Are lootboxes gambling & should games be regulated. BF2 and OW under investigation

[Elim Garak]

The money in your wallet doesn't exist in reality it's just a piece of polymer/paper until you find a vendor who will accept it in exchange for goods or a service.

Oh it's that kind of argument. Well you don't really exist and thus your argument doesn't exist and therefore I don't see it

I can exchange steam bucks to purchase goods not owned by or associated with or hell even in some cases require steam to run.

You can only use it to get things that are available in Steam, even if the product owner doesn't require you to use Steam - you only could acquire it because it's on Steam and you cannot sell them for real money. I fail to see how that is gambling since you are not getting richer and you are losing no money that you would not have otherwise used to buy those items directly. I fail to see a way to get rich on Steam. Hooray, I've got a million free games - what a loser I would be. And btw all you get is a license to play the game.

Did you actually the pachinko machines link btw? I'm betting you didn't because if you did you'd understand how insanely similar these two services are. With the pachinko machines, you exchange the balls for 'worthless' tokens that all the shops near the parlour just happen to be quite happy to accept in lieu of cash. Doesn't that sound weirdly familiar?

They are not similar because in pachinko you CAN cash out with Real Money and spend them elsewhere. You can get rich there if yakuza allowed that, that is.

You see this is your problem, you're trying to hide behind this theory you've constructed that something can only be gambling if you can 'cash out' actual legal tender (but only government-backed tender not corporate tender). Which is just false, a raffle for a meat tray or a car is gambling, going to a poker game where you win a 'worthless' vase the man at the counter is con incidentally is happy to pay $10,000 for is gambling. Playing a slot machine that only pays our giftcards (which are corporate-backed tender) is gabmling.
The last two are explicit ways people have attempted to get around gambling legislation, it seems to me that they sound super similar to how pachinko parlours and the steam marketplace work.

It's loophole activity... why are you bringing it up here? We already established that if you can cash out - it's gambling. I'm getting tired of this tired argument.

1. Spirit guard udyr is functionally no different from CnC Red Alert 2: Yuri's revenge. Both require the base game to be of any use. The only difference is that Yuri's revenge exists on a vector EA can't artificially control the resale of (which is immaterial to the argument they both have a monetary value).

I dont' even know what that all means.

2. "Prove a negative" means it's impossible to prove a negative assertion. I'm asking you to prove the positive assertion you made that digital goods/in-game items or whatever are intrinsically without value.

It doesn't matter how hard you try to reword it - but "without" is a negative. Look it's very easy - prove it has value. It's way easier than proving that it is without value. I mean it possible as opposed to impossible.

3. If you can barter or sell a good for anything it has a value, that value may or may not be the sale price but it's a value. As to the second point coolio.

You are defending scammers right now. They can sell you things that have no value or value much less than you have paid. It's worth what you've paid for it, right? Only philosophically.

I'm not saying it's bad because the yakuza do it. I'm saying the reason the yakuza do it is bad. The fact many people know the yakuza are bad people merely rhetorically strengthens my argument.

Thre was no point in bringing yakuza then. But you did. Just admit the mistake and move on. I know what you did. Now you know what you did. Cooool.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you're so wrong it's not even funny. Our subscription fees are not payment for "4 attempts at a boss + 12 bonus rolls/month". Our subscription fee is payed for access to the server. ALL THE FUCKING SERVER. Pet battles, PVP, raids, dungeons, quests, EVERYTHING. Reducing our subscription fees to "4 attempts + 12 bonus rolls/month" is disingenuous at best, fucking idiotic at worst. It just shows the mental gymnastics you need to go to to equate 1 month of complete server access with buying a loot box. Pathetic.

No you don't, and a great many people don't even do those bosses so it's even less relevant. That $15 a month provides access to the live game servers, nothing more, just as it did for the decade+ before things like bonus rolls were introduced.

You're on the losing side of an argument, trying to dig your way out with semantics but unintentionally digging your own hole deeper.

Did I say it's all you are paying for? You are paying for all of it, including lootboxes. There are Emissaries - lootboxes, there are rares, there are weeklies - why am I even explaining the amount of lootboxes in video games with loot? And you pay for all of them. Even if you call it access to servers, all lootboxes are on the servers anyway.

And you don't get to declare a losing side unless you win the argument.

[Krastyn]

Again, you're so wrong it's not even funny. Our subscription fees are not payment for "4 attempts at a boss + 12 bonus rolls/month". Our subscription fee is payed for access to the server. ALL THE FUCKING SERVER. Pet battles, PVP, raids, dungeons, quests, EVERYTHING. Reducing our subscription fees to "4 attempts + 12 bonus rolls/month" is disingenuous at best, fucking idiotic at worst. It just shows the mental gymnastics you need to go to to equate 1 month of complete server access with buying a loot box. Pathetic.

Pet battles, like the ones that are games of chance, with some skill involved (like poker)?
Raids, like the loot box bosses that were just brought up?
dungeons, which have loot box bosses that we just brought up?

You seem to claim that by paying a subscription fee to the game, that having a "gambling" aspect is fine. So again, if a casino charged admission. then it stops becoming gambling. because they get access to ALL THE FUCKING CASINO. Bathrooms, restaurants, bar, lounge area, oh, and some places you can gamble if you wanted.

Before you say "well the point of going to a casino is to gamble", the point for a lot people to MMO's is the progression of gear and cosmetics to their character. you can't on one hand claim that a cosmetic skin has value because it came from a loot box and then claim it doesn't have value because it came from a mob.

[Unholyground]

"Trading cards are gambling. Claw machine is gambling. Suprise boxes for kids are gambling. All of these are predatory business practices."

Saw this quoted a lot, and to respond I say this. None of that disappears when servers go offline forever so at least it is tangible and a physical asset. The fact that digital stuff like that is not scrutinized more is an issue as you really are buying nothing.

[Edge-]

Did I say it's all you are paying for? You are paying for all of it, including lootboxes.

Congratulations, literally every game with RNG drops ever is now a lootbox. You may not pay for it every month, but it's a one-time purchase lootbox. Dragon Age? Lootbox. Witcher? Lootbox. Fallout? Lootbox. Monster Hunter? Also a lootbox. Dark Souls? Definitely loot boxes. Final Fantasy? Loot box. You pay for all those games, and while they may grant you unlimited attempts, by your absurdly broad definition they would all be "loot boxes", and gambling as a result.

This is what happens when you contort yourself into pretzels to try to make a bad argument work. It fucking falls apart.

Beyond that, you're still wrong. You're paying for access, nothing more. The rules contained within are irrelevant, especially considering, as I mentioned, a great many people may never do those raid bosses at all.

[Elim Garak]

Congratulations, literally every game with RNG drops ever is now a lootbox. You may not pay for it every month, but it's a one-time purchase lootbox. Dragon Age? Lootbox. Witcher? Lootbox. Fallout? Lootbox. Monster Hunter? Also a lootbox. Dark Souls? Definitely loot boxes. Final Fantasy? Loot box. You pay for all those games, and while they may grant you unlimited attempts, by your absurdly broad definition they would all be "loot boxes", and gambling as a result.

This is what happens when you contort yourself into pretzels to try to make a bad argument work. It fucking falls apart.

It's not my argument - it's the argument of people who call a lootbox gambling.

Everything you stated above is indeed a lootbox. Ever heard this term "loot table" or maybe "drop table"? Does it matter that the loot is on a table rather than in a box? Or that it's called a drop?
It's the same fucking thing. MTX loot boxes are just an MTX that lets you get to the loot faster. That's it. That is not to say that some companies do not abuse it - but that's a completely different topic unrelated to gambling.

Beyond that, you're still wrong. You're paying for access, nothing more. The rules contained within are irrelevant, especially considering, as I mentioned, a great many people may never do those raid bosses at all.

Well then when you buy a lootbox you are paying for access to one of the items in it. If it's a skin it is unlocked on your account and you can use it on appropriate items. You don't actually GET the skin. Just access to it is unlocked. Wow.

[Krastyn]

"Trading cards are gambling. Claw machine is gambling. Suprise boxes for kids are gambling. All of these are predatory business practices."

Saw this quoted a lot, and to respond I say this. None of that disappears when servers go offline forever so at least it is tangible and a physical asset. The fact that digital stuff like that is not scrutinized more is an issue as you really are buying nothing.

While that is true, it's a stronger argument that the physical versions are more like gambling in the legal sense than their digital counterparts.

[Unholyground]

While that is true, it's a stronger argument that the physical versions are more like gambling in the legal sense than their digital counterparts.

I guess so, but we can all agree it is gambling though, the only people for it are people who have invested interest in it staying legal because of their potential monetary gain.

Here is a simple solution that I came up with. Don't make terrible fucking mobile games that rely on addictive mechanics to hook people, make games that you pay once for and have full access to all the mechanics like an normal fucking game. I do not respect mobile game developers in any way, they are sellouts period.

[Saltysquidoon]

Oh it's that kind of argument. Well you don't really exist and thus your argument doesn't exist and therefore I don't see it

My statement is a statement of fact not an esoteric philosophical argument. The money in your wallet's value is determined by what the tendering party (your government) and what the external market sets for it. A $5 note it's not made of $5 of paper/plastic and ink it's a representation of value, you can even think of it like a governmental gift card if you want since the government can tell you where you're not allowed to spend it.

It's loophole activity... why are you bringing it up here? We already established that if you can cash out - it's gambling. I'm getting tired of this tired argument.

Because of the part where I said winning a meat tray or a car or a gift card or literally anything on earth that isn't the legal tender of the country you are presently located inside of in a raffle is still gambling by any observable metric?

I dont' even know what that all means.

It was an invitation for you to tell me how a $25 dollar lol skin has no value purely on the basis that Riot wont let me sell it. But a $40 expansion pack somehow does simply because EA can't stop me from selling it. Despite both not functioning without access to the base game.

IIt doesn't matter how hard you try to reword it - but "without" is a negative. Look it's very easy - prove it has value. It's way easier than proving that it is without value. I mean it possible as opposed to impossible.

Like I said you made a positive assertion, the content of a positive assertion can still be a statement in the negative. He who asserts must prove yadda yadda yadda.

You are defending scammers right now. They can sell you things that have no value or value much less than you have paid. It's worth what you've paid for it, right? Only philosophically.

Wut? We're talking about the bare minimum requirement for discerning if something has value,

Thre was no point in bringing yakuza then. But you did. Just admit the mistake and move on. I know what you did. Now you know what you did. Cooool.

I explained what the reasoning was in the quote? It wasn't a mistake I did it purposefully.

[Dhrizzle]

"Trading cards are gambling. Claw machine is gambling. Suprise boxes for kids are gambling. All of these are predatory business practices."

Saw this quoted a lot, and to respond I say this. None of that disappears when servers go offline forever so at least it is tangible and a physical asset. The fact that digital stuff like that is not scrutinized more is an issue as you really are buying nothing.

The fact that digital items are temporary and intangible is more of an argument against loot-boxes being gambling even if the rest are.

- - - Updated - - -

Congratulations, literally every game with RNG drops ever is now a lootbox. You may not pay for it every month, but it's a one-time purchase lootbox. Dragon Age? Lootbox. Witcher? Lootbox. Fallout? Lootbox. Monster Hunter? Also a lootbox. Dark Souls? Definitely loot boxes. Final Fantasy? Loot box. You pay for all those games, and while they may grant you unlimited attempts, by your absurdly broad definition they would all be "loot boxes", and gambling as a result.

This is what happens when you contort yourself into pretzels to try to make a bad argument work. It fucking falls apart.

Beyond that, you're still wrong. You're paying for access, nothing more. The rules contained within are irrelevant, especially considering, as I mentioned, a great many people may never do those raid bosses at all.

If people are taking the tack that loot- boxes are gambling and bad because it is addictive and can lead to real-world problems for children then it is opening the gate for potentially legislating against all games with RNG loot or indeed anything that could cause dopamine release or may inspire undesirable behaviour IRL.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess so, but we can all agree it is gambling though, the only people for it are people who have invested interest in it staying legal because of their potential monetary gain.

Here is a simple solution that I came up with. Don't make terrible fucking mobile games that rely on addictive mechanics to hook people, make games that you pay once for and have full access to all the mechanics like an normal fucking game. I do not respect mobile game developers in any way, they are sellouts period.

That's a totally different thing though, there are lots of different mechanics in mobile games that use predatory marketing practices and have cost people thousands they later regretted but this isn't about consumer protection, it's a moral crusade to protect children from the evils of video games.

[Elim Garak]

Because of the part where I said winning a meat tray or a car or a gift card or literally anything on earth that isn't the legal tender of the country you are presently located inside of in a raffle is still gambling by any observable metric?

No.

It was an invitation for you to tell me how a $25 dollar lol skin has no value purely on the basis that Riot wont let me sell it. But a $40 expansion pack somehow does simply because EA can't stop me from selling it. Despite both not functioning without access to the base game.

You don't own the skin.

Like I said you made a positive assertion, the content of a positive assertion can still be a statement in the negative. He who asserts must prove yadda yadda yadda.

It doesn't matter who has the initial burden of proof since it is impossible for me to prove a negative in this case as has been demonstrated for how many pages? You failed to prove it has value because you don't feel burdened - but since it's a positive it's quite easy - so why don't you? I see no point in continuing with this point until you do. I will maintain that in-game items have no value in the context of gambling because you don't even own them since it is impossible to own them.

Wut? We're talking about the bare minimum requirement for discerning if something has value,

We are not talking about a value in a general sense - see this is why it's impossible to prove a negative, there's always something down the rabbit hole. Now you are talking about general value, like what? Sentimental value since you paid top dollar for a piece of shit? Tough luck that piece of shit has no value no matter how much you paid for it. Can you sell it? To another sucker like yourself? Maybe. But does it have value? Really? Maybe as a perpetual scamming device. "You can scam so many people with this baby!"

I explained what the reasoning was in the quote? It wasn't a mistake I did it purposefully.

This is the mistake - you did it purposefully. Don't use fallacies.

[Krastyn]

I guess so, but we can all agree it is gambling though, the only people for it are people who have invested interest in it staying legal because of their potential monetary gain.

I'm against a flat "they're all gambling in the legal sense", because I don't see how you can create that law, without also making things like boss drops, Kinder Eggs, or any other product with "uncertainty" in the outcome also legal gambling. I'm more for adding more restrictions to them to make them less predatory, and less like legal gambling. As I've said before, I think Mass Effect 3 did them almost perfectly.

Loot boxes are currently not gambling in the legal sense because the wording does not apply. To make them legal gambling, you need to change that wording. I don't see how you can change that wording, without having a significant impact on many other things, that people claim aren't legal gambling (like random boss loot drops), or companies just modifying loot boxes to still fit within the rules..

The law wouldn't care if you personally don't raid, or go if you just one shot old content raid bosses. The option is still there.

[Saltysquidoon]

No.

But actually Yes

(4)In this Act “prize” in relation to lotteries includes any money, articles or services—

You don't own the skin.

I don't 'own' the expansion pack either as you so graciously pointed out. Yet strangely I am able to buy and sell it?

It doesn't matter who has the initial burden of proof since it is impossible for me to prove a negative in this case as has been demonstrated for how many pages? You failed to prove it has value because you don't feel burdened - but since it's a positive it's quite easy - so why don't you? I see no point in continuing with this point until you do. I will maintain that in-game items have no value in the context of gambling because you don't even own them since it is impossible to own them.

There you go lad
What you're looking at there is an in-game item (that won't function without the base game) that someone has paid consideration for and can now onsell to who so ever they desire for an agreed value.

We are not talking about a value in a general sense - see this is why it's impossible to prove a negative, there's always something down the rabbit hole. Now you are talking about general value, like what? Sentimental value since you paid top dollar for a piece of shit? Tough luck that piece of shit has no value no matter how much you paid for it. Can you sell it? To another sucker like yourself? Maybe. But does it have value? Really? Maybe as a perpetual scamming device. "You can scam so many people with this baby!"

When people disagree on the value of an item traditionally and independent third party abriter such as a magistrate or less formally and ombudsman determines the value based on the facts and circumstances.
I can almost assuredly say that that in the event of a petty cost dispute between a consumer and (supposedly) reputable company the value would probably be the asking price. It seems strange to me that such an asking price would suddenly be irrelevant when discussing said item purely on the basis it came from a lootbox.

This is the mistake - you did it purposefully. Don't use fallacies.

It's not a fallacy it's a rhetoric device.

[Unholyground]

I'm against a flat "they're all gambling in the legal sense", because I don't see how you can create that law, without also making things like boss drops, Kinder Eggs, or any other product with "uncertainty" in the outcome also legal gambling. I'm more for adding more restrictions to them to make them less predatory, and less like legal gambling. As I've said before, I think Mass Effect 3 did them almost perfectly.

Loot boxes are currently not gambling in the legal sense because the wording does not apply. To make them legal gambling, you need to change that wording. I don't see how you can change that wording, without having a significant impact on many other things, that people claim aren't legal gambling (like random boss loot drops), or companies just modifying loot boxes to still fit within the rules..

The law wouldn't care if you personally don't raid, or go if you just one shot old content raid bosses. The option is still there.

Ok well you are getting into semantics now, it is a "form" of digital gambling and how ever it is decided to be labeled when laws are made I am sure won't effect the outcome of game design. Not to mention an RNG mechanic in a game as a whole package is for a single price is not the same as continually buying virtual currency for the sole purpose of getting random shit that could be good or is very likely nothing. The companies who do this are taking advantage of a grey area in the law.

[Alpacapacino]

The less say the government has the better because once you give them an inch on this kind of matter they take a mile.

Now what else becomes "gambling"? any item that has a price tag on it.

So is it okay if it's not random? I think that if you're going to slap a regulation on it there should be VERY CLEAR dos and donts. that way there is no loophole for abuse.

[ShmooDude]

I'll ask the question again:
1. What is the value of a cosmetic skin?
2. What is the value of a cosmetic skin that isn't sold directly, but only available from a loot box that can only be purchased through earned in game currency?
3. What is the value of a cosmetic skin that is sold for $5?
4. What is the value of a cosmetic skin that is sold for $5, but also available from a loot box that can only be purchased through earned in game currency?
5. What is the value of a cosmetic skin that is available from a loot box, either purchased for $5, or with earned in game currency?

I kind of already defined all this, but if you want a direct answer...

1. Irrelevant if it cannot be purchased through a lootbox, either directly or indirectly, for real money or money's worth.
2. Irrelevant.
3. Irrelevant if it cannot be purchased through a lootbox, either directly or indirectly, for real money or money's worth.
4. Irrelevant if it cannot be purchased through a lootbox, either directly or indirectly, for real money or money's worth.
5. Calculated based on the odds of getting the item and the cost to purchase the lootbox for real money or money's worth. Example a 10% odds item in a $5 lootbox might be valued at $50 (using simple numbers for illustrative purposes only).

It's a system for assigning value of intangible goods for the purposes of regulating lootboxes as gambling.

---

Let me pose a different hypothetical to you. I run a game of chance. Entry fee is $100. The prizes are all hotel room reservations of varying quality. Prizes are non-tradable and cannot be converted to cash.

Is that illegal gambling?

What's the value of the hotel reservations?
Now, what if those hotel reservations are actually just houses being rented out airbnb style?
What if those houses have never been and will never be on the market for rental?

I can pretty much guarantee you that it is illegal gambling. For the "value" of the prize they'd likely use the price of the reservation/rental or in lieu of one, the market value of a rental in the area. They will figure out some way to make a determination.

---

All I've done is created a system for assigning a reasonable value system with which to regulate by because the way to do so right now is ambiguous (which I believe is your point). If it's explicitly stated in the new law, it's no longer ambiguous. Let me also ask you this, if cosmetic skins don't have value, is that not considered a scam (paying for nothing). Hence they do have value and it's a matter of determining objective criteria for what that value is.

[Varitok]

You offer consideration for a chance at a prize. It's eminently possible to 'lose' and get cards that's worth is less than the cost of the pack. Further, cards have easily quantifiable value beyond the cost of the raw materials. The question isn't "Are booster packs gambling?" because they are. The question is "should they be regulated like gambling and have they been skirting in a legal grey area for decades?" The answer given the loot box debacle is possibly.

That cards aren't worth anything. The same argument could be said about literally any product you buy in a store, so you're considering it gambling too? I think you lack a fundamental understanding of how things are considered gambling. You are just labelling things gambling as if you're the defacto ruler of these things. They, fundamentally, are not considered gambling under law and thus are not gambling. I get a physical product for my money that is usable for it's designed purpose, playing whatever card game I use it for and I am guaranteed cards from that purchase. So your argument falls apart because you're grasping at the moral side of gambling and not the reality side of it.

I need you to know this is actually a terrible example because pachinko machines were a racket the yakuza used to explicitly circumvent a loophole in japan's gambling laws, which they then used their political and financial muscle to prevent being closed.

Further, the whole "You don't win money you just win balls that can be turned into 'worthless' tokens that you can use to not!buy products not manufactured by the yakuza" racket is exactly how steam's commodities exchange works.

If a videogame company is using the same tactic and relying on the same *wink-wink* defence as actually organised criminals maybe law reform is necessary.

Again, you're arguing morally and not factually. Also, your argument about Steams lootboxes (And lootboxes in general) is that they do not have the rules applied because as it stands, there is no rules for games of chance where you get rewards but do not get a physical reward guarantee (such as the card packs listed above). The rewards are digital, so the real argument is that should it be considered gambling? I personally think it should (Which you seem to think im defending).

Once more, I am not here to defend them but you lack an absolute understanding of how gambling is classified. I greatly doubt card packs will ever be labelled that way because the physical product you gain. Also, these cards have no set 'price' only a price set by the community of card traders, when you purchase that card pack they are worth as much as you bought them for. No more or no less. Unless I am insuring my cards against theft or destruction, my cards are worth as much as the package I bought them. It's the fundamental way it works. If you disagree, contact your local politician and rally for change because as of now, none of this is considered gambling under the eyes of the law no matter how morally we are against it.

[sterkgixr]

Your post was so informative for everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

very good post.

[Elim Garak]

But actually Yes

Can't cash out - so no

I don't 'own' the expansion pack either as you so graciously pointed out. Yet strangely I am able to buy and sell it?

One can sell anything even air in a can. Again going in circles. You own the physical media the expansion is on though - it has value.

There you go lad
What you're looking at there is an in-game item (that won't function without the base game) that someone has paid consideration for and can now onsell to who so ever they desire for an agreed value.

First of all, expansion is not an in-game item - it's an expansion. I do not appreciate such a liberal widening of terminology. A unit in C&C has no value.
Secondly, it's a physical medium - try selling it without the disk and packaging. I think it's illegal.
Lastly, you failed to demonstrate what value the expansion has itself - you've just shown a price someone is trying to sell the physical disc for. Physical things (especially that antique in gaming) do have value. I doubt you can even run it on modern machines.

When people disagree on the value of an item traditionally and independent third party abriter such as a magistrate or less formally and ombudsman determines the value based on the facts and circumstances.
I can almost assuredly say that that in the event of a petty cost dispute between a consumer and (supposedly) reputable company the value would probably be the asking price. It seems strange to me that such an asking price would suddenly be irrelevant when discussing said item purely on the basis it came from a lootbox.

And that arbiter will read the ToS and Legal policies of the game you bought a lootbox in and will declare - you don't even own it.

It's not a fallacy it's a rhetoric device.

All fallacies are rhetoric devices. This is why online arguments are awesome - you learn things.

[Veggie50]

Here's the rub there's nothing of value inside a lootbox. It's an in-game item that cannot be used outside the game and you don't even own it. You pay for entertainment. That's all there is to the lootboxes just like there's all to it in the games. Lootbox is a MTX, like buying a skin directly, it's just you don't know beforehand what you would get.

I do dare you to append the current legal definition to include lootboxes. Please do try.

You purchase something, therefore there is value by definition, though it has no resell value. In this case, it's value is in improving your standing in a community.

Again, it serves nobody to take the narrowest of interpretation of this text, given that the number of times it includes the word "any".

- - - Updated - - -

I have a semi-solution. Remember Bad Luck Protection for Legion Legendaries, or BLP for short? Just add that to lootboxes, globally, across all platforms, and we're good. How it would work is the following:

1st lootbox you open - 100 possible rewards of which 49 Uncommon, 29 Rare, 19 Epic and 3 legendaries. This gives you a 1% chance of getting a SPECIFIC legendary, or 3% chance to get a legendary in general.

Every lootbox you open that does NOT reward you with a legendary increases your chance to get a legendary in subsequent lootboxes by X%.

This is how Hearthstone works. In Blizzard's Online Card Game, you crack packs, for cards, legendaries are rare, and their BLP works in such a way so that if you buy 40 packs of the same set, you are guaranteed 100% to open a legendary in those 40 packs. If by pack 39 you still haven't cracked a Legendary, pack 40 will have it. 100%. As stated by Blizz themselves.

That's 1 possible way to balance out lootboxes, off the top of my head. I'm 100% sure if you gave me a team of fellow economists, a statistician or two & a couple of weeks of time we could come up with the best possible solution, numbers & all.

Sounds fair to me. I personally don't have a horse in this race. I honestly don't rly care if it's regulated or not.

I just believe it shouldn't be unregulated on the specific grounds of "It's not gambling".

[Dalinos]

You purchase something, therefore there is value by definition, though it has no resell value. In this case, it's value is in improving your standing in a community.

Again, it serves nobody to take the narrowest of interpretation of this text, given that the number of times it includes the word "any".

- - - Updated - - -


Sounds fair to me. I personally don't have a horse in this race. I honestly don't rly care if it's regulated or not.

I just believe it shouldn't be unregulated on the specific grounds of "It's not gambling".

As long as people like @Elim Garak exist, who argue for the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, they won't be considered gambling, ever. Because people are fucking idiots and have vested interests.