Belgium is investigating whether or not games (in general) that use randomized rewards that you can buy for money should fall within existing gambling regulations. Which, again only in Belgium, would mean putting a warning label on the game. EA isn’t being specifically investigated, they’re being investigated along with several other loot box games, such as Blizzard for Overwatch and Hearthstone.

Dok

sneeyatch wrote: »

it's not gambling if you're guaranteed to win a prize. If you spend real money in this game and you get something for your money, then it's a legit transaction.

It's gambling if you spend real money and have the chance of not getting a single thing in return.

It should still be considered gambling. Otherwise, I should be able to legally open a casino as long as all my customers are guaranteed to win at least a penny after every bet/pull/hand.

cannon_fodder

As gambling is currently defined in the US, no. If you don't like it, talk to your legislators to redefine the legal definition of gambling. Like most things in law, you can make an argument either way.

I concur that selling something without communicating the "odds" of getting what you want or the quantity you are likely to receive is not a particularly honorable business practice. But you're also not forced to buy packs for crystals to play the game...so there's that. Like fantasy sports betting, it's a technology ahead of the legislation.

Dok

cannon_fodder wrote: »

As gambling is currently defined in the US, no. If you don't like it, talk to your legislators to redefine the legal definition of gambling. Like most things in law, you can make an argument either way.

I concur that selling something without communicating the "odds" of getting what you want or the quantity you are likely to receive is not a particularly honorable business practice. But you're also not forced to buy packs for crystals to play the game...so there's that. Like fantasy sports betting, it's a technology ahead of the legislation.

Basically what I was getting at. Compared to the history of gambling, microtransactions are fairly new. As it is, they can skirt the law through technicalities. As shady and predatory as it is, it's still legal. Technically.

Kyno

__ZIPPY__ wrote: »

So when you buy chips in the casino, its not gambling, because you are spending plastic coins and you got what you paid for?

The partial difference is that the crystals you guy have no cash value. The chips do.

Kyno

Moved to correct sub forum.

HeWhoWanders

dad2my3 wrote: »

There is no chance in the game where money is involved. The chance happens when you spend purple crystals, not money. When you pay money for crystals, you get the exact number of crystals they specify. Then you can gamble your crystals.

If they offer a $9.99 or $19.99 or $49.99 character pack, they show you exactly what’s in it, and that’s exactly what you get. If they offer a character or vehicle shard purchase that “sells” for 1200 or 2500 crystals, they aren’t technically selling something for money and can make it a gamble with unpredictable results.

Spend money = exact results.
Spend crystals = a chance at something good.

Gambling is defined as a game of chance playing on a bet or taking a risky action in the hope of a desired result. This does not need to involve money.

A character pack is a defined product where there is no gambling. Other packs though are set up in a way that give varying rewards i.e. 5-330 shard etc. for afixed price. These rewards are not equal in value (based of character rarity or exclusivity) and your wager be it crystals are still a finite resource and have a real world monetary value attached to them even if they may be acquired freely to an extent.

In fact giving free crystals is just like the house giving you a free roll on the roulette wheel. It is just away to give you a taste so you will be more enticed to keep playing.

This game can get away with microtransactions because it's F2P, even tho some if them could be argued as predatory. While in a full retail $60 game it's inexcusable, especially the way it was implemented in SWBF2.

NicWester

Dok wrote: »

sneeyatch wrote: »

it's not gambling if you're guaranteed to win a prize. If you spend real money in this game and you get something for your money, then it's a legit transaction.

It's gambling if you spend real money and have the chance of not getting a single thing in return.

It should still be considered gambling.

If they sold a pack that was 5 shards for 699 crystals, it’s a steep price but not gambling, right?

So how come it becomes gambling once they say it’s 699 crystals for 5 shards with a chance of more shards?

Crystal packs aren’t gambling. Worst case scenario is they’ll just have to reword the description to make it more clear that you’re buying 5 with a chance at more.

YouSpendCash

I was not talking about the packs with set prices and well defined items that you are purchasing. I was talking about the packs you purchase with crystals that gives you 5-100 shards of something. If the only loophole is that many can also earn crystals for free, then it's not gambling for anybody, then that's really breaking the spirit of the rule and not the letters. For those who bought crystals specifically for purchasing those packs, that would be gambling. What's more, because it is not gambling they can set the odds anyway they want with very little consequence. I'm just saying, just because the industry gaverning body says it's not gambling, doesn't mean it isn't. Since when does a self governing body ever slap themselves in the face?!

YouSpendCash

cannon_fodder wrote: »

As gambling is currently defined in the US, no. If you don't like it, talk to your legislators to redefine the legal definition of gambling. Like most things in law, you can make an argument either way.

I concur that selling something without communicating the "odds" of getting what you want or the quantity you are likely to receive is not a particularly honorable business practice. But you're also not forced to buy packs for crystals to play the game...so there's that. Like fantasy sports betting, it's a technology ahead of the legislation.

I don't think anyone was ever forced to go into a Vegas casino and drop coins into a slot machine..... but we are not arguing over whether that is gambling.

leef

From what i´ve read it´s only the players saying it´s a form of gambling. The players can call it whatever they want, but if it´s not gambling according to the law it doesn´t change a thing.

Dok

NicWester wrote: »

Dok wrote: »

sneeyatch wrote: »

it's not gambling if you're guaranteed to win a prize. If you spend real money in this game and you get something for your money, then it's a legit transaction.

It's gambling if you spend real money and have the chance of not getting a single thing in return.

It should still be considered gambling.

If they sold a pack that was 5 shards for 699 crystals, it’s a steep price but not gambling, right?

So how come it becomes gambling once they say it’s 699 crystals for 5 shards with a chance of more shards?

Crystal packs aren’t gambling. Worst case scenario is they’ll just have to reword the description to make it more clear that you’re buying 5 with a chance at more.

I said it should be considered gambling, not that it is gambling. As I previously mentioned, it is technically not gambling, but if they were really offering those 5-330 packs in good faith, they'd post the odds. If they did, though, less people would be willing to take a chance on them. So, I agree it isn't gambling based on the legal definition, but it's still a deceitful practice. Just my opinion though. I'm not buying those ripoff packs so it doesn't really affect me.

YouSpendCash

NicWester wrote: »

Dok wrote: »

sneeyatch wrote: »

it's not gambling if you're guaranteed to win a prize. If you spend real money in this game and you get something for your money, then it's a legit transaction.

It's gambling if you spend real money and have the chance of not getting a single thing in return.

It should still be considered gambling.

If they sold a pack that was 5 shards for 699 crystals, it’s a steep price but not gambling, right?

So how come it becomes gambling once they say it’s 699 crystals for 5 shards with a chance of more shards?

Crystal packs aren’t gambling. Worst case scenario is they’ll just have to reword the description to make it more clear that you’re buying 5 with a chance at more.

well, vegas has rules that require slot machines to payout at least 75% of the money that goes in. Given your logic, that shouldn't be gambling because the minimum required payout was already established by law?! In fact, most slots payback above 90% of the money put into it....

YouSpendCash

leef wrote: »

From what i´ve read it´s only the players saying it´s a form of gambling. The players can call it whatever they want, but if it´s not gambling according to the law it doesn´t change a thing.

You are a man of great faith. The Law fails to address many things in our society today.......

leef

YouSpendCash wrote: »

leef wrote: »

From what i´ve read it´s only the players saying it´s a form of gambling. The players can call it whatever they want, but if it´s not gambling according to the law it doesn´t change a thing.

You are a man of great faith. The Law fails to address many things in our society today.......

Not really, i'm just pointing out that untill the powers that be change the law, nothing will change. It doesn't matter how many players consider packs gambling. Not even battle front 2 players

YouSpendCash

And I was simply pointing out that if it smells like duck, sounds like duck and tastes like duck, then we don't really care what the law tells us it is because we know it's a duck! He law could say it's a chicken for all I care because I know a duck when I see one;)

leef

YouSpendCash wrote: »

And I was simply pointing out that if it smells like duck, sounds like duck and tastes like duck, then we don't really care what the law tells us it is because we know it's a duck! He law could say it's a chicken for all I care because I know a duck when I see one;)

Personally i only care about the law, not about what people tell me.

YouSpendCash

leef wrote: »

YouSpendCash wrote: »

And I was simply pointing out that if it smells like duck, sounds like duck and tastes like duck, then we don't really care what the law tells us it is because we know it's a duck! He law could say it's a chicken for all I care because I know a duck when I see one;)

Personally i only care about the law, not about what people tell me.

Hence you are a man of great faith.... And i make this comment as a an attorney myself

leef

YouSpendCash wrote: »

leef wrote: »

YouSpendCash wrote: »

And I was simply pointing out that if it smells like duck, sounds like duck and tastes like duck, then we don't really care what the law tells us it is because we know it's a duck! He law could say it's a chicken for all I care because I know a duck when I see one;)

Personally i only care about the law, not about what people tell me.

Hence you are a man of great faith.... And i make this comment as a an attorney myself

granted, that was pretty funny. Still not a man of great faith though