1. #2861
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    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.

  2. #2862
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie50 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie50 View Post
    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.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2022 - that's two-zero-two-two, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of double-masked tripple-jabbed sissies who stand with Ukraine.

  3. #2863
    The Lightbringer Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,093
    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.

  4. #2864
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 2022-07-03 at 11:25 AM.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  5. #2865
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    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.

  6. #2866
    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie50 View Post
    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.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  7. #2867
    The Lightbringer Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    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.

  8. #2868
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    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.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  9. #2869
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie50 View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    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.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2022 - that's two-zero-two-two, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of double-masked tripple-jabbed sissies who stand with Ukraine.

  10. #2870
    The Lightbringer Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    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.

  11. #2871
    The Lightbringer Nymrohd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2022
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Minifie View Post
    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.

  12. #2872
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Delekii; 2022-07-03 at 02:43 PM.

  13. #2873
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    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.

  14. #2874
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost of Cow View Post
    "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.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2022 - that's two-zero-two-two, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of double-masked tripple-jabbed sissies who stand with Ukraine.

  15. #2875
    It's very clearly gambling. Just stop.

  16. #2876
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    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.

  17. #2877
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost of Cow View Post
    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!
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2022 - that's two-zero-two-two, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of double-masked tripple-jabbed sissies who stand with Ukraine.

  18. #2878
    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.
    When challenging a Kzin, a simple scream of rage is sufficient. You scream and you leap.
    Quote Originally Posted by George Carlin
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas Adams
    It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

  19. #2879
    Spam Assassin! MoanaLisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tralfamadore
    Posts
    32,186
    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.
    Last edited by MoanaLisa; 2022-07-03 at 06:46 PM.
    Two rules for living: "Don't go around hurting each other. Try to understand things." — William Least Heat-Moon (Blue Highways)

  20. #2880
    Quote Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl View Post
    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."?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •