Well if we're talking lawyerese, the Terms of Service specify Zen has no monetary value, either.
As a humorous side-note, LOL, you do realize Zen comes from 'Zeni', right? And Zeni means 'money' in Japanese ('coin'). And it probably means the same in Chinese too. As in an old Japanese proverb I learned when I was studying Japanese a bit: "Kono jo wa zeni" ('this world is all about money'; 'jo' is an old word for 'world', btw).
I don't know German law well enough to contend you on this; but in Dutch law, when a child is handelingsonbekwaam (often translated as 'legally incapacitated', which, IMHO, hardly covers the term properly, as you can't be incapacitated when you never had the capacity to begin with; it's much closer to 'legally unable to enter into legal obligations/contracts'), covered by Article 1:234 BW, a parent can nullify whatever purchases said child made (ex Article 3:32 BW), unless permission is presumed to have been given. Like you can send your kid to the store to get some bread and milk, and such purchase would be legally binding. But if your 14-year-old buys himself a scooter or something, the parents are allowed to nullify said purchase, regardless of whose credit card was used.
As such, since children are deemed handelingsonbekwaam, the burden would, indeed, be on PWE to ensure children can't make credit card purchases with them (as children don't normally have credit cards); especially not for the purpose of gambling -- as the law simply forbids facilitating minors to gamble where RL money is involved. That it is why PWE would be required to put reasonable safeguards in place to prevent this. And even if a child slipped thru, so to speak, parents could still nullify the transaction. And that's simply because handelingsonbekwaamheid is a statutory thing -- and has nothing to do, whatsoever, with raising your children properly or not.
German law has something analogous to this. Children from the age of 7 to 18 are beschränkt geschäftsfähig (translates to "limited contractually capable"). That means that children can agree to contracts and thus condone business, but everything they do is schwebend unwirksam (translates to "pending invalid") which means every business a child engages in can be declared null and void by the parents or legal guardian. That means a child is technically unable to fully agree AGBs (allgemeine Geschätfbedingungen - Terms of Service) and every purchase they make in-game have to be refunded if a parent didn't give permission.
The problem with gambling isn't the type of payout. The problem is the addicting behaviour that it cultivates in humans to get that shiny prize. It's like a drug addiction for some people and dismissing them as "get more self control" doesn't solve the problem and creates problems for other people who have no part in the gambling. Wither it's the parent of a child who just had their credit card drained for lock box keys or what have you.(...)
This is true, however the behaviour of addicted people is not PWEs concern. Breweries aren't legally responsible for alcoholics either. As long as a offering doesn't malevolently exploit addiction (which technically it implicitly does? That's a ethics debate...) and thus violates societal norms it's not the providers fault for people getting addicted or suffering because of it. It's "on them" to seek help, but the state can not act if they don't do that.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Since this thread has stayed mostly civil and I enjoy a good debate from time to time, there's a question I want to ask you guys that I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to in addition to adding my own 2 cents to the pile. Opinions and thoughts in this post will be my own and this will NOT be the official Cryptic stance. Should any of my other cohorts from the moderator team choose to take on this topic, or in the case of my above cohort choose to delve deeper into it, all opinions are purely our own unless you hear it come specifically from someone at Cryptic.
Now with the obligatory statements out of the way, it appears to me there are 2 debates going on in here that are somewhat intertwined. The first being the philosophical definition of gambling, and the legal German definition of gambling. As far as the legal German definition goes, that one I will leave to the lawyers and the Germans as I'm not a German. I also believe it's up to each country to decide what constitutes gambling as far as their own laws are concerned. As far as US law is concerned in a nutshell, to be considered gambling there must be an asset of value at risk such as cash, for a potential payoff of another asset of value. This is why things like Pinball were considered gambling in the 1920s during Prohibition here in the States. In those days Speakeasies would give you smokes, booze, or another prize depending on your score, thus you had a tangible asset payoff of greater value. With lockboxes you don't have that payoff as what you're technically paying for is ones and zeros on the cryptic servers which have no real world value save perceived entertainment value. If for example I dropped $10 during a R&D promotion and got lucky enough to get an infinity prize pack that has the TOS T6 Constitution, or even the ENT J, no matter what I will never see that cash again as those 2 ships have no real world value.
If we want to get technical what you're actually paying for is the Zen which is a virtual currency. If you pay for $10 worth of Zen, you are guaranteed to get $10 worth of Zen at the bare minimum, taking into account bonus promotional Zen. So no matter what you get what you pay for in terms of the actual cash transaction. You can then trade that virtual currency (Zen) into other virtual items such as ships, or even lockbox keys. At that point the cash transaction is already completed and it's not actually the cash that's being used to open the boxes, but a virtual currency being used to get virtual keys for a virtual lockbox. I won't speak to how the German courts or laws would treat it, but as far as United States courts, that distinction would be enough to keep it from being considered gambling. At best it would be considered simulated gambling by US law, and even then would not meet the true definition of even simulated gambling as you're guaranteed to get Lobi crystals at the absolute very least, so you are getting something at the end of the day, even if you don't think that something is worth anything.
As much as I hate how badly they fumbled the statement I agree with the ESRB that lockboxes are not gambling. Their comparison was comparing lockboxes to a pack of trading cards or baseball cards from back in the day. I myself am someone that enjoys a game of Magic the Gathering from time to time, or occasionally a game of Yugioh. When I go into a local shop and pay my $3 for a pack of the current MTG set, I'm guaranteed that no matter what I am getting 15 cards (16 if you count the marketing card). Far as rarity breakdown goes I'm guaranteed 11 commons, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare/mythic rare card. I could get lucky with that $3 pack and get a card that's worth $50+ on the secondary market, or even a foil 16th card. I could also get flipped the bird and get cards that aren't worth the $3 I paid for the pack, but either way I'm guaranteed 15 cards at the minimum so I'm getting something. The same applies with lockboxes in STO, you're getting something at the end of the day. If we're to apply our logic consistently across the board then technically any game that involves the remote possibility of chance, such as a chance to crit, a chance to heal more etc, could all be considered gambling by some of the logic I'm seeing put forth.
This finally brings me to the big question I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to when it comes to this type of debate, if alot of folks are wanting lockboxes to be declared gambling and regulated or even outright banned, why is it that the same outcry isn't present or as outspoken in regards to trading card games? If for the sake of argument we were to consider lockboxes as gambling, then why is the same logic not being applied to trading card games like Yugioh and MTG? Here in the states we actually had the debate on whether trading card games were gambling or not back in the 90s and the courts here ruled that they were not gambling.
Getting to my last points and questions to you guys now. A few years ago when Rockband 4 came out I went into the local Gamestop to pick up a copy of the game (yes I'm one of those guys lols.) While I was in the store there was a woman ahead of me in line with 2 kids who at best were 11 years old. Each one of them had the latest copy of Call of Duty which was rated M for mature. Here in the states to buy a rated M game you must be 17 or older to purchase it, and present ID to purchase it in some instances. When it came time for her and the kids to checkout the clerk asked her if she was aware that the game was rated M. Both of the kids looked at her for a moment and she tells the clerk "well they really want the game," and she buys the 2 copies for them anyways. So if those kids then see something disturbing in that game they are not prepared for, who is at fault, her for buying the copies of the game, or Gamestop themselves for selling them to her? At what point does that woman's responsibility begin and the company's end? Lastly and I'll wrap this up, if I have a child and my child comes to me asking to purchase items in game with my credit card, who is at fault if I hand the card over to the kid, the company or me? I'm all for protecting kids and such as well, but there has to be a point in the law of any civilized country, be it Germany, the United States, or any other, where the responsibility falls on the parent as ultimately it is their responsibility to watch their own children.
Anyways that's my 2 cents and a few questions for you guys. Feel free to agree with me or disagree with me as you choose. As always please keep the debate civil. I'm legitimately curious as to the answers to some of these questions as I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to some of them.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
(...) So if those kids then see something disturbing in that game they are not prepared for, who is at fault, her for buying the copies of the game, or Gamestop themselves for selling them to her? At what point does that woman's responsibility begin and the company's end? Lastly and I'll wrap this up, if I have a child and my child comes to me asking to purchase items in game with my credit card, who is at fault if I hand the card over to the kid, the company or me? I'm all for protecting kids and such as well, but there has to be a point in the law of any civilized country, be it Germany, the United States, or any other, where the responsibility falls on the parent as ultimately it is their responsibility to watch their own children.
Anyways that's my 2 cents and a few questions for you guys. Feel free to agree with me or disagree with me as you choose. As always please keep the debate civil. I'm legitimately curious as to the answers to some of these questions as I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to some of them.
Indeed, in Germany it's the legal guardians (be it parents or other) decision whether their children are allowed to play games for adults. However, only the legal guardians. If a sibling buys a game not suitable for children and gives it to a child it's a misdemeanour, possibly a felony if the product in question has been rated "harmful" for children - if a complaint is filed. Of course, what happens in private, in a family, cannot be controlled by the state. The shop, in any case, is not responsible if they sell it to a legal guardian. If they sell it to another person knowing this person will give it to a child the case becomes complicated. I think they could be partly responsible under specific circumstances, but that's legal fu I am not prepared to perform.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I totally accept that US courts ruled Magic not being gambling. Personally, I never seriously started playing Magic, because I disliked the - for my tastes and totally subjective - gambling character of the game when it comes to buying packs
I don't think that it's PWE specifically that the researchers analyzed. But I am not sure which games they analyzed.
The study isn't public so far, so there's - AFIK - no list. The only thing I could gather from multiple statements was that there apparently were Tolkien fans in the group - LOTRO and Shadow of War are getting mentions.
Point of order - no one has ever paid $250, or any other sum of cash, to get a Connie. They may well have purchased 200 keys for whatever reason, but the Connie is available in one of two ways - via opening a lockbox (in which case it may appear on the first try, or it may never appear - such is the operation of probability), or via purchase from the Exchange (where the purchase is carried out in EC, which cannot be purchased for cash).
Well if we're talking lawyerese, the Terms of Service specify Zen has no monetary value, either.
Actually this seems to hold true for the US, but not for the EU. The statement in the TOS may just be declared null and void if deemed incorrect, otherwise you could just write "This is not a fraud" into your TOS. As for "lawyerese": there is almost nothing that annoys lawyers and judges as much as when laypeople are trying it in front of them. Thing is: if you buy a virtual currency with real currency, even if you can never cash it out, it is still considered a service with monetary value (there have been cases about some "ducats" or similar you could spend at a kind of renaissance fair). So at least Zen has, under German law, monetary value. How far this will go down the line, we'll see.
A ridiculously broad definition of gambling as some have proposed would go far beyond lootboxes in video games and also hit things like collectible cards, games based on collectible cards, blind box toys, kinder eggs, even the prize in a box of freaking Cracker Jacks.
Indeed. By the way, the definition is not "proposed" by anybody here, but is part of the actual German law which will decide this case. And yes, indeed, many of these things are considered "gambling". Just, as angrytarg pointed out, not necessarily "illegal" gambling.
But I get the feeling that, as in many other discussions, the problem is less one of different opinions and more one of "the same term being used differently in different countries". I often encounter a discussion about whether the US is a democracy, where people claim it is not because it is a republic. Apparently in some parts of the world these are mutually exclusive forms of government, while here they describe two different aspects, and any country can be either one, both, or none of them. This may be the larger issue here with Europeans using their meaning of "gambling" when describing what will happen here, while Americans understand their own word, which apparently doesn't mean the exactly same thing.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
I still say if you can't win money, it's not gambling period. Gambling is betting money to try to win money.
It's what ultimately separates Dave and Buster's from a Casino.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
When lockboxes were first introduced there were no lobi in them. Because of the gambling nature of the boxes they were illegal in many countries. That is why lobis were added. You were sure to get something of worth every time you opened a box. But it is still gambling and barely tolerated in certain areas. I'm not surprised that Germany wants to make it illegal. And I'm not sure it's a bad idea.
The problem with gambling isn't the type of payout. The problem is the addicting behaviour that it cultivates in humans to get that shiny prize. It's like a drug addiction for some people and dismissing them as "get more self control" doesn't solve the problem and creates problems for other people who have no part in the gambling. Wither it's the parent of a child who just had their credit card drained for lock box keys or what have you.(...)
This is true, however the behaviour of addicted people is not PWEs concern. Breweries aren't legally responsible for alcoholics either. As long as a offering doesn't malevolently exploit addiction (which technically it implicitly does? That's a ethics debate...) and thus violates societal norms it's not the providers fault for people getting addicted or suffering because of it. It's "on them" to seek help, but the state can not act if they don't do that.
Not all countries will think it's not the problem of the company. Also if the problem gets bad it could cause some previously not caring places to suddenly care and PWE/Cryptic could potentially be outed from markets. It doesn't even take Cryptic to cause the backlash. Other companies who are more aggressive can trigger this like that Battle Front lock box fiasco.
Spending more time making gambling box content instead of good game content really isn't a sound business solution in the long term. Someone will get to greedy and ruin it even if it isn't you. Lock boxes are really just borrowed time.
[quote="darthmeow504;c-13328074"
For that matter, Forest Gump is famous for saying "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get". OMG, boxes of assorted chocolates without an itemized list of contents are gambling, ban them quick!
[/quote]
Assorted chocolates is assorted chocolates... they all have equal value. Also all possible flavors are IN the box. There is no super rare flavor that is only in 1 out of 100 boxes. They may not be equally distributed in the box, but all possible flavors that can be is in the box. When you open a lockbox, you only get somethings, not everything.
And if all things in side a lock box has equal value (cause all items are digital and just a number of 0's and 1's with infinite quantity)... why not list every possible item and let the user choose?
You open a lock box and you get 3 random items... well get rid of the random items and let me choose my 3 items from the list of everything possible.
When lockboxes were first introduced there were no lobi in them. Because of the gambling nature of the boxes they were illegal in many countries. That is why lobis were added. You were sure to get something of worth every time you opened a box. But it is still gambling and barely tolerated in certain areas. I'm not surprised that Germany wants to make it illegal. And I'm not sure it's a bad idea.
How do you suggest game makers like Cryptic make money then? Clearly sub fees and C-Store items aren't generating anywhere near the amount lockboxes are.
One could almost believe you hadn't been reading the thread from that question...
how many are actually economically viable? (in practice, not on paper)
Assorted chocolates is assorted chocolates... they all have equal value....
According to whom? What if you absolutely adore the caramel filled chocolate and truly despise the coconut topped chocolate? Which one has more value to you?
Players are setting the in-game value, not Cryptic or PWE.
The orange-filled ones are gross. Just sayin'.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Lastly and I'll wrap this up, if I have a child and my child comes to me asking to purchase items in game with my credit card, who is at fault if I hand the card over to the kid, the company or me? I'm all for protecting kids and such as well, but there has to be a point in the law of any civilized country, be it Germany, the United States, or any other, where the responsibility falls on the parent as ultimately it is their responsibility to watch their own children.
I think a lot of the uproar is indeed caused by parents who did bad parenting and then tried to shovel the issue back in the software companies's backyard. Nowadays with social media you can create your own storm with about anything.
Let's just all ignore it and it'll go away...right?
Assorted chocolates is assorted chocolates... they all have equal value....
According to whom? What if you absolutely adore the caramel filled chocolate and truly despise the coconut topped chocolate? Which one has more value to you?
Players are setting the in-game value, not Cryptic or PWE.
Fine, even if they dont have equal value to you... you have every possible choice to pick from. There ya happy now?
If they get rid of the randomness of the lock boxes then it would be better. Assign points to everything in the box and you need X number to redeem and each box has a variable with a min in each box. IE after 25, 50 or 100 boxes you can get a top tier ship. 100 is a bit much for a single character unlock thou.
or you can do free keys for everyone every day... and if you want more you can buy more. the free keys are bind on acquire and all items are bound... bought keys, all items from box is free to trade. To prevent people from hoarding make the free keys timed to expire.
or just do what ESO does with their lockboxes...assign each prize a certain 'insert appropriate token name here' value and allow all those prizes to be exchanged for said tokens, and when you have enough, you go buy what you want
like for example, at the highest end of the spectrum, the top prizes in those crown crates (ESO's name for their boxes) are 400 crown gems, and at the lowest end, the consumables the box drops give 1-2 gems for X amount of the consumable...so while you aren't really getting one of those epic mounts or whatever any time soon if the majority of what drops for you is a consumable, but you keep exchanging them and eventually you WILL be able to get one of those grand prizes
of course, you can already do that as it is with EC, but EC value fluctuates - a token system like that would remain fixed, so it couldn't be subjected to player price-gouging
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Having all the options in the box and removing the random choice is irrelevant. Lockboxes really aren't any different than packs of playing cards, kinder eggs, cereal boxes, Cracker Jacks or anything else marketed to children that contain special prizes. Why are none of these considered "gambling" and "detrimental to children" I wonder?
Seems to me this entire complaint has less to do with protecting children than it does people who are upset that top tier prizes in the lockboxes are priced by players outside their ability to afford.
As has been said before, other things are considered "gambling" as well. Being considered "gambling" does not necessarily mean being considered "dangerous" or "illegal" here, however. It is important to understand that distinction.
What can (not must) make these a problem is the possible addictivity of the gamble and the amount and speed of money being paid by customers. So indeed, if a noticeable number of people start going into debt, paying hundreds of euros a week for Kinder eggs to get their smurf figurine, it may easily get controlled.
As for the second half of your statement, I absolutely fail to understand its connection to this discussion. For starters, there isn't a complaint at work here. There are also no disgruntled STO or other lockboxy game players involved in this at all.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Lastly and I'll wrap this up, if I have a child and my child comes to me asking to purchase items in game with my credit card, who is at fault if I hand the card over to the kid, the company or me? I'm all for protecting kids and such as well, but there has to be a point in the law of any civilized country, be it Germany, the United States, or any other, where the responsibility falls on the parent as ultimately it is their responsibility to watch their own children.
I think a lot of the uproar is indeed caused by parents who did bad parenting and then tried to shovel the issue back in the software companies's backyard. Nowadays with social media you can create your own storm with about anything.
Let's just all ignore it and it'll go away...right?
I suspect the real issue on the topic in general is all the players that hate the model and find it exploitive, predatory and/or fun-killing.
In this specific case however, it's based on a study suggesting that there are structural similarities in business model and revenue numbers between traditional gambling enterprises and games utilizing lockboxes.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
This finally brings me to the big question I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to when it comes to this type of debate, if alot of folks are wanting lockboxes to be declared gambling and regulated or even outright banned, why is it that the same outcry isn't present or as outspoken in regards to trading card games? If for the sake of argument we were to consider lockboxes as gambling, then why is the same logic not being applied to trading card games like Yugioh and MTG? Here in the states we actually had the debate on whether trading card games were gambling or not back in the 90s and the courts here ruled that they were not gambling.
The same logic is not being applied to TCG's or indeed any other "surprise" item purchases because those are not new technology. As you say, they had that debate back when the topic was new and scary, like F2P games are now. Like they always have for everything new ever.
A politician who tried to claim trading cards (or easter eggs or boxes of chocolate or whatever) are "gambling" because you don't know what's in it before you buy now...would get laughed out of office.
Fine, even if they dont have equal value to you... you have every possible choice to pick from. There ya happy now?
If they get rid of the randomness of the lock boxes then it would be better. Assign points to everything in the box and you need X number to redeem and each box has a variable with a min in each box. IE after 25, 50 or 100 boxes you can get a top tier ship. 100 is a bit much for a single character unlock thou.
or you can do free keys for everyone every day... and if you want more you can buy more. the free keys are bind on acquire and all items are bound... bought keys, all items from box is free to trade. To prevent people from hoarding make the free keys timed to expire.
Having all the options in the box and removing the random choice is irrelevant. Lockboxes really aren't any different than packs of playing cards, kinder eggs, cereal boxes, Cracker Jacks or anything else marketed to children that contain special prizes. Why are none of these considered "gambling" and "detrimental to children" I wonder?
Seems to me this entire complaint has less to do with protecting children than it does people who are upset that top tier prizes in the lockboxes are priced by players outside their ability to afford.
The people here are certainly engaged in some wishful thinking, hoping that Cryptic would be "forced" to make the lockbox items they want available in some cheap form.
The political brouhaha on the other hand is more about stupid parents letting their kids play with their credit cards then blaming everyone else when the bill comes.
Fine, even if they dont have equal value to you... you have every possible choice to pick from. There ya happy now?
If they get rid of the randomness of the lock boxes then it would be better. Assign points to everything in the box and you need X number to redeem and each box has a variable with a min in each box. IE after 25, 50 or 100 boxes you can get a top tier ship. 100 is a bit much for a single character unlock thou.
or you can do free keys for everyone every day... and if you want more you can buy more. the free keys are bind on acquire and all items are bound... bought keys, all items from box is free to trade. To prevent people from hoarding make the free keys timed to expire.
Having all the options in the box and removing the random choice is irrelevant. Lockboxes really aren't any different than packs of playing cards, kinder eggs, cereal boxes, Cracker Jacks or anything else marketed to children that contain special prizes. Why are none of these considered "gambling" and "detrimental to children" I wonder?
Seems to me this entire complaint has less to do with protecting children than it does people who are upset that top tier prizes in the lockboxes are priced by players outside their ability to afford.
The people here are certainly engaged in some wishful thinking, hoping that Cryptic would be "forced" to make the lockbox items they want available in some cheap form.
The political brouhaha on the other hand is more about stupid parents letting their kids play with their credit cards then blaming everyone else when the bill comes.
I honestly don't want lockbox items. I'd rather have more time invested in better game play design/story as well as bug fixes. Things that will draw people in and stay in instead of a simple "oh shiny!" and then walk off after the shiny wears off.
As has been said before, other things are considered "gambling" as well. Being considered "gambling" does not necessarily mean being considered "dangerous" or "illegal" here, however. It is important to understand that distinction.
What can (not must) make these a problem is the possible addictivity of the gamble and the amount and speed of money being paid by customers. So indeed, if a noticeable number of people start going into debt, paying hundreds of euros a week for Kinder eggs to get their smurf figurine, it may easily get controlled.
Things like Kinder Eggs, Cracker Jacks, prizes in cereal boxes and trading cards have been around for decades (if not longer). Why has there been little to nothing done about controlling them? The principal of how prizes are rewarded is exactly the same as lootboxes.
As for the second half of your statement, I absolutely fail to understand its connection to this discussion. For starters, there isn't a complaint at work here. There are also no disgruntled STO or other lockboxy game players involved in this at all.
I never said there were any disgruntled players in this thread. I just find it interesting that there is no public outcry for other products which work exactly the same way and are specifically marketed toward children. Seems to me this latest case has little to do with protecting children and more about some disgruntled folk out there (not on these forums or in this thread) who cannot afford something they want in a lockbox due to players setting high prices.
My 2 cents: This has nothing to do with protecting children, as children don't see this sort of thing as gambling. To them it's more like Christmas. "What did I get this time?" Also, children don't have the resources to sink into it on a massive scale. Protecting children is an excuse. This is about adults, who cannot manage themselves, and seem more than happy to allow a government, any government, to do it for them. (To be fair, I'm not singling out Germany, as I am well aware that this topic has broader implications beyond their borders.) If a government, any government, takes any action on this, it will be so they can get money from it for themselves in some fashion.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Comments
As a humorous side-note, LOL, you do realize Zen comes from 'Zeni', right? And Zeni means 'money' in Japanese ('coin'). And it probably means the same in Chinese too. As in an old Japanese proverb I learned when I was studying Japanese a bit: "Kono jo wa zeni" ('this world is all about money'; 'jo' is an old word for 'world', btw).
German law has something analogous to this. Children from the age of 7 to 18 are beschränkt geschäftsfähig (translates to "limited contractually capable"). That means that children can agree to contracts and thus condone business, but everything they do is schwebend unwirksam (translates to "pending invalid") which means every business a child engages in can be declared null and void by the parents or legal guardian. That means a child is technically unable to fully agree AGBs (allgemeine Geschätfbedingungen - Terms of Service) and every purchase they make in-game have to be refunded if a parent didn't give permission.
This is true, however the behaviour of addicted people is not PWEs concern. Breweries aren't legally responsible for alcoholics either. As long as a offering doesn't malevolently exploit addiction (which technically it implicitly does? That's a ethics debate...) and thus violates societal norms it's not the providers fault for people getting addicted or suffering because of it. It's "on them" to seek help, but the state can not act if they don't do that.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Now with the obligatory statements out of the way, it appears to me there are 2 debates going on in here that are somewhat intertwined. The first being the philosophical definition of gambling, and the legal German definition of gambling. As far as the legal German definition goes, that one I will leave to the lawyers and the Germans as I'm not a German. I also believe it's up to each country to decide what constitutes gambling as far as their own laws are concerned. As far as US law is concerned in a nutshell, to be considered gambling there must be an asset of value at risk such as cash, for a potential payoff of another asset of value. This is why things like Pinball were considered gambling in the 1920s during Prohibition here in the States. In those days Speakeasies would give you smokes, booze, or another prize depending on your score, thus you had a tangible asset payoff of greater value. With lockboxes you don't have that payoff as what you're technically paying for is ones and zeros on the cryptic servers which have no real world value save perceived entertainment value. If for example I dropped $10 during a R&D promotion and got lucky enough to get an infinity prize pack that has the TOS T6 Constitution, or even the ENT J, no matter what I will never see that cash again as those 2 ships have no real world value.
If we want to get technical what you're actually paying for is the Zen which is a virtual currency. If you pay for $10 worth of Zen, you are guaranteed to get $10 worth of Zen at the bare minimum, taking into account bonus promotional Zen. So no matter what you get what you pay for in terms of the actual cash transaction. You can then trade that virtual currency (Zen) into other virtual items such as ships, or even lockbox keys. At that point the cash transaction is already completed and it's not actually the cash that's being used to open the boxes, but a virtual currency being used to get virtual keys for a virtual lockbox. I won't speak to how the German courts or laws would treat it, but as far as United States courts, that distinction would be enough to keep it from being considered gambling. At best it would be considered simulated gambling by US law, and even then would not meet the true definition of even simulated gambling as you're guaranteed to get Lobi crystals at the absolute very least, so you are getting something at the end of the day, even if you don't think that something is worth anything.
As much as I hate how badly they fumbled the statement I agree with the ESRB that lockboxes are not gambling. Their comparison was comparing lockboxes to a pack of trading cards or baseball cards from back in the day. I myself am someone that enjoys a game of Magic the Gathering from time to time, or occasionally a game of Yugioh. When I go into a local shop and pay my $3 for a pack of the current MTG set, I'm guaranteed that no matter what I am getting 15 cards (16 if you count the marketing card). Far as rarity breakdown goes I'm guaranteed 11 commons, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare/mythic rare card. I could get lucky with that $3 pack and get a card that's worth $50+ on the secondary market, or even a foil 16th card. I could also get flipped the bird and get cards that aren't worth the $3 I paid for the pack, but either way I'm guaranteed 15 cards at the minimum so I'm getting something. The same applies with lockboxes in STO, you're getting something at the end of the day. If we're to apply our logic consistently across the board then technically any game that involves the remote possibility of chance, such as a chance to crit, a chance to heal more etc, could all be considered gambling by some of the logic I'm seeing put forth.
This finally brings me to the big question I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to when it comes to this type of debate, if alot of folks are wanting lockboxes to be declared gambling and regulated or even outright banned, why is it that the same outcry isn't present or as outspoken in regards to trading card games? If for the sake of argument we were to consider lockboxes as gambling, then why is the same logic not being applied to trading card games like Yugioh and MTG? Here in the states we actually had the debate on whether trading card games were gambling or not back in the 90s and the courts here ruled that they were not gambling.
Getting to my last points and questions to you guys now. A few years ago when Rockband 4 came out I went into the local Gamestop to pick up a copy of the game (yes I'm one of those guys lols.) While I was in the store there was a woman ahead of me in line with 2 kids who at best were 11 years old. Each one of them had the latest copy of Call of Duty which was rated M for mature. Here in the states to buy a rated M game you must be 17 or older to purchase it, and present ID to purchase it in some instances. When it came time for her and the kids to checkout the clerk asked her if she was aware that the game was rated M. Both of the kids looked at her for a moment and she tells the clerk "well they really want the game," and she buys the 2 copies for them anyways. So if those kids then see something disturbing in that game they are not prepared for, who is at fault, her for buying the copies of the game, or Gamestop themselves for selling them to her? At what point does that woman's responsibility begin and the company's end? Lastly and I'll wrap this up, if I have a child and my child comes to me asking to purchase items in game with my credit card, who is at fault if I hand the card over to the kid, the company or me? I'm all for protecting kids and such as well, but there has to be a point in the law of any civilized country, be it Germany, the United States, or any other, where the responsibility falls on the parent as ultimately it is their responsibility to watch their own children.
Anyways that's my 2 cents and a few questions for you guys. Feel free to agree with me or disagree with me as you choose. As always please keep the debate civil. I'm legitimately curious as to the answers to some of these questions as I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to some of them.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Indeed, in Germany it's the legal guardians (be it parents or other) decision whether their children are allowed to play games for adults. However, only the legal guardians. If a sibling buys a game not suitable for children and gives it to a child it's a misdemeanour, possibly a felony if the product in question has been rated "harmful" for children - if a complaint is filed. Of course, what happens in private, in a family, cannot be controlled by the state. The shop, in any case, is not responsible if they sell it to a legal guardian. If they sell it to another person knowing this person will give it to a child the case becomes complicated. I think they could be partly responsible under specific circumstances, but that's legal fu I am not prepared to perform.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The study isn't public so far, so there's - AFIK - no list. The only thing I could gather from multiple statements was that there apparently were Tolkien fans in the group - LOTRO and Shadow of War are getting mentions.
Actually this seems to hold true for the US, but not for the EU. The statement in the TOS may just be declared null and void if deemed incorrect, otherwise you could just write "This is not a fraud" into your TOS. As for "lawyerese": there is almost nothing that annoys lawyers and judges as much as when laypeople are trying it in front of them. Thing is: if you buy a virtual currency with real currency, even if you can never cash it out, it is still considered a service with monetary value (there have been cases about some "ducats" or similar you could spend at a kind of renaissance fair). So at least Zen has, under German law, monetary value. How far this will go down the line, we'll see.
Indeed. By the way, the definition is not "proposed" by anybody here, but is part of the actual German law which will decide this case. And yes, indeed, many of these things are considered "gambling". Just, as angrytarg pointed out, not necessarily "illegal" gambling.
But I get the feeling that, as in many other discussions, the problem is less one of different opinions and more one of "the same term being used differently in different countries". I often encounter a discussion about whether the US is a democracy, where people claim it is not because it is a republic. Apparently in some parts of the world these are mutually exclusive forms of government, while here they describe two different aspects, and any country can be either one, both, or none of them. This may be the larger issue here with Europeans using their meaning of "gambling" when describing what will happen here, while Americans understand their own word, which apparently doesn't mean the exactly same thing.
It's what ultimately separates Dave and Buster's from a Casino.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Not all countries will think it's not the problem of the company. Also if the problem gets bad it could cause some previously not caring places to suddenly care and PWE/Cryptic could potentially be outed from markets. It doesn't even take Cryptic to cause the backlash. Other companies who are more aggressive can trigger this like that Battle Front lock box fiasco.
Spending more time making gambling box content instead of good game content really isn't a sound business solution in the long term. Someone will get to greedy and ruin it even if it isn't you. Lock boxes are really just borrowed time.
For that matter, Forest Gump is famous for saying "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get". OMG, boxes of assorted chocolates without an itemized list of contents are gambling, ban them quick!
[/quote]
Assorted chocolates is assorted chocolates... they all have equal value. Also all possible flavors are IN the box. There is no super rare flavor that is only in 1 out of 100 boxes. They may not be equally distributed in the box, but all possible flavors that can be is in the box. When you open a lockbox, you only get somethings, not everything.
And if all things in side a lock box has equal value (cause all items are digital and just a number of 0's and 1's with infinite quantity)... why not list every possible item and let the user choose?
You open a lock box and you get 3 random items... well get rid of the random items and let me choose my 3 items from the list of everything possible.
My character Tsin'xing
The orange-filled ones are gross. Just sayin'.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
I think a lot of the uproar is indeed caused by parents who did bad parenting and then tried to shovel the issue back in the software companies's backyard. Nowadays with social media you can create your own storm with about anything.
Let's just all ignore it and it'll go away...right?
Fine, even if they dont have equal value to you... you have every possible choice to pick from. There ya happy now?
If they get rid of the randomness of the lock boxes then it would be better. Assign points to everything in the box and you need X number to redeem and each box has a variable with a min in each box. IE after 25, 50 or 100 boxes you can get a top tier ship. 100 is a bit much for a single character unlock thou.
or you can do free keys for everyone every day... and if you want more you can buy more. the free keys are bind on acquire and all items are bound... bought keys, all items from box is free to trade. To prevent people from hoarding make the free keys timed to expire.
like for example, at the highest end of the spectrum, the top prizes in those crown crates (ESO's name for their boxes) are 400 crown gems, and at the lowest end, the consumables the box drops give 1-2 gems for X amount of the consumable...so while you aren't really getting one of those epic mounts or whatever any time soon if the majority of what drops for you is a consumable, but you keep exchanging them and eventually you WILL be able to get one of those grand prizes
of course, you can already do that as it is with EC, but EC value fluctuates - a token system like that would remain fixed, so it couldn't be subjected to player price-gouging
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
As has been said before, other things are considered "gambling" as well. Being considered "gambling" does not necessarily mean being considered "dangerous" or "illegal" here, however. It is important to understand that distinction.
What can (not must) make these a problem is the possible addictivity of the gamble and the amount and speed of money being paid by customers. So indeed, if a noticeable number of people start going into debt, paying hundreds of euros a week for Kinder eggs to get their smurf figurine, it may easily get controlled.
As for the second half of your statement, I absolutely fail to understand its connection to this discussion. For starters, there isn't a complaint at work here. There are also no disgruntled STO or other lockboxy game players involved in this at all.
In this specific case however, it's based on a study suggesting that there are structural similarities in business model and revenue numbers between traditional gambling enterprises and games utilizing lockboxes.
A politician who tried to claim trading cards (or easter eggs or boxes of chocolate or whatever) are "gambling" because you don't know what's in it before you buy now...would get laughed out of office.
The political brouhaha on the other hand is more about stupid parents letting their kids play with their credit cards then blaming everyone else when the bill comes.
I honestly don't want lockbox items. I'd rather have more time invested in better game play design/story as well as bug fixes. Things that will draw people in and stay in instead of a simple "oh shiny!" and then walk off after the shiny wears off.
My 2 cents: This has nothing to do with protecting children, as children don't see this sort of thing as gambling. To them it's more like Christmas. "What did I get this time?" Also, children don't have the resources to sink into it on a massive scale. Protecting children is an excuse. This is about adults, who cannot manage themselves, and seem more than happy to allow a government, any government, to do it for them. (To be fair, I'm not singling out Germany, as I am well aware that this topic has broader implications beyond their borders.) If a government, any government, takes any action on this, it will be so they can get money from it for themselves in some fashion.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch