Oh Blizzard, how you have fallen (Diablo Immortal).

[Battlebeard]

How dense can you possibly be? THE REASON IT'S GAMBLING IS BECAUSE YOU ARE SPENDING MONEY FOR A GAME OF CHANCE. It doesn't fucking matter what can be gained by f2p players. That doesn't change the fact that spending money for gear and player power is gambling, by definition. Do I need to post the definition of gambling again? Anything you get for free isn't gambling. BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SPENDING MONEY ON IT. But as soon as you exchange money for a game of chance, it becomes gambling. Holy fucking shit, dude.

If you go to lets say Vegas, and they have a Roulette table, they say you can play for free, yet win money. Do you seriously not consider this gambling? You DO NOT have to pay to gamble. Gamble means RNG, it means doing something with a random outcome!

Elder Rifts with free crest is a free roulette table, still gambling.
Elder Rifts with paid crest is a paid roulette table, also gambling.

So gambling exist in DI regardless if you pay for it or not. You cannot hate a paid roulette table without hating the free one too if you hate gambling.

[TheRevenantHero]

If you go to lets say Vegas, and they have a Roulette table, they say you can play for free, yet win money. Do you seriously not consider this gambling? You DO NOT have to pay to gamble. Gamble means RNG, it means doing something with a random outcome!

Elder Rifts with free crest is a free roulette table, still gambling.
Elder Rifts with paid crest is a paid roulette table, also gambling.

So gambling exist in DI regardless if you pay for it or not. You cannot hate a paid roulette table without hating the free one too if you hate gambling.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gamble

So....no. It's not gambling BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EXCHANGE OF MONEY.

"to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance:". Look at the definition. Read it nice and slow this time if you need to.

[Delekii]

If you go to lets say Vegas, and they have a Roulette table, they say you can play for free, yet win money. Do you seriously not consider this gambling? You DO NOT have to pay to gamble. Gamble means RNG, it means doing something with a random outcome!

Elder Rifts with free crest is a free roulette table, still gambling.
Elder Rifts with paid crest is a paid roulette table, also gambling.

So gambling exist in DI regardless if you pay for it or not. You cannot hate a paid roulette table without hating the free one too if you hate gambling.

Both are gambling; both are not equal. Again, to conflate the two is an intellectually dishonest endeavour.

Everyone present in the conversation, including you, knows exactly what is meant in the context. What you are doing is like comparing stealing a base in baseball to stealing $1billion from the USA government. Both are stealing, but are in no way comparable.

You can consider it gambling despite it being free because the crests have a value of sorts, in terms of what they potentially represent. But they have no true value beyond that (in the way that bought crests represent the money paid for them).

What you are doing is arguing semantics to avoid the actual topic. How about you stop trying to hold up the dictionary as a shield and address the issues actually present with a practice incentivising throwing money at an unknown outcome.

I don't even care if you call it gambling or not, the practice doesn't change. It doesn't become less bad if you start calling it "money-based-rng-lottery" or "loot box" or any other skirting of the meaning.

[Battlebeard]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gamble

So....no. It's not gambling BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EXCHANGE OF MONEY.

"to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance:". Look at the definition. Read it nice and slow this time if you need to.

I did, I looked at all definitions and you are wrong again, even by the things you linked.

Multiple points speak of money OR other things of value. That includes anthing you value, beyond materialistic things. Your time is of value and is a stake hence I can gamble for free moneywise and just risk my time, still gambling. Dignity is also of value to many, you can bet your dignity as you might feel embarassed if you lose.

You said it yourself, money OR other values, proving yourself you can gamble for free moneywise.

- - - Updated - - -

Both are gambling; both are not equal. Again, to conflate the two is an intellectually dishonest endeavour.

Everyone present in the conversation, including you, knows exactly what is meant in the context. What you are doing is like comparing stealing a base in baseball to stealing $1billion from the USA government. Both are stealing, but are in no way comparable.

You can consider it gambling despite it being free because the crests have a value of sorts, in terms of what they potentially represent. But they have no true value beyond that (in the way that bought crests represent the money paid for them).

What you are doing is arguing semantics to avoid the actual topic. How about you stop trying to hold up the dictionary as a shield and address the issues actually present with a practice incentivising throwing money at an unknown outcome.

I don't even care if you call it gambling or not, the practice doesn't change. It doesn't become less bad if you start calling it "money-based-rng-lottery" or "loot box" or any other skirting of the meaning.

I think gambling is fine. No one force you to do it and its quite frankly a very fun activity as well. Had some of the best days of my life in Vegas.

I am upset this game get so much hate. It’s not really that much worse than most mobile games. Its more money but this game is also much much better and bigger and cost more to make than any mobile game released in the past, so its natural.

[TheRevenantHero]

I did, I looked at all definitions and you are wrong again, even by the things you linked.

Multiple points speak of money OR other things of value. That includes anthing you value, beyond materialistic things. Your time is of value and is a stake hence I can gamble for free moneywise and just risk my time, still gambling. Dignity is also of value to many, you can bet your dignity as you might feel embarassed if you lose.

You said it yourself, money OR other values, proving yourself you can gamble for free moneywise.

- - - Updated - - -



I think gambling is fine. No one force you to do it and its quite frankly a very fun activity as well. Had some of the best days of my life in Vegas.

I am upset this game get so much hate. It’s not really that much worse than most mobile games. Its more money but this game is also much much better and bigger and cost more to make than any mobile game released in the past, so its natural.

No I'm not wrong. What the actual fuck are you talking about? IF THE LOOTBOXES ARE FREE, THAT MEANS NOTHING OF VALUE WAS PUT AT STAKE AND THEREFORE ISN'T GAMBLING. Do you at least stretch before all this insane mental gymnastics? Saying time is something of value in relation to gambling is so fucking asinine. Same goes for dignity. You are literally trying to redefine the word gambling just because you refuse to admit you're wrong.

[Elim Garak]

My Brother in Christ, know that He is judging you as hard as I am. Why not use "Usage of real-life money in exchange for a chance to win something"? Or, if you'd prefer the short term, gamble.

I love those vague "for a chance" and "something". Definitions are on fire.
It literally means that when you go to the shooting gallery at an amusement park - it's gambling. You pay for a chance to win something.

Can you find a more precise definition? Maybe the one that narrows down that "something"? To something that is based on how much you paid and can give you your money back or MORE?

It's like you don't know the difference between to gamble, a gamble, and gambling. All three mean different things, you semantical gymnasts.

Jaywalking is a gamble. But you don't gamble by jaywalking and therefore it's not gambling.

[SounDz]

No I'm not wrong. What the actual fuck are you talking about? IF THE LOOTBOXES ARE FREE, THAT MEANS NOTHING OF VALUE WAS PUT AT STAKE AND THEREFORE ISN'T GAMBLING. Do you at least stretch before all this insane mental gymnastics? Saying time is something of value in relation to gambling is so fucking asinine. Same goes for dignity. You are literally trying to redefine the word gambling just because you refuse to admit you're wrong.

getting free lootboxes for a chance at an item = playing the game. Give up on this guy revenant... please. He's lost

[Darkeon]

I love those vague "for a chance" and "something". Definitions are on fire.
It literally means that when you go to the shooting gallery at an amusement park - it's gambling. You pay for a chance to win something.

Can you find a more precise definition? Maybe the one that narrows down that "something"? To something that is based on how much you paid and can give you your money back or MORE?

It's like you don't know the difference between to gamble, a gamble, and gambling. All three mean different things, you semantical gymnasts.

Jaywalking is a gamble. But you don't gamble by jaywalking and therefore it's not gambling.

Just because there are several degrees to gambling, it doesn't stop them from being gambling. Sorry, not sorry.

[Elim Garak]

Just because there are several degrees to gambling, it doesn't stop them from being gambling. Sorry, not sorry.

There are no degrees to gambling. Semantical difference based on context - are not degrees.

The context in this thread leaves no room for semantics.

[Huehuecoyotl]

I love those vague "for a chance" and "something". Definitions are on fire.
It literally means that when you go to the shooting gallery at an amusement park - it's gambling. You pay for a chance to win something.

Can you find a more precise definition? Maybe the one that narrows down that "something"? To something that is based on how much you paid and can give you your money back or MORE?

It's like you don't know the difference between to gamble, a gamble, and gambling. All three mean different things, you semantical gymnasts.

Jaywalking is a gamble. But you don't gamble by jaywalking and therefore it's not gambling.

That's the crux of your argument? That three different ways to say the same thing have three different meanings? That at least explains why this argument has been going on so long, we're discussing this in English, and you're discussing this in a language that you've entirely made up, that happens to look like English when written down.

"I decided to gamble at my local casino. I knew it was a gamble, because there were rumours that it was crooked. But there's something about the thrill of gambling that wouldn't allow me to stop."

There you go. Your three "different" definitions of variations of the word, all used in ways that clearly define them as meaning gambling. You don't get to redefine what words mean to suit your argument; sure, definitions can change over time, but that happens naturally as a result of a change in usage amongst a wide number of people in society. Until eventually words mean different things because society has changed them.

It doesn't happen because one guy's decided he doesn't want to lose an argument on the internet.

[Veggie50]

The comparison to a shooting gallery being a form of gambling is strange… the definition of gambling is not “everything where you’re not garanteed a certain outcome”.

The definition of gambling is that the outcome is not skill based. With a shooting gallery it’s all up to your skill.

This is why poker is such a headscratcher, legally speaking. Right on the edge.

[crusadernero]

That's the crux of your argument? That three different ways to say the same thing have three different meanings? That at least explains why this argument has been going on so long, we're discussing this in English, and you're discussing this in a language that you've entirely made up, that happens to look like English when written down.

"I decided to gamble at my local casino. I knew it was a gamble, because there were rumours that it was crooked. But there's something about the thrill of gambling that wouldn't allow me to stop."

There you go. Your three "different" definitions of variations of the word, all used in ways that clearly define them as meaning gambling. You don't get to redefine what words mean to suit your argument; sure, definitions can change over time, but that happens naturally as a result of a change in usage amongst a wide number of people in society. Until eventually words mean different things because society has changed them.

It doesn't happen because one guy's decided he doesn't want to lose an argument on the internet.

Hes been going on for soon 150 pages and for the most part hes been hung up on the use of the word "gambling". Even though he most likely 100% knows what we are talking about, he is just derailing the thread. Hes been given X numbers of defintions of the word gambling and non of the suits him. So he keeps going. Most likely, he'll keep going until he has the last word. You are better off just ignoring it. We all know what DI is.

- - - Updated - - -

I love those vague "for a chance" and "something". Definitions are on fire.
It literally means that when you go to the shooting gallery at an amusement park - it's gambling. You pay for a chance to win something.

Can you find a more precise definition? Maybe the one that narrows down that "something"? To something that is based on how much you paid and can give you your money back or MORE?

It's like you don't know the difference between to gamble, a gamble, and gambling. All three mean different things, you semantical gymnasts.

Jaywalking is a gamble. But you don't gamble by jaywalking and therefore it's not gambling.

See. Now hes just making up things that makes no sense on the whim.

[Elim Garak]

The comparison to a shooting gallery being a form of gambling is strange… the definition of gambling is not “everything where you’re not garanteed a certain outcome”.

The definition of gambling is that the outcome is not skill based. With a shooting gallery it’s all up to your skill.

This is why poker is such a headscratcher, legally speaking. Right on the edge.

But that's the definition people here are using. Their definition makes every game gambling. Including shooting gallery.

While the requirements for something to be gambling are these:
1. THE STAKE: You risk something of monetary value (money, car, etc - the other party must agree on value) by staking it on your success
2. THE GAME: You play a game of chance or bet on the (uncertain) outcome of a skilled competition (horseracing, football, etc)
3. THE RESULT: If you win you get your STAKE back or more (the goal of gambling), if you lose - you get LESS than your stake (the risk), including ZERO, heavy debt (NEGATIVE) and legs broken (if playing with naughty people).

Clearly even lootboxes do not satisfy 1 and 3. A purchase is not a stake, and you are not getting it back even if you get the item you want. It's a purchase.

[Veggie50]

But that's the definition people here are using. Their definition makes every game gambling. Including shooting gallery.

While the requirements for something to be gambling are these:
1. THE STAKE: You risk something of monetary value (money, car, etc - the other party must agree on value) by staking it on your success
2. THE GAME: You play a game of chance or bet on the (uncertain) outcome of a skilled competition (horseracing, football, etc)
3. THE RESULT: If you win you get your STAKE back or more (the goal of gambling), if you lose - you get LESS than your stake (the risk), including ZERO, heavy debt (NEGATIVE) and legs broken (if playing with naughty people).

Clearly even lootboxes do not satisfy 1 and 3. A purchase is not a stake, and you are not getting it back even if you get the item you want. It's a purchase.

I think where we disagree is that gambling requires a game. A lottery is gambling, but there is no game to be played.

The part of Diablo Immortal that is gambling is spending currency to obtain a chance at an outcome, that is not dependent on your skill. If you fail the rift, it just gets refunded.

The analogy here is that the rift is like the short walk to the cashout register at a casino. That part has no risk, but it is a requirement.

[Elim Garak]

I think where we disagree is that gambling requires a game. A lottery is gambling, but there is no game to be played.

Lottery itself is a game of chance. You buy a ticket to participate in the random roll for a chance to win more money than you paid.

The part of Diablo Immortal that is gambling is spending currency to obtain a chance at an outcome, that is not dependent on your skill. If you fail the rift, it just gets refunded.

The analogy here is that the rift is like the short walk to the cashout register at a casino. That part has no risk, but it is a requirement.

Buying a chance at an outcome - is not gambling if the desired outcome is not more money than you paid.

Rift is a dungeon that you can play for free for the same outcome
You can purchase a buff that guarantees a gem to drop (that can drop without it)
Failing it poses no risk

How can anyone call that gambling is baffling.

[Nymrohd]

I really wonder why people focus on the gambling aspect. I find gambling in games to be problematic when it is predatory; small but very frequent purchases, unclear chances, skinner box triggers to get people addicted. Diablo Immortal does have gambling but not in this manner; the purchases are actually fairly to very expensive, while there are other currencies the large purchases are in real money so it is ineffective in causing you to dissociate the cost with the reward and the elder rift mechanic avoids the instant gratification that would trigger the worst addictive behaviours (it will still trigger it but to a lesser extent). There is a reason many governments do not regulate all gambling equally and heavily regulate certain forms like slot machines; they are the most addictive and dangerous.

The main issue is P2W, not the randomness in getting there (which is not that large; sure you will not get 5/5 5 stars but you are still getting the same average gem power since 5star quality doesn't affect that). The CR mechanic is just frustrating; skill can get you past the debuff to an extent but it shouldn't exist in the first place. And while you can get far with paying nothing or little, you'll never get to the top and the game does have content that is effectively unique to the top.

Also the PC emulation is below mediocre (the UI is horrible, especially if you chose to play DH which is heavily focused on clicking) and class balance is just horrible in pvp.
Oh and fuck the immortal mechanic.

[Huehuecoyotl]

But that's the definition people here are using. Their definition makes every game gambling. Including shooting gallery.

While the requirements for something to be gambling are these:
1. THE STAKE: You risk something of monetary value (money, car, etc - the other party must agree on value) by staking it on your success
2. THE GAME: You play a game of chance or bet on the (uncertain) outcome of a skilled competition (horseracing, football, etc)
3. THE RESULT: If you win you get your STAKE back or more (the goal of gambling), if you lose - you get LESS than your stake (the risk), including ZERO, heavy debt (NEGATIVE) and legs broken (if playing with naughty people).

Clearly even lootboxes do not satisfy 1 and 3. A purchase is not a stake, and you are not getting it back even if you get the item you want. It's a purchase.

You've had this explained to you, repeatedly. Your definition of gambling doesn't agree with a) everyone one else in the world and b) the dictionary. You don't get to decide what words mean to suit your argument. That isn't how language works.

At this point, I've got to assume you're doing it deliberately, because nobody can be this obtuse.

[Edit] It just struck me. By this laughable definition of gambling, Squid Game wasn't gambling either! Somebody needs to tell the writers of that show that they got it wrong. According to one poster in an obscure corner of the internet, anyway.

[Veggie50]

Lottery itself is a game of chance. You buy a ticket to participate in the random roll for a chance to win more money than you paid.

Buying a chance at an outcome - is not gambling if the desired outcome is not more money than you paid.

Rift is a dungeon that you can play for free for the same outcome
You can purchase a buff that guarantees a gem to drop (that can drop without it)
Failing it poses no risk

How can anyone call that gambling is baffling.

So by your definition, you can only gamble when the reward is money (or atleast the same currency you used to make the "bet".

So you gave me 10 dollar, and I gave you a random chance to win either a van gogh painting, or a fresh turd. That would not constitute gambling in your definition.

- - - Updated - - -

You've had this explained to you, repeatedly. Your definition of gambling doesn't agree with a) everyone one else in the world and b) the dictionary. You don't get to decide what words mean to suit your argument. That isn't how language works.

At this point, I've got to assume you're doing it deliberately, because nobody can be this obtuse.

[Edit] It just struck me. By this laughable definition of gambling, Squid Game wasn't gambling either! Somebody needs to tell the writers of that show that they got it wrong. According to one poster in an obscure corner of the internet, anyway.

To be fair, squid game wasn't really gambling, since (nearly) all the games were completely skill based, not random chance.

[Huehuecoyotl]

To be fair, squid game wasn't really gambling, since (nearly) all the games were completely skill based, not random chance.

It doesn't need to be random chance to be gambling. You gamble something (your life) to win something (a huge sum of money) then that's gambling. The mechanics in between aren't relevant, as long as they have the possibility of both success and failure. If I bet you that I could juggle 3 balls for 5 minutes without dropping any, that's gambling, and it's purely skill based.

[Nymrohd]

It doesn't need to be random chance to be gambling. You gamble something (your life) to win something (a huge sum of money) then that's gambling. The mechanics in between aren't relevant, as long as they have the possibility of both success and failure. If I bet you that I could juggle 3 balls for 5 minutes without dropping any, that's gambling, and it's purely skill based.

Eh no, in that case one person is gambling (the person betting against you) while you are competing. If you consider both gambling then EVERYTHING is gambling. The Olympics are gambling! Like I get who you are arguing against but if your arguments end up going to the other end, they are just as poor. If you make everything gambling then gambling itself can no longer be problematic. ANd it isn't. Specific forms of gambling are problematic. Which is why they are regulated.