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

[Huehuecoyotl]

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.

There is an expression "gambling with your life". Unless you are arguing that expression is semantic nonsense (and one poster on here is) then that expression comes from the meaning of gamble; to risk something in an endeavour with the possibility of success and failure.

[Elim Garak]

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.

Van Gogh is money represented by a painting.
So called "Money" a.k.a. currency is a medium of exchange. Anything can be considered a currency - if all parties agree that it's currency. Just like in Fallout they decided it's Nuka Cola caps.
Don't they teach these simple things at schools no more?

- - - Updated - - -

Side note: is Russian roulette gambling?

It's literally just rolling a D6. It's just in Russia they use a 6-chamber revolver with 1 live ammo in it. In Soviet Russia they use a pistol with a fully loaded clip.

You roll the one with the bullet (1/6 chance) - you lose. And if you are not playing for fun - but for money - then it's the ultimate gambling.

[Nymrohd]

There is an expression "gambling with your life". Unless you are arguing that expression is semantic nonsense (and one poster on here is) then that expression comes from the meaning of gamble; to risk something in an endeavour with the possibility of success and failure.

I'd argue the entire discussion is semantic nonsense. Not all gambling is the same, not all gambling is regulated. Depending on the country some are outright banned, some are regulated by licensing, some simply require a warning. Trying to argue that the game is problematic because it is gambling is just a weak argument. You need to establish that it is problematic because of the form of gambling in it. Letting yourself get sucked into a semantics discussion with someone when the topic is different just makes you a weak debater and poster who gets derailed in an argument instead of holding to the topic. Just saying.

[Nymrohd]

You are gambling on your life that you can outplay everyone else at the event. It fits the definition of the word, but the fact the argument on this has degraded to the point of "I'm going to just argue precisely how a word/words have been used" instead of the argument that this shit, that is more and more being put under the microscope of people infinitely better equipped to consider the implications, tactics and outcomes are more and more coming to at least the fundamental basis of "yeah this shit is either gambling, or incredibly close to" should speak a lot more to the argument then, "well if slot machines in a video game is gambling SO IS THE 100M SPRINT!"

My question is, is ALL gambling problematic? Most nations don't think so. Specific forms of gambling are because they make use of very addictive psychological mechanisms and thus they are considered predatory and banned or heavily regulated. I just think it's a weird hill to die on that you consider the problem with Diablo Immortal to be the randomness of the p2w elements instead of how they affect the actual product.

[Delekii]

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.

Lootboxes absolutely satisfy 1 and 3. There is no need for the result to be in the same form as the stake for it to be a stake. The money is the stake, the degree of power received is the result. It is literally impossible to define the power received as valueless when people pay money for it. You don't have to pay dollars and receive dollars in return; in your very example you showed how this is the case (where a broken leg is used in place of money). There is no intrinsic "negative value" to a broken leg that can be defined in dollar terms, any more than there is to a 5 star gem in DI. Both have "value" in that they are a desired outcome from an event where a stake was paid to gamble.

If the horse race bookies paid out in unsellable meat pies instead of dollars, it would still be gambling, even though you don't get your dollars back.

Again; you are redirecting the discussion toward a semantic that literally does not matter. You can call it loot boxes, you can call it gambling, you can call it Grandma's chicken salad. It's irrelevant. What it is, is predatory, and what it did, is cause the game to be less than it could have been.

Your semantics are wrong, but it wouldn't matter even they were right. They are literally pointless to the discussion. You have a functioning brain, you are typing words in English, so you full well understand the context regardless of the semantic definition of the words used.

The gambling, in and of itself, is also only one part of the problem that is pay-to-win. Even if there were no randomness to the outcome at all, the pay-to-win would still have destroyed the integrity of the game. The gambling (again; semantic definition irrelevant, you know exactly what I mean and I know you know exactly what I mean) is just the shit sandwich on top of the shit salad. Even if you won the argument that what Diablo Immortal does is not "gambling" as per the dictionary (again, you won't, because it is), it would still light up the exact same pathways in the gambling addicts' brain because gambling is a problem caused by the perception of value, not by the dictionary definition. The gambling addict doesn't stop to look up the dictionary; they are addicted to the behavior loop. If they weren't, if it didn't provide this feedback loop of serotonin, it wouldn't be as profitable as it is, and Blizzard wouldn't have wanted to cash in on it.

Earlier on in the thread you started by trying to repeat on loop that people who are gambling addicts should just not gamble and go get help, displaying an astounding lack of empathy and intellect in one fell swoop. Since that seems to have not worked for you, you have now moved on to a new loop of "but mah dictionary and mah semantics", trying to pretend that winning an argument about the definition of gambling is going to somehow change the reality of the game. It is equally nonsensical. What's your next option?

[Ghost of Cow]

I'd argue the entire discussion is semantic nonsense. Not all gambling is the same, not all gambling is regulated. Depending on the country some are outright banned, some are regulated by licensing, some simply require a warning. Trying to argue that the game is problematic because it is gambling is just a weak argument. You need to establish that it is problematic because of the form of gambling in it. Letting yourself get sucked into a semantics discussion with someone when the topic is different just makes you a weak debater and poster who gets derailed in an argument instead of holding to the topic. Just saying.

Right, because sooner or later it just devolves into, "Walking outside is gambling!" or if you want to involve money, "Buying a fish is gambling!"

It's silly to get this far into the weeds on whether something is "gambling" or not. Better to just discuss the actual thing at hand.

[Elim Garak]

"Buying a fish is gambling!"

If you tell them that the life expectancy of the fish is unknown and when they pick a fish they gamble for it - they will want to ban gold fishes - because they are life-expectancy-boxes.

[Pratt]

It's very clearly gambling. Just stop.

[Ghost of Cow]

If you tell them that the life expectancy of the fish is unknown and when they pick a fish they gamble for it - they will want to ban gold fishes - because they are life-expectancy-boxes.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of eating the fish.

Maybe the fish is good! Maybe it's bad! Maybe you get sick from it! It's a fishy gamble!

It's just why the topic of debating what is or isn't gambling seems silly. The word itself carries a lot of gravity beyond just the textbook meaning, and everyone is going to disagree on where the threshold is.

Me, I just use the "Would my wife and I fight over this?" definition. She's never going to say, "You were out gambling tonight!" because I bought some MtG packs, for example.

[Elim Garak]

It's just why the topic of debating what is or isn't gambling seems silly. The word itself carries a lot of gravity beyond just the textbook meaning, and everyone is going to disagree on where the threshold is.

Me, I just use the "Would my wife and I fight over this?" definition. She's never going to say, "You were out gambling tonight!" because I bought some MtG packs, for example.

Sure, but these people want legislation, imagine a law based on a vague definition with a lot of gravity.

No fishes for us to eat!

[Huehuecoyotl]

I've just realised this thread pretty much sums up the internet. Two people, convinced in their ignorance that they are correct, reinforcing their ludicrous world view because they've stumbled on somebody else that agrees with them.

In the old days, the addled old drunk in the local pub would be tolerated and ignored as he rambled and railled against the world. These days, they group up and spew their nonsense all over the world. Progress, eh?

I've held a mirror up to these two, and they aren't looking likely to open their eyes. So I'll leave them to enjoy the "totally not gambling, honest" of DI.

[MoanaLisa]

I can see a distinction between "gambling" and getting a "chance to gamble" but I tend to think that's a distinction without much of a difference.

A literal definition of gambling could be as broad as gambling $15 a month to play a game where you may or may not get the drop you want from a raid boss. That is, technically, a form of gambling.

I play D:I as F2P and am doing fine with it. I don't want much from the game though; just to kill some demons, get a surprise reward now and then and generally have a bit of fun in some minimal spare time. I'm not about to judge others who play the game differently by paying for stuff or who reject the game because of that. Treating worst-possible-cases as a normal thing—$600,000 to get to BIS!!!!— are both pointless and misleading. Buyer beware is always relevant. Expecting a game vendor to bow to your personal definition of what the ethics of P2W are is dumb. They don't care about that and never really have. Blizzard has always set the revenue model for their games up in the way that they believe will benefit them the most. You either accept that or not. If the revenue model they have for D:I is problematical for them, they will change it.

For the rest of you, who apparently are only here for the fighting, insults and trolling, have fun. Your contributions to any sort of meaningful discussion are non-existent.

[Ghost of Cow]

I've just realised this thread pretty much sums up the internet. Two people, convinced in their ignorance that they are correct, reinforcing their ludicrous world view because they've stumbled on somebody else that agrees with them.

In the old days, the addled old drunk in the local pub would be tolerated and ignored as he rambled and railled against the world. These days, they group up and spew their nonsense all over the world. Progress, eh?

I've held a mirror up to these two, and they aren't looking likely to open their eyes. So I'll leave them to enjoy the "totally not gambling, honest" of DI.

Once again you really don't disagree with anything, you just freak out and insult people. It seems to be a trend with the people angry at D:I. They don't say much, they're just mad and fling insults at everyone.

I mean, what was even contentious about my last post where I agreed that different people are going to have different thresholds for what they consider to be "gambling" in a negative sense, and that debating that with people instead of the topic at hand was fruitless? What did you disagree with there? What part of that made you say, "I'm so mad about this that I'll just insult someone now."?

[LeGin v3]

It seems to be a trend with the people angry at D:I. They don't say much, they're just mad and fling insults at everyone.

Slight exaggeration?

I'm not "angry at D:I", I'm not "mad" and I'm not here to "fling insults".

I'm just disappointed I derived more enjoyment from CoD: Mobile by a factor of approximately thirty (months).

Now, there's a good example of how to generate revenue from microtransactions ($1.5bn as of Feburary 2022) without alienating 99% of your player base.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Once again you really don't disagree with anything, you just freak out and insult people. It seems to be a trend with the people angry at D:I. They don't say much, they're just mad and fling insults at everyone.

I mean, what was even contentious about my last post where I agreed that different people are going to have different thresholds for what they consider to be "gambling" in a negative sense, and that debating that with people instead of the topic at hand was fruitless? What did you disagree with there? What part of that made you say, "I'm so mad about this that I'll just insult someone now."?

You've got plenty of calm, reasoned posts from me, explaining how your definitions of gambling are objectively incorrect. Backed up with dictionary definitions. You've not responsed in a constructive way to any of those, and now suddenly you want debate?

Bolllocks. You don't want debate, you will simply ignore anything that doesn't agree with your, again objectively, wrong view of what things are. Which is my point about people like you, and your intent. So have fun in your little version of reality where words can mean whatever you fancy, and your opinion never needs to change in the light of new facts. I'm sure you'll remain happy in your ignorance.

[Ghost of Cow]

You've got plenty of calm, reasoned posts from me, explaining how your definitions of gambling are objectively incorrect. Backed up with dictionary definitions. You've not responsed in a constructive way to any of those, and now suddenly you want debate?

Um, I never was involved in that discussion? I literally only came in and replied to the poster who talked about the semantics being useless.

So have fun in your little version of reality where words can mean whatever you fancy, and your opinion never needs to change in the light of new facts. I'm sure you'll remain happy in your ignorance.

I guess....have fun in your little version of reality where any of this happened?

Edit:

Bolllocks. You don't want debate

And no, I don't. That was literally the point of the post I made on this topic, that debating the semantics of this is pointless. So yeah.

I think I should just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't see who you were replying to at this point.

[Battlebeard]

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.

We are never ever gonna agree. You have decided to hate the game, no matter what ANYONE ever say, you will hate it, it's impossible to get anywhere further.

[TheRevenantHero]

We are never ever gonna agree. You have decided to hate the game, no matter what ANYONE ever say, you will hate it, it's impossible to get anywhere further.

We're not going to agree because you're a gigantic and fanatic fanboy that refuses to acknowledge how exceptionally shitty D:I's monetization is. Several people have pointed out to you how incredibly wrong you are about literally everything. you just stick your fingers in your ears and deny it.

[Battlebeard]

We're not going to agree because you're a gigantic and fanatic fanboy that refuses to acknowledge how exceptionally shitty D:I's monetization is. Several people have pointed out to you how incredibly wrong you are about literally everything. you just stick your fingers in your ears and deny it.

You think all these people are fully investigating the topic and taking both sides into consideration? I hardly doubt it. Most people listen to Asmongold and other Youtubers and take their words as gospel without even looking into it themselves. People are acting like sheep, and if you go against it, you are called names and called clueless and a liar even.

This IS a very complex topic, it's not as black and white as you say. You just see one side and don't stop to question it. You forget a few important questions:

- Could this game exist without P2W? (Answer is no, like all mobile games)
- Is it better this was never created than this P2W version? You say yes, but many Diablo fans would be sad.
- Does one really have to participate in the P2W? Can't one just enjoy the free parts?
- Does some people love the core game just because you don't? Shouldn't their opion matter?
- Why is gambling bad? Can there be good sides with gambling (like fun)? Why is it bad? Feels this is never really truly discussed and analyzed.
- And most important, can't the positives outweigh the negatives here? I absolutely think so.

You don't seem to have asked any real question, you have it integrated in your mind that P2W and Gambling are always bad, but I don't think you know why you have this opinion, and even if you do, most people don't, yet they become haters. Just because some Youtuber say it is so, it doesn't mean it's true.

I have really thought a lot about this, and as much as I don't like P2W, I realize it's the only way to fund mobile gaming, and I think gambling is awesome, cause it's FAR more fun than static rewards. Gambling = RNG = Fun!

[Veggie50]

There is an expression "gambling with your life". Unless you are arguing that expression is semantic nonsense (and one poster on here is) then that expression comes from the meaning of gamble; to risk something in an endeavour with the possibility of success and failure.

Sorry mate, but the word gambling means that you are betting on things outside your own control.

- - - Updated - - -

Van Gogh is money represented by a painting.
So called "Money" a.k.a. currency is a medium of exchange. Anything can be considered a currency - if all parties agree that it's currency. Just like in Fallout they decided it's Nuka Cola caps.
Don't they teach these simple things at schools no more?

- - - Updated - - -



It's literally just rolling a D6. It's just in Russia they use a 6-chamber revolver with 1 live ammo in it. In Soviet Russia they use a pistol with a fully loaded clip.

You roll the one with the bullet (1/6 chance) - you lose. And if you are not playing for fun - but for money - then it's the ultimate gambling.

Aha, so an art piece can represent some value, but videogame status cannot? You just kicked the legs out of your own argument…