test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Publishers now face JAIL TIME over lootboxes!

2

Comments

  • kamokamikamokami Posts: 1,633 Arc User
    If you can't directly get real-world money both into and out of a game of chance then it's extremely unlikely to be classified as online gambling by most countries including the US.

    /thread
  • themightyzeniththemightyzenith Posts: 4,599 Arc User
    edited May 2018
    I suspect the legal definition of gambling, in many countries, is something that's going to be looked at very closely, and possibly changed/be more clearly defined in the coming few years. I know that it's being scrutinised and applied more in the UK atm.

    The legal definitions of gambling in the vast majority of countries don't apply to CO lockboxes right now, but I wouldn't bet my life savings that they won't be affected by gambling laws sometime in the not too distant future.
    Post edited by themightyzenith on
    zrdRBy8.png
    Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited May 2018
    That's really what's needed before they can enforce anything. When your definition amounts to "It's kind of like this" then any sort of morality built around it looks cheap, and any enforcement looks blatantly negligent.
  • flyingfinnflyingfinn Posts: 8,408 Arc User
    So whos going to jail from PWI and from Cryptic?
    CHAMPIONS ONLINE:Join Date: Apr 2008
    And playing by myself since Aug 2009
    Godtier: Lifetime Subscriber
    tumblr_n7qtltG3Dv1rv1ckao1_500.gif
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • stergasterga Posts: 2,353 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Sterga, by painting with so broad a brush, you're falling into the same trap as the folk you decry.

    How so? This thread is about lootboxes. And not just any lootboxes, but the ones you pay real currency for and have random item outcomes. I even went out of my way to say how things like CCGs, loot tables, and other things people are sitting around trying to make doomsday scenarios about are not gambling. Even things like prize boxes you get while playing the game with random items in them would not be gambling as you would not be purchasing them with real currency. No, giving out free samples does not make lootboxes sold for currency any less of a slot machine.
    Again, most countries have specific descriptions of what constitutes "gambling", just as they have statutes describing what constitutes "assault" so that you can't charge someone who touches your shoulder lightly with assault.

    ... Yes. That was my point. I have zero doubt that lootboxes, the ones you pay money for, are in fact gambling as per the legal definition of gambling defined for casino gaming establishments. If the video game industry wants to add casino elements to their game, they should be regulated as any other gambling establishment. Lootboxes are digital slot machines. They function the same way. The house gets a cut of the action. The only difference is you don't get a pretty penny every time you use a traditional slot machine. As far as California goes, that is not a requirement to be considered a controlled game.

    That whole "you can't cash out" is flimsy. If the game companies don't allow you to sell the items you bought for money, does that mean it has no currency value? Being against the TOS is the ONLY reason an item you bought wouldn't have a currency value. Even then, plenty of people sell their accounts anyway. Even in-game gold has a currency value thanks to the gold seller market.

    There really is no excuse for all of the video game companies HQed in CA not to know and follow the CA laws. Lootboxes, even the ones here in CO, fit under those regulations. They can be considered a game of chance or a gambling device. You play them for a thing of value. That thing of value isn't a bag of cocaine delivered to your doorstep. It doesn't fall under any of the exceptions.

    And I don't see how anyone can say lootboxes you pay for have no value if they require a real currency purchase. Wouldn't that make the contents have value by default as you specifically paid money for the contents of that box?

    There really is no downside for consumers if paid lootboxes are regulated. The only people who lose are the slimy companies that like to take advantage of their players by being unfair and deceptive. All the video game industry had to do to avoid this whole mess is to act as decent human beings that don't try to swindle their customers. That's a pretty low bar.


    California Gambling Law, Regulations, and Resource Information 2017 ed.
    (l) "Gambling" means to deal, operate, carry on, conduct, maintain, or expose for play any controlled game

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=337j
    (e) (1) As used in this section, “controlled game” means any poker or Pai Gow game, and any other game played with cards or tiles, or both, and approved by the Department of Justice, and any game of chance, including any gambling device, played for currency, check, credit, or any other thing of value that is not prohibited and made unlawful by statute or local ordinance.

    (2) As used in this section, “controlled game” does not include any of the following:
    (A) The game of bingo conducted pursuant to Section 326.3 or 326.5.
    (B) Parimutuel racing on horse races regulated by the California Horse Racing Board.
    (C) Any lottery game conducted by the California State Lottery.
    (D) Games played with cards in private homes or residences, in which no person makes money for operating the game, except as a player.
    ​​
    YouTube - Steam - Twitter
    [at]riviania Member since Aug 2009
  • pantagruel01pantagruel01 Posts: 7,091 Arc User
    sterga wrote: »
    That whole "you can't cash out" is flimsy.
    No, it's really the heart of the dispute.
    (e) (1) As used in this section, “controlled game” means any poker or Pai Gow game, and any other game played with cards or tiles, or both, and approved by the Department of Justice, and any game of chance, including any gambling device, played for currency, check, credit, or any other thing of value that is not prohibited and made unlawful by statute or local ordinance.​​

  • jennymachxjennymachx Posts: 3,000 Arc User
    edited May 2018
    sterga wrote: »
    That whole "you can't cash out" is flimsy. If the game companies don't allow you to sell the items you bought for money, does that mean it has no currency value? Being against the TOS is the ONLY reason an item you bought wouldn't have a currency value. Even then, plenty of people sell their accounts anyway. Even in-game gold has a currency value thanks to the gold seller market.​​

    Gold seller sites have zero affiliation with the companies that create the online game service where the virtual ingame currency exists within. The gold sellers create their own arbitary real world currency to virtual ingame currency exchange rates that are independent from any official valuation efforts from the game company. I wouldn't use gold sellers as a credible referrence for determining how ingame gold should have real world currency value.
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited May 2018
    No, it's really the heart of the dispute.
    (e) (1) As used in this section, “controlled game” means any poker or Pai Gow game, and any other game played with cards or tiles, or both, and approved by the Department of Justice, and any game of chance, including any gambling device, played for currency, check, credit, or any other thing of value that is not prohibited and made unlawful by statute or local ordinance.​​

    Well shoot, going by this CCGs are closer to gambling than our lockboxes are. I knew a guy who sold a MtG card for ~50$ to the store that sold it to him. He bought the card pack ( essentially a slot machine in the form of a stack of cards ), saw the rare card, then turned to the cashier ( the store was known to buy rare cards ) and offered to sell them the card, they accepted ( I'm sure there's an analogy to be made here for CCG cards as casino chips ). CCG cards are not only easily sold, but there is an entire market around their sale as shown by this handy website where you can sell/buy cards for in some cases UP TO 9000 DOLLARS WTF ( that card is out of print, but at some point there was a random chance that thing would be in a pack of cards you bought )

    Yeah... Sterga... you should stop mentioning CCGs. You're basically playing poker each time you buy a hand, er I mean a pack of CCG cards.

    What do you think the chances are I can get some cash for this Prisoner costume set I have sitting in my bank? Oh, the closest I can get is Cosmic Keys and those can't ever be turned back into Zen or real money? Durn. Yeah, lockboxes aren't gambling, the stuff that comes out of them is worthless >:C


    Also as far as gold seller sites, what they're doing is not supported by the game or its owners. It's the equivalent of someone going into an arcade and winning a bunch of tickets, then taking those out of the arcade and selling them to other people so they can go in and buy prizes. The tickets are not intended to be used in this way, and neither is in-game currency and does not constitute a legal value for either. You cannot hold the game owners liable for what somebody did in breach of their terms of service.
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    edited May 2018
    pfft, 9000$...some yu-gi-oh cards given out as tournament prizes were going for upwards of 20K​​
    #LegalizeAwoo
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    Wow, and yu-gi-oh is marketed towards kids. When are they gonna shut down this kiddy casino?
  • pantagruel01pantagruel01 Posts: 7,091 Arc User
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Well shoot, going by this CCGs are closer to gambling than our lockboxes are.
    Oh, easily. Same for baseball cards. There's also the fact of not having ownership rights to MMO goods. If you sell something to another player for real money, the game company can just delete the thing you sold and you have no legal recourse (if we did, video games wouldn't just have to worry about gambling laws -- any game with a market would have to worry about banking and money laundering laws).
  • eh...the card game isn't really marketed towards kids anymore - not with all the complicated rulings they've been adding over the years

    granted, those rulings only really come into play during official tournaments, which kids aren't like to be in - but the franchise as a whole is definitely aimed at kids, so...i honestly don't ever see CCGs ever getting flagged as 'gambling' though, unless we get someone with a strong dislike of them in an office that can pass laws​​
    #LegalizeAwoo
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited May 2018
    I mean, if these countries cracking down on loot boxes want to appear consistent and not like they just have a bone to pick with video games, then they'll have to crack down equally on everything that fits the definition. Wouldn't look very good for them to selectively enforce their laws in that way.
  • darqaura2darqaura2 Posts: 932 Arc User
    only if you don't feed it​​

    Ehhh I've known some cats that would kill you in your sleep even if you do.
  • darqaura2darqaura2 Posts: 932 Arc User
    spinnytop wrote: »
    That's really what's needed before they can enforce anything. When your definition amounts to "It's kind of like this" then any sort of morality built around it looks cheap, and any enforcement looks blatantly negligent.

    When has that ever stopped governments before? *insert trollface here*
  • darqaura2darqaura2 Posts: 932 Arc User
    spinnytop wrote: »
    I mean, if these countries cracking down on loot boxes want to appear consistent and not like they just have a bone to pick with video games, then they'll have to crack down equally on everything that fits the definition. Wouldn't look very good for them to selectively enforce their laws in that way.

    I'm sure if someone brought it up to their attention they would. But the way politicians and governments work . . . they really don't understand what somethings are until someone explains it to them.

    Ex: Most of the US Congress grilling Zuckerberg only having a vague idea how Facebook actually works/makes money.
  • rapierwhiprapierwhip Posts: 125 Arc User
    They could avoid all these issues by adding keys into the random loot tables, even if they were made exceedingly rare.

    The Forumite formerly known as Galeforce.

    If you want my money, there is a fairly simple way to get it since I am fairly free with how I spend it. First, produce something I consider to be worth buying. Second, offer it up for sale. Don't lock it behind a gambling scam. If I want something, I am perfectly happy to pay for it. But I will not purchase a CHANCE to get it, When I pay money, I have a perfectly logical right to expect to get what I want.
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    The dutch statement is not strictly only about being able to cash out the winning from lockboxes, though that was the most immediate thing they focused on. There is also the risk of addiction and the way in how lockboxes are pushed on vulnerable groups (minors and such). It's also not just about 2 small countries, such authorities in the EU tend to try to work together. CO is probably not at risk anytime soon, but it's certainly not obvious CO's lockboxes will be allowed in the EU in their current form forever.
    Post edited by aiqa on
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    Uh huh. Addiction. Sounds like people stretching to chase an agenda.
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    How does that sound like chasing an agenda? These people are expected to regulate gambling.
    They are focusing on the part that is more obviously illegal first, and the more ethical (maybe also illegal) parts will be looked at more closely later.
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    The part where they're talking about people being addicted to lootboxes. Sounds like the usual dumb nonsense people toss out when they need to explain why their agenda is super duper legit even though everything suggests otherwise. Lockboxes are a big deal guys, you don't want your children to be addicted do you!? "Addicted children" is a bad and scary phrase and you should be very very scared!!

    This is Night Trap all over again.
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    I think you're focusing to much on what you're constructing in your own mind out of one word you dislike in a longer statement. I've only mentioned addictiveness and pushing lockboxes on minors, but I didn't give nearly enough information on how the dutch statement was exactly worded or the actual plans to base such a strong reaction on. If you really want to respond to it that strongly, it might be better to just run the whole thing through google translate, even though that would probably mess up a few nuances.

    For example I noticed a spelling error that is going to create a very misleading english sentence.
    If you want to run the dutch statement through google translate at least change this
    "Ook wilde de Kansspelautoriteit weten of er verslavingsrisico’s verboden zijn aan het openen van loot boxes."
    to this
    "Ook wilde de Kansspelautoriteit weten of er verslavingsrisico’s verbonden zijn aan het openen van loot boxes."

    Also, gambling is well known to be addictive, so as far as I'm concerned it's very normal authorities that are set up to regulate gambling look into the addictiveness of newish types of gambling. Highly addictive types of gambling are probably going to be regulated more strictly than less addictive types, so they need to know what they are dealing with.
    Post edited by aiqa on
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    Whether gambling is addictive or not is irrelevant, since lootboxes aren't gambling.
  • darqaura2darqaura2 Posts: 932 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Whether gambling is addictive or not is irrelevant, since lootboxes aren't gambling.

    At this point they should just list the odds of getting items for each of these boxes.
  • avianosavianos Posts: 6,022 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Whether gambling is addictive or not is irrelevant, since lootboxes aren't gambling.

    I know it's your Forum "Persona" to be trolling and be against everything just to cause arguing just for sake of arguing but dear lord
    Lootboxes are not Gambling?
    Addiction is irrelevant to Gambling?
    Are you proud of yourself? You! The man behind the keyboard who typed those sentences!

    Lockbox Apologists DO use the same excuses
    spinnytop wrote: »
    The part where they're talking about people being addicted to lootboxes. Sounds like the usual dumb nonsense people toss out when they need to explain why their agenda is super duper legit even though everything suggests otherwise. Lockboxes are a big deal guys, you don't want your children to be addicted do you!? "Addicted children" is a bad and scary phrase and you should be very very scared!!

    This is Night Trap all over again.
    How much did EA paid you? you corporate shill
    I don't even care if you say those stuff just to be Ironic at this point​​
    POWERFRAME REVAMPS, NEW POWERS and BUG FIXES > Recycled Content and Events and even costumes at this point Introvert guy who use CO to make his characters playable and get experimental with Viable FF Theme builds! Running out of Unique FF builds due to the lack of updates and synergiesPlaying since 1 February 2011 98+ Characters (7 ATs, 91 FFs) ALTitis for Life!
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    darqaura2 wrote: »
    At this point they should just list the odds of getting items for each of these boxes.

    I think that would be neat.

    avianos wrote: »
    How much did EA paid you? you corporate shill

    Oh calm down Avi, you're being ridiculous.
  • themightyzeniththemightyzenith Posts: 4,599 Arc User
    darqaura2 wrote: »
    At this point they should just list the odds of getting items for each of these boxes.


    Yes please.


    zrdRBy8.png
    Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
  • jonsillsjonsills Posts: 6,315 Arc User
    avianos wrote: »
    spinnytop wrote: »
    Whether gambling is addictive or not is irrelevant, since lootboxes aren't gambling.
    Addiction is irrelevant to Gambling?
    Are you proud of yourself? You! The man behind the keyboard who typed those sentences!
    Avi, he said that the addiction potential OF GAMBLING was irrelevant because lockboxes aren't gambling (except in the most pedantic possible interpretation of the word). That's a classic strawman argument - claim your opponent said something he didn't, then attack that.

    Are you proud of yourself? You! The person behind the keyboard who typed those sentences, and committed that fallacy!

    (And no, lockboxes as implemented in Cryptic games aren't gambling. There's considerably more "addiction" potential in the games themselves than in the boxes, which yield nothing of monetary value.)
    "Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"

    - David Brin, "Those Eyes"
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • themightyzeniththemightyzenith Posts: 4,599 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    When you open a lockbox you are actually gambling, literally gambling, and you don't need a pedantic interpretation of the word "gambling" to come to that conclusion. In fact, you would require a more pedantic interpretation of it to NOT come to that conclusion.

    The issue is whether it's covered by gambling laws, therefore whether it fits the legal definition as well as it does the literal one. With a lot of countries it doesn't and with others they are worded too vaguely for us mere players to make that call.


    zrdRBy8.png
    Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
  • pantagruel01pantagruel01 Posts: 7,091 Arc User
    Whether or not lootboxes are 'gambling' in technical terms, they're designed around similar intermittent reward mechanics to convince people to overspend.
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    When you open a lockbox you are actually gambling, literally gambling, and you don't need a pedantic interpretation of the word "gambling" to come to that conclusion. In fact, you would require a more pedantic interpretation of it to NOT come to that conclusion.

    No. When you open a lockbox you are getting a bunch of stuff. Right away. For just 1 dollar you get a whole bunch of things, and there is never a chance you get nothing. That's just not gambling.
    Whether or not lootboxes are 'gambling' in technical terms, they're designed around similar intermittent reward mechanics to convince people to overspend.

    The key difference is that the reward in gambling is the thrill of winning, not the actual things you get, since gambling is designed to make it very likely that the gambler loses money so the gambling business can get it - actually walking out with more than you walked in with is rare. Effectively, gambling is designed to make people feel the excitement of getting something when they are actually giving something, the whole thing being pulled along by the slight potential of a "big win". Hence the concern of predatory practices especially concerning "thrill addiction".

    Lootboxes on the other hand reward the buyer with actual things, every time. Digital things sure, but if the buyer didn't care for digital things the entire process would be moot since there is no promise of anything else. You're not being pulled along by the idea that at the end of the process you might walk away with something, and in the process risking that you spend a bunch of money and get nothing. Some people might say "I didn't get the thing I wanted, so I got nothing" but that doesn't change the fact that they did get a bunch of stuff.

    As Jon pointed out, the addiction problem is more likely to be coming from the game itself, rather than lootboxes. I don't picture a gambling addict hopping onto CO to open some lockboxes, and even if they did I'm sure they'd be turned off by how low risk it feels once they see their bags filling up consistently over time.
  • themightyzeniththemightyzenith Posts: 4,599 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    spinnytop wrote: »
    When you open a lockbox you are actually gambling, literally gambling, and you don't need a pedantic interpretation of the word "gambling" to come to that conclusion. In fact, you would require a more pedantic interpretation of it to NOT come to that conclusion.

    No. When you open a lockbox you are getting a bunch of stuff. Right away.....

    .....that you just gambled for. There are even odds of getting certain stuff (not that we are privy to such info), with the more valuable stuff having worse odds.

    zrdRBy8.png
    Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
  • ealford1985ealford1985 Posts: 3,582 Arc User
    See....all casinos have to do is give you a rock and it's not considered gambling right?

    CONGRATS! You won something!
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    .....that you just gambled for.

    No, you paid for it and then received it. Randomness alone does not gambling make. Let me know the next time you open a lockbox and there's nothing in it and then I'll accept your claim that it's gambling.
    See....all casinos have to do is give you a rock and it's not considered gambling right?

    CONGRATS! You won something!

    Only if you can draw equivalence between a rock and the functional items you get from a lockbox. If you can't do that then the casino will need to give you something that you can actually use. Say, at the end of every hand of poker the dealer hands you a gift box full of useful little things, like a lighter, and a magnifying glass, some gloves, a hat, maybe some glasses, you know a random assortment of things you can actually use. Now, after about 50 hands of poker, as you look at your stack of giftboxes, you might start to feel like this is a rather silly experience and that somehow you're no longer gambling, and instead you're just getting more and more stuff the longer you stay in the casino, whether you get a "big win" at poker or not. Essentially you are now purchasing a bunch of stuff, and in the process you might get a really big award as well ( though of course you have to be moderately competent at poker for that to happen, with lockboxes they're pretty much just randomly handing you the big win no matter how bad you are at clicking on icons in your bags ).
  • themightyzeniththemightyzenith Posts: 4,599 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    spinnytop wrote: »
    .....that you just gambled for.

    No, you paid for it and then received it.

    Paid for a key (the stake) and used it to open a lockbox in the hope of being lucky enough (beating the odds) to get a rare item. Literally gambling.

    Paying for something you want and receiving it is buying something from the AH/other players/Z Store/other in-game stores.

    zrdRBy8.png
    Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    spinnytop wrote: »
    *snip*

    Those requirements are all completely arbitrary. You can't get away from the label of gambling by slightly changing the the way prizes are handled.

    I'll just go with wikipedia on the definition of gambling: gambling requires consideration (legal term), chance and prize. Lockboxes fit that quite well.
  • avianosavianos Posts: 6,022 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    Avi, he said that the addiction potential OF GAMBLING was irrelevant because lockboxes aren't gambling (except in the most pedantic possible interpretation of the word). That's a classic strawman argument - claim your opponent said something he didn't, then attack that.
    Lootboxes are still Gambling :smiley:
    jonsills wrote: »
    Are you proud of yourself? You! The person behind the keyboard who typed those sentences, and committed that fallacy!
    The only Fallacy I committed was coming to this thread with the HOPE that the CO community will have the decency to acknowledge the Damage the Triple A industry committed to the videogame genre the past years with the constant exploitation of Lootboxes

    But here I am, witnessing people stating that Lockboxes are not Gambling because you get a pathetic consolation prize
    jonsills wrote: »
    (And no, lockboxes as implemented in Cryptic games aren't gambling. There's considerably more "addiction" potential in the games themselves than in the boxes, which yield nothing of monetary value.)

    No matter how much you Sugarcoat the existance of lootboxes to protect your precious videogame, it won't change the fact they are indeed a type of Online Gambling​​
    POWERFRAME REVAMPS, NEW POWERS and BUG FIXES > Recycled Content and Events and even costumes at this point Introvert guy who use CO to make his characters playable and get experimental with Viable FF Theme builds! Running out of Unique FF builds due to the lack of updates and synergiesPlaying since 1 February 2011 98+ Characters (7 ATs, 91 FFs) ALTitis for Life!
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    Paid for a key (the stake) and used it to open a lockbox in the hope of being lucky enough (beating the odds) to get a rare item. Literally gambling.

    There's no luck involved in getting something in a lockbox, you always get a bunch of things. Doesn't matter what value you place on them.
    Paying for something you want and receiving it is buying something from the AH/other players/Z Store/other in-game stores.

    Oh, you mean like how you bought the ability to open the lockbox in the Z store, so effectively that's where you paid a dollar for all the stuff you got from it? :D
    avianos wrote: »
    The only Fallacy I committed was coming to this thread with the HOPE that the CO community will have the decency to acknowledge the Damage the Triple A industry committed to the videogame genre the past years with the constant exploitation of Lootboxes

    A couple people disagree with you and now the CO community is indecent, oh my! Also what damage, for all the bluster and insistence of evildoing people have accepted lootboxes, microtransactions, and all the things that were supposedly the bane of the day and the industry is thriving more than ever. Hell, remember when microtransactions were the evil of the day? And now we have people demanding that lootboxes be replaced with microtransactions, it's the ciiiiiircle of oooooutrage! \o/
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    aiqa wrote: »
    Those requirements are all completely arbitrary. You can't get away from the label of gambling by slightly changing the the way prizes are handled.

    I'll just go with wikipedia on the definition of gambling: gambling requires consideration (legal term), chance and prize. Lockboxes fit that quite well.

    Ew, using wikipedia as a source? No thanks. Here's my arbitrary definition I plucked from some source to counter your arbitrary definition:
    take risky action in the hope of a desired result. There's no risk with lockboxes, you always get the desired result which is getting stuff out of the box, not gambling \o/ lemme know when you find that mythical empty gambling lockbox.
  • themightyzeniththemightyzenith Posts: 4,599 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    spinnytop wrote: »
    There's no luck involved in getting something in a lockbox, you always get a bunch of things. Doesn't matter what value you place on them.

    There are different tiers of odds of getting things from a lockbox. The publishers themselves have placed the value on these items and deemed that the ones of higher value have higher odds. If you win something of lesser relative value than your stake, in this game of chance, then you come out worse...... that's gambling.

    spinnytop wrote: »
    Oh, you mean like how you bought the ability to open the lockbox in the Z store, so effectively that's where you paid a dollar for all the stuff you got from it? :D

    What you actually want to win from the list of things shown as possible drops from a lockbox is not guaranteed when you buy a key, much like changing your money for chips in a casino, you use it as a stake to gamble ;)

    You can also gamble in a casino and end up a lot worse off than when you went in, but still have something to show for it. It's still a loss though...... but that's gambling for you :(

    Post edited by themightyzenith on
    zrdRBy8.png
    Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Arc User
    > @spinnytop said:
    > Ew, using wikipedia as a source?

    The lamest way to dismiss a valid point, ladies and gentlemen.
    biffsig.jpg
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,450 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    > @spinnytop said:
    > Ew, using wikipedia as a source?

    The lamest way to dismiss a valid point, ladies and gentlemen.

    Yeah, if only I had typed something after that o3o

    So what are your thoughts on lockboxes causing gambling addiction Biff? ^_^
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Arc User
    I don't care to weigh in because I know that you're not the type of person to consider opposing views or even give an inch when it comes to differing opinions. I have the same effect saying something or saying nothing, so instead I'll go do something productive!

    But hey since we're talking, I've heard that wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information (usually by people who just don't like the information they're recieving), but since you're so quick to disregard wikipedia as a valid source, is there a quantifiable amount of "wikipedia was wrong" evidence that points to it being a bad source? I've looked up lots of things on wikipedia and who am I to say that a raccoon isn't a procyonid? It sounds like it's right. I'd like to find that mountain of "false truths" that makes wikipedia a weak source of facts and information.
    biffsig.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Posts: 6,315 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    In fairness, Biff, I'm pretty sure that Paul Ryan isn't literally the only man to live for 48 years without a spine, despite what his Wikipedia entry said for a few days.

    The problem with Wikipedia is that it can be edited by literally anyone, so it's not a good primary source. It makes a good place to start from, but even with something as seemingly obvious as raccoons being procyonids, it's good to do some followup research if it's not something you already know well. Otherwise you're likely to go back to the article one day and find that it defines a raccoon as a North American panda.
    "Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"

    - David Brin, "Those Eyes"
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    In fairness, Biff, I'm pretty sure that Paul Ryan isn't literally the only man to live for 48 years without a spine, despite what his Wikipedia entry said for a few days.

    The problem with Wikipedia is that it can be edited by literally anyone, so it's not a good primary source. It makes a good place to start from, but even with something as seemingly obvious as raccoons being procyonids, it's good to do some followup research if it's not something you already know well. Otherwise you're likely to go back to the article one day and find that it defines a raccoon as a North American panda.

    The self correcting nature of Wikipedia makes it a great primary source of information. Of course you do need to keep thinking for yourself, and some crossreferecing would be ideal. But that goes for any source of information.

    In general I consider how Wikipedia defines gambling a lot more reliable than someone trying to argue the definition for their pet theory on a game forum. Even more so if that theory requires arbitrary restrictions on what can be called gambling.

    And even if we ignore this whole silly semantic argument (ever notice how many arguments end up argueing over semantics on CO's forums?).
    I haven't seen anyone give a good reason why consolidation prizes in lockboxes should exclude them from gambling regulations or laws.
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    New statement
    https://www.kansspelautoriteit.nl/nieuws/alle-nieuwsberichten/2018/juni/nieuwe-fase-aanpak/

    Basically just an announcement they will now start enforcing gambling laws.
  • beezeezebeezeeze Posts: 927 Arc User
    It is silly to argue semantics. I gamble with my life everytime I drive onto the freeway, I gamble when I go out to eat lunch and choose something on the menu I've never tried before...

    so yeah this isn't about semantics it is about laws and I find it highly doubtful that when the time comes any one of us will have a whole lot of say in that matter.

  • themightyzeniththemightyzenith Posts: 4,599 Arc User
    edited June 2018
    beezeeze wrote: »
    It is silly to argue semantics. I gamble with my life everytime I drive onto the freeway, I gamble when I go out to eat lunch and choose something on the menu I've never tried before...

    so yeah this isn't about semantics it is about laws and I find it highly doubtful that when the time comes any one of us will have a whole lot of say in that matter.

    Um, using semantics to argue against arguing semantics is a bit weird, but anyway......

    There's gambling in the figurative sense, your "gambling with your life" analogy, and there's the activity called gambling... what folks are discussing here.

    And you're right about the fact that in the end it's whether laws cover the type of literal gambling activity that is opening lockboxes. I think I touched upon that a couple of times in this thread......




    I suspect the legal definition of gambling, in many countries, is something that's going to be looked at very closely, and possibly changed/be more clearly defined in the coming few years. I know that it's being scrutinised and applied more in the UK atm.

    The legal definitions of gambling in the vast majority of countries don't apply to CO lockboxes right now, but I wouldn't bet my life savings that they won't be affected by gambling laws sometime in the not too distant future.


    When you open a lockbox you are actually gambling, literally gambling, and you don't need a pedantic interpretation of the word "gambling" to come to that conclusion. In fact, you would require a more pedantic interpretation of it to NOT come to that conclusion.

    The issue is whether it's covered by gambling laws, therefore whether it fits the legal definition as well as it does the literal one. With a lot of countries it doesn't and with others they are worded too vaguely for us mere players to make that call.

    Post edited by themightyzenith on
    zrdRBy8.png
    Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    In fairness, Biff, I'm pretty sure that Paul Ryan isn't literally the only man to live for 48 years without a spine, despite what his Wikipedia entry said for a few days.

    The problem with Wikipedia is that it can be edited by literally anyone, so it's not a good primary source. It makes a good place to start from, but even with something as seemingly obvious as raccoons being procyonids, it's good to do some followup research if it's not something you already know well. Otherwise you're likely to go back to the article one day and find that it defines a raccoon as a North American panda.

    I once made a joke edit on the Mortal Kombat Wikipedia page and it was changed back less than an hour later. The Paul Ryan thing, I'm sure they didn't cite their sources with links in the footnotes so it's easily verifiable right there on the same page that the information might be less than genuine.
    biffsig.jpg
  • aiqaaiqa Posts: 2,620 Arc User
    Valve "I don't understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it."

    2002063401.png
Sign In or Register to comment.