As annoying as loot boxes can be, how are they any different to something like pokemon/yu-gi-oh/sports cards, various arcade machines & other child orientated toys? Other than being digital, it's essentially the same principle, yet those aren't considered gambling.
My problem with this line of thinking is that agencies across the world, who are staffed by industry experts, have access to legal counsel, and have access to large amounts of data on player behaviours as well as recent peer approved behavioral studies have all come to a conclusion that a vocal minority don't like based on "feels".
I mean... there are enough horrific political decisions being based where people declare that their feels overrule informed experts on a subject.
3.17 doesn't seem to jive with your "fuck yeah lootcrates" stance.
The way I read that, every game with random rewards in return for real money is subject to gambling legislation as soon as someone figures out how to create a third-party marketplace for it (e.g. by selling accounts).
So... politicians never get things wrong?
It's not gambling, but it requires regulation.
Its to do with the legal definition of gambling.
The contents of loot boxes are fundamentally worthless, they have no monetary value, ie its not giving you £10 or £20 when opened.
Therefore, its not gambling.
Thats the hang up.
3.17 doesn't seem to jive with your "fuck yeah lootcrates" stance.
The way I read that, every game with random rewards in return for real money is subject to gambling legislation as soon as someone figures out how to create a third-party marketplace for it (e.g. by selling accounts).
I think 3.17 and the subsequent sections are just stating that a loot box cannot possibly be gambling if there is no way for the user to get a cash payout. If it is possible, then the easier it is to cash out, the more likely it is to be regulated as gambling. Which makes sense to me. It's a spectrum. They're not going to care if one person manages to sell their entire account to a friend. But if a developer includes a sell for cash button right on the results screen next to each item after you open a box, then yeah that's gambling.
Its to do with the legal definition of gambling.
The contents of loot boxes are fundamentally worthless, they have no monetary value, ie its not giving you £10 or £20 when opened.
Therefore, its not gambling.
Thats the hang up.
I mean yeah but this case the activity fits the dictionary definition of gambling (even with money involved) but not legal.I mean, I could be wrong, but I think he's saying "If a thing can turn from not-gambling into gambling just by adding a 'cash out' button, it must at some level be close to gambling in the first place" which I disagree with because you can pretty much "make things interesting" for any activity by adding a wager to it.
Which in my mind is what makes it even worse than gambling.
Gambling has been proven to have a very strongly addictive element to its mechanics, and so the introduction of betting real money only raised the chances of a compulsive gambler ruining their life.
Lootboxes on the other hand exploit all the same mechanics and psychological effects of gambling, and yet provide literally zero opportunity for the compulsive gambler to actually win anything of any real-world value. It's the gambling institution's wet dream, because you persuade people to bet with real money on the chance to win literally nothing.
For me, all this highlights is that the legal definition of gambling needs a adjustment, as the lack of real-world value of winnings do nothing to lessen the chances of a compulsive gambler ruining their lives/finances.
Clearly, what keeps the user of these systems playing, is the mental value the player assigns to the items they're attempting to win. So whether those winnings are virtual items or real world currency, regardless of whether the Law considers them to have value, the player (who is the one taking the risk) clearly does... surely that should be what matterssince it is this that is being exploited.
Which in my mind is what makes it even worse than gambling.
Gambling has been proven to have a very strongly addictive element to its mechanics, and so the introduction of betting real money only raised the chances of a compulsive gambler ruining their life.
Lootboxes on the other hand exploit all the same mechanics and psychological effects of gambling, and yet provide literally zero opportunity for the compulsive gambler to actually win anything of any real-world value. It's the gambling institution's wet dream, because you persuade people to bet with real money on the chance to win literally nothing.
For me, all this highlights is that the legal definition of gambling needs a adjustment, as the lack of real-world value of winnings do nothing to lessen the chances of a compulsive gambler ruining their lives/finances.
Clearly, what keeps the user of these systems playing, is the mental value the player assigns to the items they're attempting to win. So whether those winnings are virtual items or real world currency, regardless of whether the Law considers them to have value, the player (who is the one taking the risk) clearly does... surely that should be what matterssince it is this that is being exploited.
I fail to see what's different. Do you think the massive revenue generation by gacha games in the mobile sector is by chance?The bolded is kind of head-scratching. The thing that makes something like gambling for money at the casino as dangerous as it is to me rests entirely on the fact that you're betting money directly to win money. The danger is that there's an inherent risk of just digging oneself deeper and deeper into the hole thinking that they can "win" their way out of it. Like if I just get paid today and decide that I've got X amount of spending money for the next two weeks and decide to gamble it all at the boat, that's bad. If I lose all that money and decide I really don't want to spend the next two weeks walking to work and eating ramen noodles and decide to gamble my rent money, that's worse. If I lose my rent money and decide I'm completely fucked if I don't win it back and then start taking out cash withdrawals against my credit card(s), I could be venturing down the path of ruining my entire life.
Now I get that some of the same fallacious reasoning that applies to casino gamblers can prey on a f2p gacha game player (or loot crate game I guess). That "I've already lost this much I can't quit now" sunk cost fallacies or the gambler's fallacy ("I'm due for a win") can still affect people. But there isn't precisely that same draw that all of this can be undone if I can just get lady luck on my side for a bit. Like if I buy $1,000 of orbs in Fire Emblem Heroes (a gacha game I'm familiar with if you're wondering why I'm bringing it up) and don't get the hero I want, just because I'm convinced that I'll finally get it on this next $20 worth of orbs certainly won't get me out of this hole. I mean, yes, I might get that sweet hit of digital ecstasy by "winning," but I'm also down $1,020 now. Nothing I do in this game is going to change all the money I've lost. Whereas if I'm at the boat, all I have to do to get out of the hole is put $1,000 on black and I'm back to even, baby!
I fail to see what's different. Do you think the massive revenue generation by gacha games in the mobile sector is by chance?
The argument that digital items hold less value to people than money becomes more fallacious as we go on.
People care a lot an out those digital items this is no longer even a theoretical question anymore the stats speak for themselves.
I mean yeah but this case the activity fits the dictionary definition of gambling (even with money involved) but not legal.
I just don't think that the compulsion to get a swimsuit Mercy skin or whatever will ever be as high as the compulsion to win cash.
I think you're making a big assumption that "the lack of real-world value of winnings do nothing to lessen the chances of a compulsive gambler ruining their lives/finances." I agree that developers can and do every thing they can to make random items as desirable and limited as possible. I just don't think that the compulsion to get a swimsuit Mercy skin or whatever will ever be as high as the compulsion to win cash.
Edit: which was explained in the post above
The bolded is kind of head-scratching. The thing that makes something like gambling for money at the casino as dangerous as it is to me rests entirely on the fact that you're betting money directly to win money. The danger is that there's an inherent risk of just digging oneself deeper and deeper into the hole thinking that they can "win" their way out of it. Like if I just get paid today and decide that I've got X amount of spending money for the next two weeks and decide to gamble it all at the boat, that's bad. If I lose all that money and decide I really don't want to spend the next two weeks walking to work and eating ramen noodles and decide to gamble my rent money, that's worse. If I lose my rent money and decide I'm completely fucked if I don't win it back and then start taking out cash withdrawals against my credit card(s), I could be venturing down the path of ruining my entire life.
Now I get that some of the same fallacious reasoning that applies to casino gamblers can prey on a f2p gacha game player (or loot crate game I guess). That "I've already lost this much I can't quit now" sunk cost fallacies or the gambler's fallacy ("I'm due for a win") can still affect people. But there isn't precisely that same draw that all of this can be undone if I can just get lady luck on my side for a bit. Like if I buy $1,000 of orbs in Fire Emblem Heroes (a gacha game I'm familiar with if you're wondering why I'm bringing it up) and don't get the hero I want, just because I'm convinced that I'll finally get it on this next $20 worth of orbs certainly won't get me out of this hole. I mean, yes, I might get that sweet hit of digital ecstasy by "winning," but I'm also down $1,020 now. Nothing I do in this game is going to change all the money I've lost. Whereas if I'm at the boat, all I have to do to get out of the hole is put $1,000 on black and I'm back to even, baby!
Its the Eurogamer article that says they are uninformed as op-ed, that doesn't automatically mean that they are.
Given they cite a commision report from March of this year that specifically involved investigating virtual currencies that nobody (including myself) seems to have been aware of or brought up in any of these discussions.... who is actually uninformed here?
e:
Because reading this report right now
"LOL WHATS A LOOTCRATE AMIRITE?" seems an unfair response
Right, but I'm trying to talk about how the traps work. I'm not saying that absolutely nobody out there possesses the kind of addictive behavior that would allow them to fall victim to gacha or loot crap, but that the risk-reward is wildly different between the two. Like, I'm not arguing that gacha stuff is fine because it's worthless anyway and if you lose your money gambling on it that's your problem, but that I can't possibly see how it's worse just given that more people would obviously be drawn to winning money. Further, the fact that you're gambling to win money can cause even worse short term judgment simply because your ability to wipe out your losses is always potentially just one lucky day or possibly even one bet away.
Coffee revels are an awful example almost no one is spending thousands to get those coffee revels and the percentages are completely different. There needs to a worth with which the user is willing to spends thousands for based on that chance.I mean... I still disagree, because it is conflating a figurative meaning with a literal one.
Like... if I don't like coffee revels, its 'gambling' to buy a pack of revels, and end up with more coffee revels than other flavours but its not gambling.
But if a mate says "Bet you a tenner you get more coffee revels than any other flavour in that pack" that then is gambling.
I agree, the stakes are much lower, which means the risk is much lower, which means the thrill is much lower.
It's a game in which the house wins with 100% certainty.
Not when the output can be practically or exactly worthless.I mean... again, is it actually a game?
Because paying for a random product that the vendor will always keep the money from that payment for just sounds like regular old purchasing.
I feel like it's one of those things that will have to live or die by consumers...not the government. I don't think you want to open this can of worms just because you are afraid of what might happen.
They're financial problems are the same though. They use similar predatory methods.I already did in all of the other threads.
Loot boxes is a separate issue that needs to be solved or mitigated differently. Gambling and Loot boxes have similarities, but they are not the same. Some companies' loot crate implementation is gambling, like Valve with selling stuff on Steam.
I don't want people to detract actual gambling where addicts gambling hoping to get more money to solve their problems. Loot boxes addicts are just buying useless virtual goods that they can't sell and have no value. That's the key difference.
They're financial problems are the same though. They use similar predatory methods.
Ultimately the end result isn't all that different.
Loot boxes aren't a heinous concept and neither is gambling frankly if the chances rewards etc were actually fair. They're not though. If they were companies wouldn't be making massive amounts of money from it the statistics wouldn't add up.
That's the problem.
They're financial problems are the same though. They use similar predatory methods.
Ultimately the end result isn't all that different.
Loot boxes aren't a heinous concept and neither is gambling frankly if the chances rewards etc were actually fair. They're not though. If they were companies wouldn't be making massive amounts of money from it the statistics wouldn't add up.
That's the problem.
Not when the output can be practically or exactly worthless.
They're financial problems are the same though. They use similar predatory methods.
Ultimately the end result isn't all that different.
Loot boxes aren't a heinous concept and neither is gambling frankly if the chances rewards etc were actually fair. They're not though. If they were companies wouldn't be making massive amounts of money from it the statistics wouldn't add up.
That's the problem.
Look at it from the point view of someone who has just spent $1000 after losing over and over and isn't feeling particularly happy about all of the money they've spent. For someone playing Overwatch, they think if I just buy one more box I could finally get the skin I want and I'll have paid $1,010 for it. For the gambler, they think one more hand and it's like all of those losing hands never happened. The chance to erase all of your poor financial decisions is a powerful draw that no loot box can match.
Which is honestly why I think marketplaces combined with loot boxes is actually more dangerous than people are willing to admit. It's seen as the better side of loot crates but it trends closer toward real gambling than otherwise. "I'm after the skin I know will go for $400 so I can buy a number of games" or "at least if I only get trash I can sell it and try and get some DLC" are more powerful motivators than "I hope I get the good skin".Look at it from the point view of someone who has just spent $1000 after losing over and over and isn't feeling particularly happy about all of the money they've spent. For someone playing Overwatch, they think if I just buy one more box I could finally get the skin I want and I'll have paid $1,010 for it. For the gambler, they think one more hand and it's like all of those losing hands never happened. The chance to erase all of your poor financial decisions is a powerful draw that no loot box can match.
The ๖ۜBronx;252311528 said:Which is honestly why I think marketplaces combined with loot boxes is actually more dangerous than people are willing to admit. It's seen as the better side of loot crates but it trends closer toward real gambling than otherwise. "I'm after the skin I know will go for $400 so I can buy a number of games" or "at least if I only get trash I can sell it and try and get some DLC" are more powerful motivators than "I hope I get the good skin".