Why the slot machine mechanics for packs

13Next

Replies

  • Nauros wrote: »
    I walk into my favourite shop to by the paper. I go to pay for it and the guy behind the counter pulls out this magic, mystery box. I said, what have you got there sunshine? The guy behind the counter says inside this box are 3 smaller boxes. Each has a different prize. He says

    One of the boxes has a prize worth = £2

    Another of the boxes has a prize worth = £10

    And the final box has x200 kyrotech pieces

    I say, oh yeah is it free to have a go. He says No? It will cost you £5.

    The minimum I’m coming away with is £2 if I have a go. The guy behind the counter says, don’t worry mate, it’s not gambling. Your getting something back regardless. It’s all good. I promise you, it’s NOT gambling it’s something else, but it’s not gambling.

    Bad example. In reality, it's more like 100 boxes, 90 worth £2, 9 worth £10 and 1 with the best prize.

    The gamble is your getting 1 of the 3. Not 1 for 1

    Of course, and the odds are never equal like in your example. You have much higher chance of getting the lowest value, while the highest one might as well not be there at all.
  • The biggest reason these mechanic should be stopped is it’s stealth gambling. Gambling has very strict rules around its games, who can spend, and have to spend money to monitor how players spend.

    This is no different but they get away with it. It’s gambling plain and simple and should be made illegal in games accessible to children, and young adults. A slippery slope is gambling.
  • I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
  • So it is a gamble, but no gambling.
  • I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    The billion dollar company and their team of lawyers thought they didn’t have to publish pack probabilities for a long time too, and then all of a sudden they published them on a webpage several clicks away from the actual pack. But nonetheless they started publish them because they were wrong in their assumption. Time will tell if they are 100% correct that this isn’t considered gambling in every country of the world. Especially given that some countries are starting to wake up when realizing virtual things actually have a real value. So no, your black & white definition of what are absolutely truths is open to interpretation.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.
  • I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    The billion dollar company and their team of lawyers thought they didn’t have to publish pack probabilities for a long time too, and then all of a sudden they published them on a webpage several clicks away from the actual pack. But nonetheless they started publish them because they were wrong in their assumption. Time will tell if they are 100% correct that this isn’t considered gambling in every country of the world. Especially given that some countries are starting to wake up when realizing virtual things actually have a real value. So no, your black & white definition of what are absolutely truths is open to interpretation.
    Thing is - they don’t have to publish those probabilities for all packs in all territories. They are required to in Japan, for instance, but there’s no need for them to disclose this in many other countries. They choose to do this.

    Anyway, a fool and his money are easily parted. Anyone buying those packs and getting the least desirable outcome gets no sympathy, surely?
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    I’m not complaining I didn’t get what I want. I’m complaining that most of their packs are exactly what we are discussing, a gamble. That’s why I, and you, and others, don’t buy them because they are…a gamble.

    You’re taking a chance when you buy the packs so it’s a gamble. You said it’s not. It indeed is.

    What we wanna see are packs that say “here’s what you are getting 100%” not these multiple outcome probability packs, which by the way, they need to disclose now. If they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t have released the probabilities.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    I’m not complaining I didn’t get what I want. I’m complaining that most of their packs are exactly what we are discussing, a gamble. That’s why I, and you, and others, don’t buy them because they are…a gamble.

    You’re taking a chance when you buy the packs so it’s a gamble. You said it’s not. It indeed is.

    What we wanna see are packs that say “here’s what you are getting 100%” not these multiple outcome probability packs, which by the way, they need to disclose now. If they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t have released the probabilities.
    I don’t buy them because I don’t want to spend my money on this game. If they were offering the best of the possible outcomes for the price of the pack, I still wouldn’t buy it. Please don’t presume to know why I do or don’t want to do things.

    I didn’t say it’s not a gamble - I said it’s not “gambling”, in response to people suggesting that selling packs like this might by illegal in certain locations where “gambling” is not permitted. Semantics, I know, but you yourself are the master of a semantic-based rebuttal.

    For anything to be considered “gambling”, there must be the possibility that your stake is lost with no return. These packs don’t do that. If you buy a pack and get the least desirable outcome, you haven’t “lost” your money. You can be disappointed with what you get for it, but you haven’t “lost” it. Indeed, regulation in several countries has openly stated that “loot boxes” are NOT considered a form of gambling for exactly that reason.

    And I though I was clear on the probabilities - they were legally obliged to release them in certain locations like China, Japan, etc, but there are several locations (like most of Europe) where they are not required to release them.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    I’m not complaining I didn’t get what I want. I’m complaining that most of their packs are exactly what we are discussing, a gamble. That’s why I, and you, and others, don’t buy them because they are…a gamble.

    You’re taking a chance when you buy the packs so it’s a gamble. You said it’s not. It indeed is.

    What we wanna see are packs that say “here’s what you are getting 100%” not these multiple outcome probability packs, which by the way, they need to disclose now. If they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t have released the probabilities.
    I don’t buy them because I don’t want to spend my money on this game. If they were offering the best of the possible outcomes for the price of the pack, I still wouldn’t buy it. Please don’t presume to know why I do or don’t want to do things.

    I didn’t say it’s not a gamble - I said it’s not “gambling”, in response to people suggesting that selling packs like this might by illegal in certain locations where “gambling” is not permitted. Semantics, I know, but you yourself are the master of a semantic-based rebuttal.

    For anything to be considered “gambling”, there must be the possibility that your stake is lost with no return. These packs don’t do that. If you buy a pack and get the least desirable outcome, you haven’t “lost” your money. You can be disappointed with what you get for it, but you haven’t “lost” it. Indeed, regulation in several countries has openly stated that “loot boxes” are NOT considered a form of gambling for exactly that reason.

    And I though I was clear on the probabilities - they were legally obliged to release them in certain locations like China, Japan, etc, but there are several locations (like most of Europe) where they are not required to release them.

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s gambling. I don’t see anything about needing to lose everything. Buying the packs is indeed gambling. To the extent of being illegal? That’s purely subjective and can be argued either way which doesn’t matter overall to my point of people would prefer knowing exactly what they’re buying than taking a chance…or a gamble 😏…
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    I’m not complaining I didn’t get what I want. I’m complaining that most of their packs are exactly what we are discussing, a gamble. That’s why I, and you, and others, don’t buy them because they are…a gamble.

    You’re taking a chance when you buy the packs so it’s a gamble. You said it’s not. It indeed is.

    What we wanna see are packs that say “here’s what you are getting 100%” not these multiple outcome probability packs, which by the way, they need to disclose now. If they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t have released the probabilities.
    I don’t buy them because I don’t want to spend my money on this game. If they were offering the best of the possible outcomes for the price of the pack, I still wouldn’t buy it. Please don’t presume to know why I do or don’t want to do things.

    I didn’t say it’s not a gamble - I said it’s not “gambling”, in response to people suggesting that selling packs like this might by illegal in certain locations where “gambling” is not permitted. Semantics, I know, but you yourself are the master of a semantic-based rebuttal.

    For anything to be considered “gambling”, there must be the possibility that your stake is lost with no return. These packs don’t do that. If you buy a pack and get the least desirable outcome, you haven’t “lost” your money. You can be disappointed with what you get for it, but you haven’t “lost” it. Indeed, regulation in several countries has openly stated that “loot boxes” are NOT considered a form of gambling for exactly that reason.

    And I though I was clear on the probabilities - they were legally obliged to release them in certain locations like China, Japan, etc, but there are several locations (like most of Europe) where they are not required to release them.

    Are you a lawyer? You seem to have an awfully keen sense of what makes something legally considered to be gambling. If your claim that always getting something for your money, regardless of outcome, was the only loophole needed to bypass gambling laws, then there'd be casinos in every city that offer at least a nickel back for any lost hand/game/etc.

    From a conversational viewpoint, these packs are clearly gambling. Just like when I play a friendly board game, I might say "I'm gonna gamble" when making a risky play.

    From a legal viewpoint, I don't know. I don't think there's a black and white answer for it either (see wikipedia article for loot boxes linked earlier). I also don't think it matters. What matters is whether a body with jurisdictional authority decides that loot boxes should be regulated.

    Finally, just because something is deemed to be "gambling" does not make it bad or amoral. I'll spare everyone my personal moral judgement because none of you likely care ;)
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    I’m not complaining I didn’t get what I want. I’m complaining that most of their packs are exactly what we are discussing, a gamble. That’s why I, and you, and others, don’t buy them because they are…a gamble.

    You’re taking a chance when you buy the packs so it’s a gamble. You said it’s not. It indeed is.

    What we wanna see are packs that say “here’s what you are getting 100%” not these multiple outcome probability packs, which by the way, they need to disclose now. If they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t have released the probabilities.
    I don’t buy them because I don’t want to spend my money on this game. If they were offering the best of the possible outcomes for the price of the pack, I still wouldn’t buy it. Please don’t presume to know why I do or don’t want to do things.

    I didn’t say it’s not a gamble - I said it’s not “gambling”, in response to people suggesting that selling packs like this might by illegal in certain locations where “gambling” is not permitted. Semantics, I know, but you yourself are the master of a semantic-based rebuttal.

    For anything to be considered “gambling”, there must be the possibility that your stake is lost with no return. These packs don’t do that. If you buy a pack and get the least desirable outcome, you haven’t “lost” your money. You can be disappointed with what you get for it, but you haven’t “lost” it. Indeed, regulation in several countries has openly stated that “loot boxes” are NOT considered a form of gambling for exactly that reason.

    And I though I was clear on the probabilities - they were legally obliged to release them in certain locations like China, Japan, etc, but there are several locations (like most of Europe) where they are not required to release them.

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s gambling. I don’t see anything about needing to lose everything. Buying the packs is indeed gambling. To the extent of being illegal? That’s purely subjective and can be argued either way which doesn’t matter overall to my point of people would prefer knowing exactly what they’re buying than taking a chance…or a gamble 😏…
    Time for another Ravens semantic tennis match.

    “Risk”. There is no risk buying one of these packs. You will get something for your money.

    “He or someone else” means that either he gets something back for his money, or the bookmaker / dealer / croupier gets to keep the money. With these packs there is no someone else. The buyer is guaranteed to get something. There is no possible outcome where “someone else” gets something of value.

    And whether or not it’s illegal is purely subjective? Really? And, not for the first time, my involvement in this thread was brought about by people suggesting selling these packs is or might be illegal in locations where gambling is illegal. My point is that it is not gambling.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    I’m not complaining I didn’t get what I want. I’m complaining that most of their packs are exactly what we are discussing, a gamble. That’s why I, and you, and others, don’t buy them because they are…a gamble.

    You’re taking a chance when you buy the packs so it’s a gamble. You said it’s not. It indeed is.

    What we wanna see are packs that say “here’s what you are getting 100%” not these multiple outcome probability packs, which by the way, they need to disclose now. If they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t have released the probabilities.
    I don’t buy them because I don’t want to spend my money on this game. If they were offering the best of the possible outcomes for the price of the pack, I still wouldn’t buy it. Please don’t presume to know why I do or don’t want to do things.

    I didn’t say it’s not a gamble - I said it’s not “gambling”, in response to people suggesting that selling packs like this might by illegal in certain locations where “gambling” is not permitted. Semantics, I know, but you yourself are the master of a semantic-based rebuttal.

    For anything to be considered “gambling”, there must be the possibility that your stake is lost with no return. These packs don’t do that. If you buy a pack and get the least desirable outcome, you haven’t “lost” your money. You can be disappointed with what you get for it, but you haven’t “lost” it. Indeed, regulation in several countries has openly stated that “loot boxes” are NOT considered a form of gambling for exactly that reason.

    And I though I was clear on the probabilities - they were legally obliged to release them in certain locations like China, Japan, etc, but there are several locations (like most of Europe) where they are not required to release them.

    Are you a lawyer? You seem to have an awfully keen sense of what makes something legally considered to be gambling. If your claim that always getting something for your money, regardless of outcome, was the only loophole needed to bypass gambling laws, then there'd be casinos in every city that offer at least a nickel back for any lost hand/game/etc.

    From a conversational viewpoint, these packs are clearly gambling. Just like when I play a friendly board game, I might say "I'm gonna gamble" when making a risky play.

    From a legal viewpoint, I don't know. I don't think there's a black and white answer for it either (see wikipedia article for loot boxes linked earlier). I also don't think it matters. What matters is whether a body with jurisdictional authority decides that loot boxes should be regulated.

    Finally, just because something is deemed to be "gambling" does not make it bad or amoral. I'll spare everyone my personal moral judgement because none of you likely care ;)
    Do I need to be a lawyer to understand the law?

    My point was, and remains, that selling these packs is definitely not illegal, as some had suggested it might be.

    Analogies are always at risk of sounding stupid, but the best analogy I can think of for these packs is something like the Pokemon trading cards. When you buy one of them, you’re hoping for the Golden Star cards, but you’ll more than likely not get them. But you get something.

    Is it “gambling” to buy a pack of trading cards?
  • Do I need to be a lawyer to understand the law?

    No, but you keep referencing a black and white definition that I didn't see with a quick Google search. If you were a lawyer, I'd take your word for it. Since I don't think you are, I would like to see your source.
    My point was, and remains, that selling these packs is definitely not illegal, as some had suggested it might be.

    I didn't dispute that point, nor will I.
    Analogies are always at risk of sounding stupid, but the best analogy I can think of for these packs is something like the Pokemon trading cards. When you buy one of them, you’re hoping for the Golden Star cards, but you’ll more than likely not get them. But you get something.

    Is it “gambling” to buy a pack of trading cards?

    See my previous post. Conversationally, yes. Legally, no, but only because governments have decided not to regulate it as such.

    I'm pretty sure the $20 poker games I played in college were gambling. I'm also pretty sure they weren't illegal. I don't think there's a law that says all forms of gambling are illegal.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    I’m not complaining I didn’t get what I want. I’m complaining that most of their packs are exactly what we are discussing, a gamble. That’s why I, and you, and others, don’t buy them because they are…a gamble.

    You’re taking a chance when you buy the packs so it’s a gamble. You said it’s not. It indeed is.

    What we wanna see are packs that say “here’s what you are getting 100%” not these multiple outcome probability packs, which by the way, they need to disclose now. If they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t have released the probabilities.
    I don’t buy them because I don’t want to spend my money on this game. If they were offering the best of the possible outcomes for the price of the pack, I still wouldn’t buy it. Please don’t presume to know why I do or don’t want to do things.

    I didn’t say it’s not a gamble - I said it’s not “gambling”, in response to people suggesting that selling packs like this might by illegal in certain locations where “gambling” is not permitted. Semantics, I know, but you yourself are the master of a semantic-based rebuttal.

    For anything to be considered “gambling”, there must be the possibility that your stake is lost with no return. These packs don’t do that. If you buy a pack and get the least desirable outcome, you haven’t “lost” your money. You can be disappointed with what you get for it, but you haven’t “lost” it. Indeed, regulation in several countries has openly stated that “loot boxes” are NOT considered a form of gambling for exactly that reason.

    And I though I was clear on the probabilities - they were legally obliged to release them in certain locations like China, Japan, etc, but there are several locations (like most of Europe) where they are not required to release them.

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s gambling. I don’t see anything about needing to lose everything. Buying the packs is indeed gambling. To the extent of being illegal? That’s purely subjective and can be argued either way which doesn’t matter overall to my point of people would prefer knowing exactly what they’re buying than taking a chance…or a gamble 😏…
    Time for another Ravens semantic tennis match.

    “Risk”. There is no risk buying one of these packs. You will get something for your money.

    “He or someone else” means that either he gets something back for his money, or the bookmaker / dealer / croupier gets to keep the money. With these packs there is no someone else. The buyer is guaranteed to get something. There is no possible outcome where “someone else” gets something of value.

    And whether or not it’s illegal is purely subjective? Really? And, not for the first time, my involvement in this thread was brought about by people suggesting selling these packs is or might be illegal in locations where gambling is illegal. My point is that it is not gambling.

    For something to be gambling doesn’t mean it has to be legal. As it’s been pointed out already, gambling can be.

    Just because you’re getting something doesn’t mean you’re not taking a risk….again, these packs are a game of chance. You’re not spending $20 to get just under your moneys worth or your exact “CG valuation” of a return. You’re looking to get the best possible thing. So you’re buying it playing the odds. You’re taking a chance. You’re taking a gamble. Hence gambling.

    I’m not arguing over legality, but when you say something that is like a roll of the dice or a slot machine isn’t gambling…I’m gonna call nonsense
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    I’m not complaining I didn’t get what I want. I’m complaining that most of their packs are exactly what we are discussing, a gamble. That’s why I, and you, and others, don’t buy them because they are…a gamble.

    You’re taking a chance when you buy the packs so it’s a gamble. You said it’s not. It indeed is.

    What we wanna see are packs that say “here’s what you are getting 100%” not these multiple outcome probability packs, which by the way, they need to disclose now. If they didn’t need to, they wouldn’t have released the probabilities.
    I don’t buy them because I don’t want to spend my money on this game. If they were offering the best of the possible outcomes for the price of the pack, I still wouldn’t buy it. Please don’t presume to know why I do or don’t want to do things.

    I didn’t say it’s not a gamble - I said it’s not “gambling”, in response to people suggesting that selling packs like this might by illegal in certain locations where “gambling” is not permitted. Semantics, I know, but you yourself are the master of a semantic-based rebuttal.

    For anything to be considered “gambling”, there must be the possibility that your stake is lost with no return. These packs don’t do that. If you buy a pack and get the least desirable outcome, you haven’t “lost” your money. You can be disappointed with what you get for it, but you haven’t “lost” it. Indeed, regulation in several countries has openly stated that “loot boxes” are NOT considered a form of gambling for exactly that reason.

    And I though I was clear on the probabilities - they were legally obliged to release them in certain locations like China, Japan, etc, but there are several locations (like most of Europe) where they are not required to release them.

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s gambling. I don’t see anything about needing to lose everything. Buying the packs is indeed gambling. To the extent of being illegal? That’s purely subjective and can be argued either way which doesn’t matter overall to my point of people would prefer knowing exactly what they’re buying than taking a chance…or a gamble 😏…
    Time for another Ravens semantic tennis match.

    “Risk”. There is no risk buying one of these packs. You will get something for your money.

    “He or someone else” means that either he gets something back for his money, or the bookmaker / dealer / croupier gets to keep the money. With these packs there is no someone else. The buyer is guaranteed to get something. There is no possible outcome where “someone else” gets something of value.

    And whether or not it’s illegal is purely subjective? Really? And, not for the first time, my involvement in this thread was brought about by people suggesting selling these packs is or might be illegal in locations where gambling is illegal. My point is that it is not gambling.

    For something to be gambling doesn’t mean it has to be legal. As it’s been pointed out already, gambling can be.

    Just because you’re getting something doesn’t mean you’re not taking a risk….again, these packs are a game of chance. You’re not spending $20 to get just under your moneys worth or your exact “CG valuation” of a return. You’re looking to get the best possible thing. So you’re buying it playing the odds. You’re taking a chance. You’re taking a gamble. Hence gambling.

    I’m not arguing over legality, but when you say something that is like a roll of the dice or a slot machine isn’t gambling…I’m gonna call nonsense
    Rolling a dice isn’t gambling. I roll them all the time with my kids. Or are we gambling when we play snakes and ladders?

    Betting money that you could lose on the roll of a dice is gambling.
  • Do I need to be a lawyer to understand the law?

    No, but you keep referencing a black and white definition that I didn't see with a quick Google search. If you were a lawyer, I'd take your word for it. Since I don't think you are, I would like to see your source.
    My point was, and remains, that selling these packs is definitely not illegal, as some had suggested it might be.

    I didn't dispute that point, nor will I.
    Analogies are always at risk of sounding stupid, but the best analogy I can think of for these packs is something like the Pokemon trading cards. When you buy one of them, you’re hoping for the Golden Star cards, but you’ll more than likely not get them. But you get something.

    Is it “gambling” to buy a pack of trading cards?

    See my previous post. Conversationally, yes. Legally, no, but only because governments have decided not to regulate it as such.

    I'm pretty sure the $20 poker games I played in college were gambling. I'm also pretty sure they weren't illegal. I don't think there's a law that says all forms of gambling are illegal.
    Apologies in advance for veering off topic, but your point about poker is an interesting one, and an argument I myself have had with some of my friends (many of whom are lawyers, one of whom is specifically my source on the subject of what is and is not legally considered gambling).

    Before getting married and starting a family, I used to play a lot of poker. Local sit&go style tournaments where I’d pay £10 fee to enter, would be given the same pile of chips as everyone else who had entered, and we’d play with those chips until someone eventually won the game. The top 3 players would split the pool of entry fees between them (60%, 25%, 15% I think).

    I argue that this is not gambling. I’m paying to enter a tournament and I’m in - to some extent - control of the outcome of that tournament. Others disagreed, and pointed out that if I didn’t finish in the top 3 I’d lost my money.

    My rebuttal to that is my weekly “medal” at my golf club. Every week I turn up to the golf club, I pay a fee (£2) to enter the medal, and at the end of the day the top 3 players split the pool of entry fees (similar %ages to above). Now, I don’t think anyone on Earth would consider my round of golf “gambling”, but it is exactly the same scenario as the poker tournament. I can’t “lose” any more than my entry fee, and if I’m skilful enough (which is a lot less frequent on the golf course than it was on the poker baize, I can tell you!) I win some money.

    The reason, I think, people consider the poker tournament to be gambling is because some forms of poker ARE gambling. Whilst I played in those tournaments, other players played a “cash game”. There, the stakes were actual cash, and players could raise the pot by insane amounts of actual cash, where one could lose £100s in a single hand.

    Is there a golf equivalent to that? Maybe. If there is, I wouldn’t partake.

    But I realise that the concept of what is and is not “gambling” is not fixed. I don’t view the poker tournament as gambling, but others do. Fair enough.

    I don’t view these packs as gambling, but others do. Fair enough. I think we all view the packs as rubbish and incredibly unattractive to buy, which is of course the point Ravens correctly makes in the OP.

    Some people in this thread suggested these packs might be legally dubious. I strongly disagree, for reasons I’ve stated already.
  • Monel
    2719 posts Member
    I love when regular people walk into a room and start telling a billionaire how to make money.

    I dont like the packs as I said initially, but they obviously sell a ton of them so more power to CG and those that enjoy the game of chance.
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    The packs are gambling. You are not given an item for your money. You are given a loot box.

    I believe your misconception is that to gamble you must risk something. Gambling does not necessarily involve risks, it just involves stakes. The most basic definition of "gambling" (from google):
    play games of chance for money; bet.
    The packs are chance, therefore gambling. It is why I will never buy one. I don't mind lootboxes for crystals, but if I'm giving a game my actual money I want to know what I'm getting, not what I *might* get.
  • Use of paid loot boxes have already been deemed as illegal gambling in Belgium for one of EAs more lucrative game titles. EAs lawyers claim this was legal. Apparently they were wrong in this case.
    Is Belgium a huge market? No. Is Belgium speaking for every country in the world? No.
    Would it be correct to claim that this might give reason for reflection on the legality and definition of which practices are considered gambling. Probably.
    Legality is a grey zone.
  • StarSon wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    The packs are gambling. You are not given an item for your money. You are given a loot box.

    I believe your misconception is that to gamble you must risk something. Gambling does not necessarily involve risks, it just involves stakes. The most basic definition of "gambling" (from google):
    play games of chance for money; bet.
    The packs are chance, therefore gambling. It is why I will never buy one. I don't mind lootboxes for crystals, but if I'm giving a game my actual money I want to know what I'm getting, not what I *might* get.
    Is buying a pack a game?
  • RTS
    619 posts Member
    I get your point OP, but maybe JUST MAYBE the data scientists and accounting departments have a better idea of what brings in the most money from a pricing perspective?
  • RTS wrote: »
    I get your point OP, but maybe JUST MAYBE the data scientists and accounting departments have a better idea of what brings in the most money from a pricing perspective?

    This would be true, if the date provided in this thread didn’t show a 31% reduction in revenue YTD, not counting holiday discounts and deals
  • StarSon wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    The packs are gambling. You are not given an item for your money. You are given a loot box.

    I believe your misconception is that to gamble you must risk something. Gambling does not necessarily involve risks, it just involves stakes. The most basic definition of "gambling" (from google):
    play games of chance for money; bet.
    The packs are chance, therefore gambling. It is why I will never buy one. I don't mind lootboxes for crystals, but if I'm giving a game my actual money I want to know what I'm getting, not what I *might* get.
    Is buying a pack a game?

    Yes. It's a game of "what will I get in this pack?"
  • StarSon wrote: »
    StarSon wrote: »
    Ravens1113 wrote: »
    I said this. It’s gambling. There’s kids on the game, Gambling buying stuff and not knowing what they’re buying. Everything else is clear but the packs are a disgrace.
    It’s not gambling.

    Kids shouldn’t be able to buy stuff on a mobile game like this. That’s what parental controls are for.
    Ok. I’m an adult. Its gambling.
    It’s not gambling, as discussed above.

    When you gamble, you place your stake at risk. The potential to get nothing in return is present.

    These packs will always give you something. So there is no risk.
    That’s the definition you use. Legally that’s not a universal truth.
    Ok.

    One of 2 things is happening:

    1) a billion dollar company with access to a colossal legal team is wilfully breaking the law by selling packs in this manner.

    2) some disgruntled forumers don’t understand the legal ramifications of what constitutes gambling.

    Would you care to gamble on which of those is the most likely?

    “person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.”

    That’s literally what these packs are. You are buying a chance of an outcome when there’s a 45% chance of getting one thing, a 35% chance of another, a 15% chance of a third outcome and a 5% of a 4th. What we get is not under our control. Neither you nor I have any control over what drop we get from these packs. People buying those packs agree to that, knowing that they may not be getting what they set out for depending on the random outcome.

    Your money is still at risk because you may not get what you set out to get. Hence it’s a pack of chance. A gamble.
    But if you’re prepared to spend your money on something that has multiple possible outcomes, can you really complain if you don’t get the outcome you want? And that’s not “at risk” anyway.

    I mean, whatever - you guys are all complaining about something that nobody is making you buy. I - and by the sounds of it, most of you - will never buy one of these packs so I’ll never be disappointed with the outcome of buying one.

    The packs are gambling. You are not given an item for your money. You are given a loot box.

    I believe your misconception is that to gamble you must risk something. Gambling does not necessarily involve risks, it just involves stakes. The most basic definition of "gambling" (from google):
    play games of chance for money; bet.
    The packs are chance, therefore gambling. It is why I will never buy one. I don't mind lootboxes for crystals, but if I'm giving a game my actual money I want to know what I'm getting, not what I *might* get.
    Is buying a pack a game?

    Yes. It's a game of "what will I get in this pack?"
    Sure. So when my son buys a pack of Pokemon cards, he’s gambling?

    I think “the most basic definition of gambling” is not necessarily all that helpful here.
  • TVF
    31660 posts Member
    ecaa46ad-7e18-4355-be64-1772bd271732_text.gif
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of the change to the shipment tab. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    RTS wrote: »
    I get your point OP, but maybe JUST MAYBE the data scientists and accounting departments have a better idea of what brings in the most money from a pricing perspective?

    This would be true, if the date provided in this thread didn’t show a 31% reduction in revenue YTD, not counting holiday discounts and deals

    Correlation does not equal causation. First to draw a correlation, you would need to show that packs that are based on chance (I didn't say gambling since I don't care whether it is technically gambling or not) increased as revenue decreased. As far as I know these packs have been this way since the game began so there's really not a strong correlation there.

    Even if you could prove a correlation, that doesn't prove causation. There are just too many other factors. Most notably being the community disgust at conquest lately. That could be a cause for decreased revenue. Unless you control for all other factors, you can't prove causation.
Sign In or Register to comment.