Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

MadFrenchie · May 2018

Quizzical said:

MadFrenchie said:
Can you cite a source for the cost savings?

It would have to exceed $300 billion a year to result in any net savings to society, per the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/economics/econ_facts/index.htm

Compare that with recorded tobacco revenue in the U.S. per Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/248964/revenues-from-tobacco-tax-and-forecast-in-the-us/#0

I've yet to see convincing data showing smokers dying younger is saving the society an extra $280 billion dollars a year.

Any costs you may be speaking of aren't there yet, and likely won't be for decades if we continue to tax cigarettes at the same rate for those decades, if at all.

My search on the internet has shown merely articles quoting folks saying "oh yes, it's definitely a money saver to have smokers!" Light on data, heavy on the "analysis" of said mystical data. I would rather put my money on the CDC.

That $300 billion per year figure is not a price tag to the government. Only about 20% of American adults smoke. If everyone smoked, that would come to about $1.5 trillion per year. Medicare and Medicaid combined are only about $1 trillion per year. Do you really believe that if everyone smoked, the health care costs due to smoking alone would exceed all current government spending on health care?

Most likely, the $300 billion figure consists primarily of costs that are already borne by smokers, such as reduced life expectancy and lower quality of life in a variety of ways. That doesn't justify taxing cigarettes to reimburse the government for costs that the government isn't paying.

The relative costs argument is a very utilitarian one, not a moral one. For example, if we had a policy of executing the day they turned 75 or 5 years after retirement, whichever comes first, that would undeniably save the government a ton of money. But there are also a lot of obvious and compelling reasons why we shouldn't have such a policy, such as that mass murder is evil.

I don't disagree. It's a very, very utilitarian argument. Governments sometimes need to pursue utilitarian positions. You can't save everyone, especially from themselves, but you can help to ensure destruction, whether self-inflicted or otherwise, provides a benefit elsewhere to society or helps to blunt the effects the destruction may have on society (see the gun owner's insurance example I mentioned). Other than the buzz and destruction of the body, cigarettes provide nothing to the user. This is unlike food, where even unhealthy food is preferable to the more intense malnutrition effects that would occur if folks just didn't eat.

EDIT- I will also add that governments, particularly the U.S. government, could do a much better job at earmarking such taxes. I believe the utilitarian position is still morally valid so long as the resources generated are used in an effort to combat the underlying causes of the issue or recoup costs to society related to the same. Our government could do that better, I think.

Quizzical · May 2018

Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking. Why not just tax loot boxes? I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

So what counts as a loot box? Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box. However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box. A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax. That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money. Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things. How much money was spent on loot boxes?

Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies. But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
1) assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
2) assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed. They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax? Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes. For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month. And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time. They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more. That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes. What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to. Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose. Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

It's doesn't remove the freedom of companies to engage in the behavior, but it does disqualify and discourage attempts at using the exploitative nature of lootboxes to extract exhorbitent amounts of cash from players by doing nothing be offering reskins and limited-time game models.

The specifics would obviously be negotiated out during the debate of the bill, most likely the specifics of exemption and reporting and the tax rate. I think it would be a far better end result overall than merely trying to ban them realistically, as a ban would be met with much more resistance from lobby groups and, likely, court judges.

Quizzical · May 2018

Part of the idea is that if a company that isn't trying to sell loot boxes accidentally does something that gets counted as loot boxes, they don't get arrested, they don't get their game shut down temporarily, they don't have to make abrupt changes that seriously disrupt gameplay, and they don't have other such wildly unintended consequences that a full ban on loot boxes might cause. They pay a bit of tax to get through it, then adjust their policies so that they don't keep paying the tax in the future.

The goal isn't to get rid of loot boxes entirely. It's to make it seem more profitable to many games to forgo loot boxes, or at least to avoid their most abusive problems. I think that my proposal above would cause a relatively minor drop in expenditures on game development, but much smaller than a full ban on loot boxes.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

I agree that may be much better than an outright ban.

The gamer in me wants to see them go away completely for the reasons @Iselin describes. However, it may not be a realistic goal in any way at this point.

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

Quizzical said:

Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking. Why not just tax loot boxes? I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

So what counts as a loot box? Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box. However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box. A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax. That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money. Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things. How much money was spent on loot boxes?

Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies. But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
1) assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
2) assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed. They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax? Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes. For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month. And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time. They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more. That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes. What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to. Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose. Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.

Because as soon as you open the door to tax "lootboxes".. governments will want to tax the "winnings" from the boxes. That leads down a road of perpetual taxes.

Cryomatrix · May 2018

In addition to second-hand smoke there is third-hand smoke that is what layers on to surfaces. It has been shown to be harmful in mice exposed to third hand smoke.

I am currently preparing an IRB approved study to test the effects of third-hand smoke on children. It will be the first of its kind.

This is a study and the final author is the one i'm working with.
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28001376)

For example, if you go into the VA in Roxbury, MA the whole place smells like an ashtray. I bet you that is not good for the people that work there.

Any way, in many arguments, it is difficult to argue things on a spectrum. What you should and shouldn't tax is on a spectrum.

I personally, would tax the hell out of Smoking and alcohol and subsidize condoms

Cryomatrix

craftseeker · May 2018

Utterly amazed by the people on this thread who oppose the Belgian ban on gambling in games. Particularly those made by @DMKano. They seem to me to fall into three main categories.
1. It's an attack on our FreeDumb! We must be free to be as stupid as we like.
2. How dare Belgium, or indeed any country, have the audacity to attempt to restrict the rapacious activities of U.S. companies.
3. Gambling is good because it funds our game play at the expense of the naive and stupid.

The arrogance of a section of U.S. citizens always amazes me. Surely any restriction on this blatant and deceitful cash grab is a social good. One we should all be encouraging. After all it is in our own interests.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking. Why not just tax loot boxes? I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

So what counts as a loot box? Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box. However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box. A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax. That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money. Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things. How much money was spent on loot boxes?

Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies. But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
1) assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
2) assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed. They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax? Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes. For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month. And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time. They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more. That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes. What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to. Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose. Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.

Because as soon as you open the door to tax "lootboxes".. governments will want to tax the "winnings" from the boxes. That leads down a road of perpetual taxes.

Which would only further serve to discourage the monetization technique, though.

Slapshot1188 · May 2018

MadFrenchie said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking. Why not just tax loot boxes? I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

So what counts as a loot box? Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box. However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box. A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax. That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money. Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things. How much money was spent on loot boxes?

Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies. But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
1) assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
2) assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed. They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax? Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes. For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month. And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time. They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more. That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes. What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to. Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose. Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.

Because as soon as you open the door to tax "lootboxes".. governments will want to tax the "winnings" from the boxes. That leads down a road of perpetual taxes.

Which would only further serve to discourage the monetization technique, though.

Sure. Kind of like drinking Drain-O to kill the bacteria in your stomach. You really want the tax guy expecting you to list all your "virtual items" at the end of the year and having you pay a certain % of their "value"?

Nilden · May 2018

I don't play games with loot boxes.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

Slapshot1188 said:

MadFrenchie said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Quizzical said:

Actually, this discussion about "sin taxes" has gotten me thinking. Why not just tax loot boxes? I think I have a proposal that would be much easier to define, implement, and enforce than trying to ban them.

The headline would be a 40% tax on loot boxes with odds not directly and explicitly told to players, a 20% tax on loot boxes for which the odds of all contents are explicitly told to players, and a 0% tax on game revenue that is not loot boxes.

So what counts as a loot box? Anything for which what the player gets for the product is completely deterministic and not random at all is not a loot box. However, anything for which what the player gets is random counts as a loot box. A game with random drops can also offer one recurring charge for access to content and/or one new one-time fee per month for permanent access to content with random drops that would be exempt from the loot box tax. That would exempt both the "buy to play" and subscription models from the loot box tax, and in particular, would allow a "buy to play" model to charge for expansions or other content additions so long as it is not more than one per month.

Another complication is that games often commingle their cash shop currency such that some of the currency is obtained in game or by trading with other players while it is also bought directly with real money. Then some of the cash shop currency is used to buy loot boxes while some is used to buy other things. How much money was spent on loot boxes?

Companies would get some leeway to gate things apart or perhaps have multiple cash shop currencies. But for any cash shop currency that could be used to buy loot boxes, they'd have to either:
1) assume that all real money that was used to purchase the currency (including indirectly if they could trade one cash shop currency for another) was spent on loot boxes and be taxed accordingly
2) assume that all cash shop currency spent on loot boxes was purchased with real money at whatever the worst rate in currency per dollar is (to exclude volume discounts) and be taxed accordingly

Game companies would be allowed to split their cash shop currencies and have two separate currencies, one of which cannot be used to buy loot boxes (even indirectly), so that only the other would be taxed. They could have a subscription or buy to play model where players pay real money directly and is exempt from the loot box tax, but only pay the tax on some other currency that can buy loot boxes.

So how do you cram loot boxes into that and try to evade the tax? Well, a game company could use the buy to play and subscription exemptions to sell loot boxes. For example, they could say that if you pay $15/month, you'll get a loot box per day for that month. And if you pay $50 for permanent access to a zone, you can kill some trivial mobs once to get the latest new loot boxes.

The reason why those exemptions are limited is to stop companies from saying, well then, we'll create a million identical zones where you pay $1 to enter each and get a loot box for entering the first time. They could still collect two payments per month for loot boxes, but no more. That would clamp down on loot boxes considerably, as they couldn't simultaneously get maximum spending from the $10/month minnow, the $100/month semi-whale, the $1000/month real whale, and all intermediate points without paying a whole lot of tax.

But perhaps more importantly, it would crack down on the impulsive, gambling nature of loot boxes. What makes a gambling addiction so insidious is not that someone sets out to lose far more than he can afford to. Rather, it's that you lose a little bit of money, and then another little bit, and then another, so many times that it ultimately adds up to far more than you intended to lose. Companies that tried to still exploit that behavior would have to pay the loot box tax.

Because as soon as you open the door to tax "lootboxes".. governments will want to tax the "winnings" from the boxes. That leads down a road of perpetual taxes.

Which would only further serve to discourage the monetization technique, though.

Sure. Kind of like drinking Drain-O to kill the bacteria in your stomach. You really want the tax guy expecting you to list all your "virtual items" at the end of the year and having you pay a certain % of their "value"?

No, certainly not, but unless there's an RMT market for things you get outta the lootbox, how would the government calculate any value other than $1 or whatever you put in? Winnings cannot be quantified like cash prizes or real property because there's no actual ownership for the consumer and the value is wholly at the whim of the developer even after the transaction (again, assuming there's no legal RMT market).

Ungood · May 2018

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling.

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

craftseeker · May 2018

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling.

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

Quizzical · May 2018

craftseeker said:

Utterly amazed by the people on this thread who oppose the Belgian ban on gambling in games. Particularly those made by @DMKano. They seem to me to fall into three main categories.
1. It's an attack on our FreeDumb! We must be free to be as stupid as we like.
2. How dare Belgium, or indeed any country, have the audacity to attempt to restrict the rapacious activities of U.S. companies.
3. Gambling is good because it funds our game play at the expense of the naive and stupid.

The arrogance of a section of U.S. citizens always amazes me. Surely any restriction on this blatant and deceitful cash grab is a social good. One we should all be encouraging. After all it is in our own interests.

You could probably devise one policy that I'd support that could reasonably be labeled a loot box ban, and another policy that I'd oppose that could also reasonably be labeled a loot box ban. The details matter tremendously, and to insist otherwise is to not seriously engage the issue.

Ungood · May 2018

craftseeker said:

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling.

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.

Iselin · May 2018

Ungood said:

craftseeker said:

Ungood said:

Loot boxes are gambling much in the same way rolling the dice in monopoly is gambling.

The only variable, is you are paying to roll.

Nope, false analogy. Did you read the ruling from the Belgian government? Loot boxes are gambling, just like slot machines are gambling.

I's disagree, only because you can't actually lose with a Loot Box, you are guaranteed to get something, much in the same way those random vending machine work, where kids put quarters in and get out cheap toys. They may not get what they want, but they will always get something.

Well you're definitely toeing the ESRB party line.

That line of thinking has always made me wonder if a casino can get around the gambling regulations by always giving you something, You think that'd fly?

Asm0deus · May 2018

Quizzical said:

craftseeker said:

Utterly amazed by the people on this thread who oppose the Belgian ban on gambling in games. Particularly those made by @DMKano. They seem to me to fall into three main categories.
1. It's an attack on our FreeDumb! We must be free to be as stupid as we like.
2. How dare Belgium, or indeed any country, have the audacity to attempt to restrict the rapacious activities of U.S. companies.
3. Gambling is good because it funds our game play at the expense of the naive and stupid.

The arrogance of a section of U.S. citizens always amazes me. Surely any restriction on this blatant and deceitful cash grab is a social good. One we should all be encouraging. After all it is in our own interests.

You could probably devise one policy that I'd support that could reasonably be labeled a loot box ban, and another policy that I'd oppose that could also reasonably be labeled a loot box ban. The details matter tremendously, and to insist otherwise is to not seriously engage the issue.

Indeed but this is a first baby step into define gambling in the internet online era as used by the gaming industry.

First steps need to be made before refining or getting into deep details...common on you know as well as others here a first iteration needs to be made and refining that will follow.

Dimmizer · May 2018

I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..

Keep it simple I say..

gam·ble

ˈɡambəl/

verb

1.
play games of chance for money; bet.
2.
take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.

Dimmizer · May 2018

It's shit how companies can get away with things like this and no ones held accountable.. no ones arrested or anything.. and government just allows this to happen.. cause ofc they get their cut too.

Cryomatrix · May 2018

Dimmizer said:

It's shit how companies can get away with things like this and no ones held accountable.. no ones arrested or anything.. and government just allows this to happen.. cause ofc they get their cut too.

You know what is funny, the US government state sponsored lottery makes like twice as much a year as the video game industry. FACT!

MadFrenchie · May 2018

Cryomatrix said:

Dimmizer said:

It's shit how companies can get away with things like this and no ones held accountable.. no ones arrested or anything.. and government just allows this to happen.. cause ofc they get their cut too.

You know what is funny, the US government state sponsored lottery makes like twice as much a year as the video game industry. FACT!

And they earmark that, at least in Florida and Tennessee, for scholarships for higher education.

Damned governments! Trying to take a negative and pull some positive out of it!

MadFrenchie · May 2018

DMKano said:

Dimmizer said:

I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..

Keep it simple I say..

gam·ble
ˈɡambəl/
verb
1.
play games of chance for money; bet.
2.
take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.

It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.

If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word. You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to. Different, indeed.

MadFrenchie · May 2018

DMKano said:

MadFrenchie said:

DMKano said:

Dimmizer said:

I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..

Keep it simple I say..

gam·ble
ˈɡambəl/
verb
1.
play games of chance for money; bet.
2.
take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.

It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.

If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word. You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to. Different, indeed.

If lootboxes are gambling - so is this - card booster packs:

Yep.

And a ton of different things that are "RNG buying".

You own those cards. Can the manufacturers force you to forfeit them at their whim?

MadFrenchie · May 2018

DMKano said:

MadFrenchie said:

DMKano said:

MadFrenchie said:

DMKano said:

Dimmizer said:

I hate how complicated people make it.. like all these loop holes or laws and how things are worded..

Keep it simple I say..

gam·ble
ˈɡambəl/
verb
1.
play games of chance for money; bet.
2.
take risky action in the hope of a desired result.

IE: You pay money for credits and then spend said credits or diamonds or w/e they call it in said game to buy creates which have a % chance to give you what you want.. plain and simple. There shouldn't be any loop holes or something about this the definition is clear I mean if companies and casinos are gonna try and get around this then why do we have a definition at all?

Companies are changing the meaning to fit their narrative which isn't how the world works but sadly ya know.. corruption and all.. people want their $.

It's not simple because it's not the same when it comes to virtual goods that are not tradable and bound to your character (which some lootboxes have)

Real gambling - the winnings can always be exchanged for real money that can be used to buy whatever you want.

Lootboxes - in case character bound items - can't be used for shit in real world.

Also the fact that looboxes always give you something - real gambling only gives you something if you win (most of the time you simply lose money) - again huge difference.

Lootboxes are RNG buying - that's really what it is - it's different than gambling, now laws can be passed to include RNG buying as gambling - but this would have far reaching effects way beyond lootboxes in videogames.

If we're getting super technical, again, you're not winning anything in a loot box in the traditional sense of the word. You're unlocking content for software you have limited and temporary rights to. Different, indeed.

If lootboxes are gambling - so is this - card booster packs:

Yep.

And a ton of different things that are "RNG buying".

You own those cards. Can the manufacturers force you to forfeit them at their whim?

The manufacturers can introduce new cards with new rules, making old cards completely worthless.

Basically completely change the rules of the card game and make old cards irrelevant.

That was avoiding answering the question. I agree; that's a horrible position for consumers. Yet, somehow, video game developers have created an even worse position for consumers.

EDIT- Not only that, but: while WotC could change the current ruleset in an attempt to manipulate the value of cards, they can't force players to play by that ruleset. Players can organize tournaments and play by whatever ruleset they choose with the cards. Again, video game developers have created an even worse position; you get no option to play by a previous ruleset in most cases, and very few legal options in others. Video game devs have consumers by the balls, shaft, and an adjustable pinky in the back door.

Howdy, Stranger!

Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Lootboxes are gambling (Official Statement)

Comments