Support NeoGAF

[Moose Biscuits]

Only barely related but this thread reminds me of the poker minigame that was included with New Super Mario Bros for the Nintendo DS and how I spent so much fucking time on that when I was young.

 

[noonespecial]

So there are two situations that could be somewhat like gambling (or hell, maybe they should be considered to be gambling):

1) A video game where you can spend real money to get loot boxes and from those loot boxes you have a chance of "winning" a rare item - which you can then go on to sell the rare item over eBay or some other online website and make real $$ profit.

2) CCG's (with real physical cards) such as Pokemon or Magic:The Gathering where you could buy packs of cards (i.e. "loot boxes") and then sell the rare cards for profit.

I am wondering how either of these situations does not constitute "gambling"? How is doing either of the above inherently any different than actual gambling such as at Las Vegas? Is it simply because "gambling" is defined as spending money to win actual money whereas the two examples I gave above require a middle-man step of finding a buyer for this rare thing that you have found in a collectible card pack or lootbox?

And how is either of my examples not considered a problem to someone who may have an addiction to gambling?

Personally, I define gambling as spending money to have a chance of winning money (directly) or spending money to purchase a container that may have a rare item that can then be sold for real money. In either case there must be at least a small chance of a massive payout as compared to the initial "investment" of opening each loot box or pulling a lever on a slot machine.

In reading up on these types of threads lately it seems like there is not really a clear cut definition of what "gambling" truly is defined as.

Obviously RPGs and other similar games (like Borderlands) where you can find what amount to loot boxes in-game are a bit different, even if you could go on to sell a rare item for real money because besides the initial output of money to purchase the game you didn't spend "real money" for the loot boxes themselves. Furthermore, if there really is no way to resell a rare item found in a loot box to another person for real money then that probably shouldn't be considered gambling either (with my interpretation of what "gambling" is defined as).

 

[Leafhopper]

I miss the days of Pokemon letting a 10 year old kid gamble in a casino and me thinking "This is as bad it will get with games."

Man I was wrong.

 

[Deepwater]

So there are two situations that could be somewhat like gambling (or hell, maybe they should be considered to be gambling):

1) A video game where you can spend real money to get loot boxes and from those loot boxes you have a chance of "winning" a rare item - which you can then go on to sell the rare item over eBay or some other online website and make real $$ profit.

2) CCG's (with real physical cards) such as Pokemon or Magic:The Gathering where you could buy packs of cards (i.e. "loot boxes") and then sell the rare cards for profit.

I am wondering how either of these situations does not constitute "gambling"? How is doing either of the above inherently any different than actual gambling such as at Las Vegas? Is it simply because "gambling" is defined as spending money to win actual money whereas the two examples I gave above require a middle-man step of finding a buyer for this rare thing that you have found in a collectible card pack or lootbox?

And how is either of my examples not considered a problem to someone who may have an addiction to gambling?

Personally, I define gambling as spending money to have a chance of winning money (directly) or spending money to purchase a container that may have a rare item that can then be sold for real money. In either case there must be at least a small chance of a massive payout as compared to the initial "investment" of opening each loot box or pulling a lever on a slot machine.

In reading up on these types of threads lately it seems like there is not really a clear cut definition of what "gambling" truly is defined as.

Obviously RPGs and other similar games (like Borderlands) where you can find what amount to loot boxes in-game are a bit different, even if you could go on to sell a rare item for real money because besides the initial output of money to purchase the game you didn't spend "real money" for the loot boxes themselves. Furthermore, if there really is no way to resell a rare item found in a loot box to another person for real money then that probably shouldn't be considered gambling either (with my interpretation of what "gambling" is defined as).

As someone who has actually worked at a casino, any attempts to draw parallels don't understand what actually happens to people who are gambling addicts. It's definitely not the same. Wasting money on digital lootboxes is not the same as gambling away mortgages, retirement funds, and the such.

 

[AYF 001]

In real gambling it’s beyond a dopamine fix, it’s the promise of winning money and cancelling out all your losses. There’s actual money at the end. So you’re more incentivized to play than just a dopamine fix. Actual desperation and livelihood comes into play.

No, because you can't solve your money problems with virtual games.

The idea that you'll win big at slots or anything at the casino is what keeps gambling addicts in the game, and the house always wins the odds.



I like playing GTA or shooters or whatever violent game. It doesn't mean I'm addicted to killing people.

The incentive of winning money has to be there for it to be a gambling addiction. If that incentive isn't there, it's some other kind of addiction.

Good points. As someone who feels bad over the $10 total I've spent on lotto tickets, I wouldn't think about the role desperation would play in escalating wagers.

Virtual items have monetary value. Everyone may not agree with that, but it's very well solidified in all lines of business now. Digital games, Digital Movies, Digital TV, Digital Books, etc etc etc

Well part of the problem is that they're saying they don't, since there's no way to convert items to cash. You'd think sites selling skins and accounts would be evidence otherwise, but politicians aren't the most technologically literate people.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Interesting, I didn't realize that if items being gambled didn't have a strict value assigned to them it didn't count as gambling. I always thought gambling was just a game of chance that required a buy in.

Curse you dictionary definitions for being wrong once again.

The dictionary definition of gambling is not the legal one. If I buy a used car without checking it out, that's a "gamble". If I buy the fish from a sketchy restaurant I've never been to before, that's a "gamble". If I buy a pack of basketball cards because I really want a LeBron James card but don't get one, that was a "gamble".

 

[Manzoon]

The only difference is a legal definition, laws aren't always correct.

 

[Shengar]

That’s what ruins people’s lives and makes it an infinite loop. If you can’t get money back out of the system it’s a finite dump of money.

This is what they makes you want to think.

While it is not as severe as real gambling debt problem, do you honestly think there is 'finite' dump of money when there are whales who put grands after grands for this addiction? Seriously this notion of finity on virtual currency is stupidly naive.

 

[bchan555]

So there are two situations that could be somewhat like gambling (or hell, maybe they should be considered to be gambling):

1) A video game where you can spend real money to get loot boxes and from those loot boxes you have a chance of "winning" a rare item - which you can then go on to sell the rare item over eBay or some other online website and make real $$ profit.

2) CCG's (with real physical cards) such as Pokemon or Magic:The Gathering where you could buy packs of cards (i.e. "loot boxes") and then sell the rare cards for profit.

I am wondering how either of these situations does not constitute "gambling"? How is doing either of the above inherently any different than actual gambling such as at Las Vegas? Is it simply because "gambling" is defined as spending money to win actual money whereas the two examples I gave above require a middle-man step of finding a buyer for this rare thing that you have found in a collectible card pack or lootbox?

And how is either of my examples not considered a problem to someone who may have an addiction to gambling?

Personally, I define gambling as spending money to have a chance of winning money (directly) or spending money to purchase a container that may have a rare item that can then be sold for real money. In either case there must be at least a small chance of a massive payout as compared to the initial "investment" of opening each loot box or pulling a lever on a slot machine.

In reading up on these types of threads lately it seems like there is not really a clear cut definition of what "gambling" truly is defined as.

Obviously RPGs and other similar games (like Borderlands) where you can find what amount to loot boxes in-game are a bit different, even if you could go on to sell a rare item for real money because besides the initial output of money to purchase the game you didn't spend "real money" for the loot boxes themselves. Furthermore, if there really is no way to resell a rare item found in a loot box to another person for real money then that probably shouldn't be considered gambling either (with my interpretation of what "gambling" is defined as).

The difference isn't that you need to find a middleman to get paid. The difference is that there is no intrinsic value unless someone ELSE adds one.

Money is money to begin with.

Loot boxes and skins don't have any value on their own. Trading cards don't cost more than the cardboard they are printed on. None of them are worth anything until fans or some third party want to start selling them to each other, and there's no way anyone can control or be accountable for that.

 

[Deepwater]

This is what they makes you want to think.

While it is not as severe as real gambling debt problem, do you honestly think there is 'finite' dump of money when there are whales who put grands after grands for this addiction? Seriously this notion of finity on virtual currency is stupidly naive.

At what point do we separate "simulated gambling addiction" from actual video game addiction? Do you feel like we should regulate people who spend too much time on video games? What about people who buy too much DLC? At what point do we stop regulating what people choose to spend time and money on?

 

[Imbarkus]

It's because any monetary card a value is given is based completely on a third party.

Imagine you had one of those bouncy ball vending machines that cost a quarter. There are three types of balls inside: red, blue, and yellow. You put in money and get a red one. Your friend puts in money and gets a blue one.

Your local hobby stores says "hey! I'll buy red balls for 25 cents. I'll buy blue balls for 20 dollars."

Now all of a sudden blue balls are super valuable! People rush to use the vending machine as much as possible in hope of getting a blue ball.

None of this, however, has anything to do with the company that made the vending machine. All they promised is that if you put in 25 cents you would get a ball. The resale value of that ball on some other third party market is completely irrelevant to them and has nothing to do with them. What craziness people get up to on their own time is their own business.


With Pokemon cards, the only thing they are promising you is that you will get cards to play the game. The whole idea that good cards cost a lot of money, or any money at all, is based completely on the secondary market that Wizards of the Coast/Nintendo does not control, and they certainly wouldn't be responsible for it.

This is all true, but the CSGO and DOTA skins grey market is, unironically, the grey area in this argument.

Because we're talking about digital trades and digital items, and instantaneous digital cash buys/trades through shady third party outlets, it's clear there is at least some amount of responsibility beyond that of trading card games here, otherwise the Washington Gaming Commission wouldn't have issued Valve a cease and desist regarding the growing public skins gambling going on.

 

[MSScaeva]

While I personally don't think loot boxes and gachapon systems are legally gambling, I do think that they should be regulated as their own separate thing. Especially in games that aren't rated M or PEGI 18.

Having encountered this sort of thing in Maplestory about 10 years ago, when I was like 14 or 15 years old, I have to say that these sorts of things shouldn't be available to minors. Seeing all sorts of screenshots and forum posts about the awesome loot people got from the ingame gachapon machine, I decided to go to the store and buy a prepaid card to give it a shot. Of course I didn't get anything good. My first instinct was to go back to the store and buy another prepaid card so I could try again, but luckily I didn't do that. But there were many factors pushing me to keep spending more, and as a teenager it can be hard to resist those kinds of things. In retrospect, I shouldn't have been exposed to that kind of thing. And prepaid cards for this sort of stuff have only been getting more prevalent, so it's getting even easier for minors to spend all of their money this way.

For the sake of transparency, and being able to make informed purchases, I think at least the following should be required:

• A label on the packaging or digital storefront stating that the game has in-app purchases, with a clear distinction between "regular" and random unlocks. Mobile apps are already required to list these things in Europe so it's not too much of a stretch.
• Drop rates and odds for every single thing available through paid random systems displayed clearly and easily available.
• Minors should not be exposed to or be able to buy into random systems under any circumstance. Not every system has parental controls, so those which do not should make distinctions between premium currency bought with credit cards and currency obtained through other means.

 

[noonespecial]

As someone who has actually worked at a casino, any attempts to draw parallels don't understand what actually happens to people who are gambling addicts. It's definitely not the same. Wasting money on digital lootboxes is not the same as gambling away mortgages, retirement funds, and the such.

The difference isn't that you need to find a middleman to get paid. The difference is that there is no intrinsic value unless someone ELSE adds one.

Money is money to begin with.

Loot boxes and skins don't have any value on their own. Trading cards don't cost more than the cardboard they are printed on. None of them are worth anything until fans or some third party want to start selling them to each other, and there's no way anyone can control or be accountable for that.

Great comments. That's why I asked because I was wondering what the definition of "gambling" should be and I wondered how specifically actual versus "loot box" gambling pertains to people with gambling addictions..

 

[Acerac]

The dictionary definition of gambling is not the legal one. If I buy a used car without checking it out, that's a "gamble". If I buy the fish from a sketchy restaurant I've never been to before, that's a "gamble". If I buy a pack of basketball cards because I really want a LeBron James card but don't get one, that was a "gamble".

No doubt, but that's pretty close to what I had in my head. Granted, that is my mistake.

Just curious where everyone is taking their legal definition of the word from? Obviously the one given by the OP doesn't suffice when discussing such things.