Loot box = gambling ?

[skarpak.8594]

> their loot boxes are very different in nature to others from less reputable game companies.

 

thats what someone with a gamble addiction would say.

infact, they are not different at all...or do you mean because there is a black lion statuette attatched to it and you are "guaranteed" a item at some point? if you think that this is why they are different: BULLSHIT. every casino automat is regulated like this...that he has to give something out in certain timeframes.

 

for the money spend just for those boxes, you could have gotten more. its simply not worth getting boxes just for the statuettes, you could have bought those other things just over the TP or shop cheaper if you bought gems or if you used gems to gold.

 

the mindset for those statuettes is: "oh if i gamble its not too bad if i don't get anything, because i still get statuettes"...but they ain't worth more then you put in. they are worth a lot less.

 

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> Aye you can, as you can with Black Lion Keys too which is a big part of my defense argument :)

> I'd actually argue it's quicker and easier to farm the keys too than it is to farm the gold.

 

Hmm let see ... 6 hours for 2 keys is 3 hours per key

The cheapest option for keys is getting the 25 bundle at 2100 gems or 84 gems per key

84 gems is around 30g right now

 

Yup. If your end goal is to get Black Lion Keys then farming the keys directly is better. That is equivalent to 30g/h of farming. How many farming options give a similar rate and same amount of flexibility? You can start and stop whenever you want since the 3rd weekly key is not factored in here.

 

It is also possible do the run in much less time than 6 hours if you are doing things that gives you Tomes of Knowledge or other similar things.

The 6 hours is just from my own experience of getting ~10 levels per hour when not using things like ToKs.

 

> Making and selling Legends is about the only big payouts i've ever had in gw2 and that is a long process for me as well.

 

Trying to sell a legendary is also a gamble. Sometimes it sells, sometimes it sits on the TP with no chance of being sold in sight. If you sell to the highest buy order to avoid that then you probably would have been better off flipping the raw materials instead of wasting so much time on making the legendary.

 

There are potentially more profitable and less risky(smaller starting investment) things to sell but those change over time so you have to put some effort into keeping track.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Lan Deathrider.5910" said:

> > > And as far as I understand the anti-loot box laws, they don't care about the purchased of items from others that received them via RNG boxes, as that is no longer gambling.

> > But they do care about those that _did_ obtain those items from lootboxes. As such, once said laws will go in, there _won't_ be any "others" that might sell those items anymore, because _only_ non-rng avenues of gemshop sales of those items will remain.

>

> Yes, but those items can come from places without such laws correct? So they will be available on the TP, and those that are account bound will either be in the gem store for +1600 gems, or come up in the BLT merchants for claim tickets, which are obtained via at most from 50 BL chest opened with keys that may or may not be purchased with real world money. Anet has several ways around these laws, their loot boxes are very different in nature to others from less reputable game companies.

That's why it is important to make the law go through in countries/regions that have far more impact on Anet's income than just Belgium. Anet can afford to ignore Belgium. They can't afford to ignore UK, or whole EU. If said laws were to cover a significant percentage of their market, they would have to adjust their gemshop selling strategy to it. And no, they would not have been able to get away with just a region block in case of EU. They'd need to either remove the lootboxes from the game completely, or separate the EU and US zones, so the situation you mention would not arise either way.

 

[Ototo.3214]

I will say I feel the BLCs are designed a lot better than loot boxes in some other games, but I'm not going to argue that they aren't gambling and I won't cry if they're removed and things are all just directly sold on the gem store instead

[Shadowmoon.7986]

Yes they are. Are they legally defined as gambling? Depends on the country.

[Teratus.2859]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > Aye you can, as you can with Black Lion Keys too which is a big part of my defense argument :)

> > I'd actually argue it's quicker and easier to farm the keys too than it is to farm the gold.

>

> Hmm let see ... 6 hours for 2 keys is 3 hours per key

> The cheapest option for keys is getting the 25 bundle at 2100 gems or 84 gems per key

> 84 gems is around 30g right now

>

> Yup. If your end goal is to get Black Lion Keys then farming the keys directly is better. That is equivalent to 30g/h of farming. How many farming options give a similar rate and same amount of flexibility? You can start and stop whenever you want since the 3rd weekly key is not factored in here.

>

> It is also possible do the run in much less time than 6 hours if you are doing things that gives you Tomes of Knowledge or other similar things.

> The 6 hours is just from my own experience of getting ~10 levels per hour when not using things like ToKs.

>

 

I have no personal experience with keyruns and actually leveling as I go so I've no idea how long that would take.. i'll take your word for it on the 6 hours :)

I have enough scrolls and tomes to keyrun weekly for a good while, it only takes about 2 hours give or take providing I mess around along the way with skins etc which I usually do just to make the process a little less tedious.

 

> > Making and selling Legends is about the only big payouts i've ever had in gw2 and that is a long process for me as well.

>

> Trying to sell a legendary is also a gamble. Sometimes it sells, sometimes it sits on the TP with no chance of being sold in sight. If you sell to the highest buy order to avoid that then you probably would have been better off flipping the raw materials instead of wasting so much time on making the legendary.

>

> There are potentially more profitable and less risky(smaller starting investment) things to sell but those change over time so you have to put some effort into keeping track.

>

 

Yeah I know there are more profitable ways, I only made legends to sell because I had the mats on hand and the pre's.

I only generally make legends to keep if I like the skins, otherwise I don't bother with them or will make them to sell if I have everything on hand and running low on gold.

 

The two I made and sold, Kudzu and Quip got me some quick cash to spend on other things like some festival rewards and skins I wanted, along with a chunk of gems to help get me that Shimmering Skyscale skin a good while back when it first came out.

Happy to say I own both of the 2000 gem Skyscale skins and I didn't pay any real world cash for either of them ^^

[Cuddy.6247]

sus levels of gambling. how did this roll out in the EU given their anti-gambling laws?

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Cuddy.6247" said:

> sus levels of gambling. how did this roll out in the EU given their anti-gambling laws?

Inertia. Justice systems (laws and, more importantly, their interpretarions) were kind of slow catching up with the technology advancements.

Notice, by the way, that, as example of Belgium has shown, the laws often already exist, what is lacking is usually only the will to apply them to games.

 

[battledrone.8315]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > @"battledrone.8315" said:

> > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > It is gambling. You might notice that in threads like these, people always come to defend it, every time. You might ask, why? Because if the addicts pay anets bills, they don't have to and as long as anet makes money, the game will propably continue.

> > >

> > > As a defender I take offense to that statement.

> > >

> > > I own all of GW1's campaigns as well as a reasonable amount of account upgrades in that game.

> > > Likewise I preordered a collectors edition of Gw2 and own both expansion Ultimate editions.

> > > I will be buying Expansion 3's collectors/Ultimate editions as well and I have invested god knows how much money in the gemstore over the years.

> > > Not to mention I bought a friend both expansions as well a few years back.

> > >

> > > I've paid more than my fair share into this game and I am no addict.

> > > I support this franchse because I love this franchise.

> > > Plus if you give me the option to support something I care about of my own free will then I will.

> > > But if you try to force me to keep throwing money into something under the threat you'll take that thing away from me regardless of how much i've already invested in it.. ergo the entire premise of mandatory subscription fees!! then I will walk the hell away faster than you can say Wait!!

> > > Hell that is the main reason I've straight up quit supporting consoles after 30 years of collecting them, mandatory online subfees.. to hell with that.

> > >

> > > For all the hate Lootboxes are getting here I am amazed that Subscription fees are not being brought up more..

> > > Mandatory Subfees are by far the most predatory and greedy practice in this industry.. far worse than any lootboxes i've ever seen.. and yet they are far more accepted despite how much they deserve to be utterly despised by gamers.

> >

> > if i dont like a game, then i prolly wont pay a sub for it, how is that PREDATORY?

> > lootboxes OTOH, they are manifestations of pure GREED. the desirable objects always have a astronomically low droprate.

> > and then they just fill the rest with low grade junk.

> > sub fees requires a thing, that has become rather scarce in the mmo business : TRUST

>

> I won't pay a sub even for something I like.

> As far as I am concerned when I buy a game that game is mine to play as I see fit.

>

> If a company tells me "oh no.. actually you're just renting the game and that initial price was nothing more than a downpayment and if you stop paying us we'll take the game away from you" then im pretty much going to tell said company to go straight to hell.

>

> Sub based games are predatory in the sense that their price tag/cost is unlimited.

> You'll be paying to play them forever without the possibility of ever owning the game.

> Just look at those who've been playing Wow non stop for the past 16 years, they've put almost 3 grand into that game just on sub costs with nothing to show for it.. Everything goes away if they decide they don't want to pay for it anymore.

>

> Oh and Wow of course also has a cash shop and lootboxes as well.. because ripping people off with a subfee just wasn't greedy enough.

> That's why pro sub arguments don't make any sense when criticizing alternative monetization methods like cash shops and lootboxes.

 

16 years of gaming for 3 grand sounds like a good deal to me. have you seen the price of new games, and how many hours they last?

i would take a good sub game over any F2P model, but sadly there arent many left

if a guy puts in 16 years of spare time and 3 grand to a game, i would assume he had some FUN in return too

i am playing DCUO on my 6 th year now, and STO for 10 years

i dont regret the time and money i spend in wow, just because my account isnt worth anything (prolly is though), just like a fine meal,

the EXPERIENCE is all that matters.

 

[Teratus.2859]

> @"battledrone.8315" said:

> > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > @"battledrone.8315" said:

> > > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > > It is gambling. You might notice that in threads like these, people always come to defend it, every time. You might ask, why? Because if the addicts pay anets bills, they don't have to and as long as anet makes money, the game will propably continue.

> > > >

> > > > As a defender I take offense to that statement.

> > > >

> > > > I own all of GW1's campaigns as well as a reasonable amount of account upgrades in that game.

> > > > Likewise I preordered a collectors edition of Gw2 and own both expansion Ultimate editions.

> > > > I will be buying Expansion 3's collectors/Ultimate editions as well and I have invested god knows how much money in the gemstore over the years.

> > > > Not to mention I bought a friend both expansions as well a few years back.

> > > >

> > > > I've paid more than my fair share into this game and I am no addict.

> > > > I support this franchse because I love this franchise.

> > > > Plus if you give me the option to support something I care about of my own free will then I will.

> > > > But if you try to force me to keep throwing money into something under the threat you'll take that thing away from me regardless of how much i've already invested in it.. ergo the entire premise of mandatory subscription fees!! then I will walk the hell away faster than you can say Wait!!

> > > > Hell that is the main reason I've straight up quit supporting consoles after 30 years of collecting them, mandatory online subfees.. to hell with that.

> > > >

> > > > For all the hate Lootboxes are getting here I am amazed that Subscription fees are not being brought up more..

> > > > Mandatory Subfees are by far the most predatory and greedy practice in this industry.. far worse than any lootboxes i've ever seen.. and yet they are far more accepted despite how much they deserve to be utterly despised by gamers.

> > >

> > > if i dont like a game, then i prolly wont pay a sub for it, how is that PREDATORY?

> > > lootboxes OTOH, they are manifestations of pure GREED. the desirable objects always have a astronomically low droprate.

> > > and then they just fill the rest with low grade junk.

> > > sub fees requires a thing, that has become rather scarce in the mmo business : TRUST

> >

> > I won't pay a sub even for something I like.

> > As far as I am concerned when I buy a game that game is mine to play as I see fit.

> >

> > If a company tells me "oh no.. actually you're just renting the game and that initial price was nothing more than a downpayment and if you stop paying us we'll take the game away from you" then im pretty much going to tell said company to go straight to hell.

> >

> > Sub based games are predatory in the sense that their price tag/cost is unlimited.

> > You'll be paying to play them forever without the possibility of ever owning the game.

> > Just look at those who've been playing Wow non stop for the past 16 years, they've put almost 3 grand into that game just on sub costs with nothing to show for it.. Everything goes away if they decide they don't want to pay for it anymore.

> >

> > Oh and Wow of course also has a cash shop and lootboxes as well.. because ripping people off with a subfee just wasn't greedy enough.

> > That's why pro sub arguments don't make any sense when criticizing alternative monetization methods like cash shops and lootboxes.

>

> 16 years of gaming for 3 grand sounds like a good deal to me. have you seen the price of new games, and how many hours they last?

> i would take a good sub game over any F2P model, but sadly there arent many left

 

Yes, because the model realistically doesn't work on a market wide scale.

It creates a market where only X amount of games can even survive due to the nature of subscription fees, a problem that we are eventually going to run into with TV at some point as well, especially with more focus being pushed on service exclusive shows.

 

Too many services means excessive amounts of subfees needed to access them and that ultimately limits peoples options pretty significantly.

This is exactly the reason why so many MMO's have gone free 2 play over the years, while many others have straight up died and vanished from the world entirely.

As much as I love Gw1, if the game had launched with a mandatory sub fee then I would place a hard bet that Gw2 would never have existed.

 

For me it's not about the money, I'll gladly pay more to avoid being forced to pay a mandatory sub with the added penalty of having my games and movies etc taken away if I stop paying.

I'd rather have a large physical game and movie collection that gives me total freedom and control over what entertainment I consume than pay a subscription for something like like Playstation now or Netflix.

 

You can argue the experience is what you get when you pay for sub services and you're not entirely wrong.. but it's an expreience you can only enjoy while you're paying..

When you stop paying you loose everything.. you are back to square one with absolutely nothing to show for all that money you spent.

And even then your options were always limited by the service you're paying for, you have no control over what movies and shows and games come and go on the platform and there's always a risk something you are half way through will be gone the next day and no longer available to you even though you are paying for it.

 

At least with physical games, movies, tv shows etc you will always have access to them and you can enjoy them at any time you wish without ever having to pay for them again.

That is something I will gladly pay for and have gladly paid for since I was old enough to earn an income.

But I will never support a mandatory subfee service, no chance in hell.

 

[BnooMaGoo.5690]

I threw a bit of a hissy fit recently about the dyes that were onsale & how disappointed I was with the results from the RNG gods. The perception of value differs greatly from player to player in my opinion & from my experience over the years in different games. I've spent over $100 of my own cash in the last few months. Does that make it more or less valuable than the person who grinds out the materials to sell or plays the "market" & is that point enough of a distinction to invalidate or justify loot boxes etc. That is up to you. I think droprates suck as a rule. What I will say emphatically is that if the core game experience was better I might not get my nose out of joint so much over stuff like this. But when I mount into the ground consistently or fall off someplace that I can't get out of to claim the loot I just spent time "earning" by completing an event (no /gg doesn't work everywhere & by the time I waypoint back it is possible the area is locked again). Not having to deal with this kind of stuff may make the RNG gods results easier to swallow

 

Koda the judge & kodan the jury :P

 

peace

[zealex.9410]

> @"Swagger.1459" said:

> Are you also willing to pay a mandatory monthly subscription fee to play gw2?

 

Yeah i am.

 

I've been paying that in wow or ff14 and the difference in content ive gotten there compaired to the free content in gw2 is staggering. I've never had an issue paying for content if it meant that said content is gonna be better (hence my constant push to actually develope and release expacs).

 

Realistically speaking, b2p and f2p are only worth it for ppl that dont spend a dime post that innitial purchase. I've seen alot of ppl say to those who ask for sub fee (and what that entails for the game), that if they want to pay monthy to support the game they can just buy gems, the problem with that is that if you are gonna spend on gems on a f2p or b2p game 9 times out of 10 you get more for your buck in sub based mmos so you might as well sub to those instead.

[hugo.4705]

I'm also okay to pay if it means good content, not only what we have now; but proper support to fractals, raids, guild and developing a proper housing system. Gw2 has so many beautiful 3D models and textures, it's a shame we can't use them all as decorations or to make an home. Also if it means big maps like core tyria full of quests, ambient dialogues, events and very living ambiance, I'm even more inclined. At this point, I could even give them 50€ to make SAB world 3 and 4. As I said in multiple posts, I'm even ready to pay for map pack, turrets appearance pack, racial guild hall decorations pack, voice changing pack, animation sets pack.....

 

See, all of those are optional, continue as free to play, but allow me to pay for features I would like to support (Fractals, GH decos, Housing, SAB)....

[Lambent.6375]

Mobile gacha games will probably draw the ire of these laws way before gw2 does.

[Vrath.1754]

> @"otto.5684" said:

> > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > Anet will sidestep the laws through two technicalities.

> >

> > (1): The Gold to Gem conversion means that keys can be bought and used solely through in-game effort. This doesn't make chests gambling any more than anything else in the game.

> > (2): When you open a chest, you're getting a statuette with some additional bonus items. This constitutes, at the minimum, a guaranteed purchase. It doesn't count as gambling because of this.

>

> Legally, this is on a very shaky ground. I can easily point out that even that these two factors exist, it does not negate the value of what you get is lower than what you put in. Also, the effort to farm the gold is substantially high that without putting significant effort, you cannot realistically afford the boxes. Ultimately, it is substance over form. Is the objective of RNG in the boxes is to get people to purchase more of them, which is available to do through actual money? Would that make people addicted to gambling and/or people with mental sickness more vulnerable? Yes and yes. Then the game should be flagged as 18+ or remove the RNG entirely.

 

Idk sports card packs and Pokémon packs are the same thing except you get a physical item. Everyone wants the Joe Borrow rookie card instead they get the Rex Chapman and Robby Anderson cards. So they buy more packs then a box of the cards.

It is the same mechanics except with pixels. Oddly no one going after them since they don't expect card packs to baby sit their kids.

 

Maybe Anet puts a 18 years + warning on it and an age checker. But much like the tobacco industry successfully argued for many years in court, till the MSA agreement, the personal responsibility defense. Whether or not the companies would band together or file individual suits who knows. They probably have already thought of more mechanics to put in place to generate the revenue they'd lose like time gating mechincs you can buy pass with a day pass ect.

[misterman.1530]

> @"Vrath.1754" said:

> > @"otto.5684" said:

> > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > Anet will sidestep the laws through two technicalities.

> > >

> > > (1): The Gold to Gem conversion means that keys can be bought and used solely through in-game effort. This doesn't make chests gambling any more than anything else in the game.

> > > (2): When you open a chest, you're getting a statuette with some additional bonus items. This constitutes, at the minimum, a guaranteed purchase. It doesn't count as gambling because of this.

> >

> > Legally, this is on a very shaky ground. I can easily point out that even that these two factors exist, it does not negate the value of what you get is lower than what you put in. Also, the effort to farm the gold is substantially high that without putting significant effort, you cannot realistically afford the boxes. Ultimately, it is substance over form. Is the objective of RNG in the boxes is to get people to purchase more of them, which is available to do through actual money? Would that make people addicted to gambling and/or people with mental sickness more vulnerable? Yes and yes. Then the game should be flagged as 18+ or remove the RNG entirely.

>

> Idk sports card packs and Pokémon packs are the same thing except you get a physical item. Everyone wants the Joe Borrow rookie card instead they get the Rex Chapman and Robby Anderson cards. So they buy more packs then a box of the cards.

> It is the same mechanics except with pixels. Oddly no one going after them since they don't expect card packs to baby sit their kids.

>

> Maybe Anet puts a 18 years + warning on it and an age checker. But much like the tobacco industry successfully argued for many years in court, till the MSA agreement, the personal responsibility defense. Whether or not the companies would band together or file individual suits who knows. They probably have already thought of more mechanics to put in place to generate the revenue they'd lose like time gating mechincs you can buy pass with a day pass ect.

 

No, actually, case law has shown that things like Pokemon or baseball cards offer value. People buy the packs to get the random cards - each card has value since if they were offered for sale individually, people would buy them to complete collections. It was only in the mid-90s that companies began to play with the odds and offer "chaser" cards that were more rare than others. But the courts have so far determined that you are still purchasing something of value, and that the chaser card was a nice bonus.

 

But do the contents of "loot boxes" offer the same value? For example, my most recent black lion chest (got a random key drop) had three things that I would never purchase on their own - okay, the statuette was fine and given enough of them, I could get something I would use - but the rest were essentially things I would never purchase or that no one would pay for. Like a Revive Orb and a Teleport to a Friend. These are things that have little, to no, value. And then there's a question of "personal" value. For instance, I don't care about minis. But if I get something that's account bound, I can't even sell it to gain some value from it. So yeah, there's a difference between trading cards and virtual loot boxes.

[kharmin.7683]

> @"misterman.1530" said:

 

> But do the contents of "loot boxes" offer the same value? For example, my most recent black lion chest (got a random key drop) had three things that I would never purchase on their own - okay, the statuette was fine and given enough of them, I could get something I would use - but the rest were essentially things I would never purchase or that no one would pay for. Like a Revive Orb and a Teleport to a Friend. These are things that have little, to no, value. And then there's a question of "personal" value. For instance, I don't care about minis. But if I get something that's account bound, I can't even sell it to gain some value from it. So yeah, there's a difference between trading cards and virtual loot boxes.

Value is highly subjective.

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"kharmin.7683" said:

> > @"misterman.1530" said:

>

> > But do the contents of "loot boxes" offer the same value? For example, my most recent black lion chest (got a random key drop) had three things that I would never purchase on their own - okay, the statuette was fine and given enough of them, I could get something I would use - but the rest were essentially things I would never purchase or that no one would pay for. Like a Revive Orb and a Teleport to a Friend. These are things that have little, to no, value. And then there's a question of "personal" value. For instance, I don't care about minis. But if I get something that's account bound, I can't even sell it to gain some value from it. So yeah, there's a difference between trading cards and virtual loot boxes.

> Value is highly subjective.

 

True, as far as individual _perceptions_ of value go.

 

However, misterman is talking about what a law would make of value in relation to BLC drops. In that case, value is objective. The only relevant data would be that Revive Orbs are sold independently on the gem store, so they have some value, whether any given subset of all potential buyers see value in them or not. It's a technicality, but that's a lot of what law is.

[Vrath.1754]

> @"misterman.1530" said:

> > @"Vrath.1754" said:

> > > @"otto.5684" said:

> > > > @"Blood Red Arachnid.2493" said:

> > > > Anet will sidestep the laws through two technicalities.

> > > >

> > > > (1): The Gold to Gem conversion means that keys can be bought and used solely through in-game effort. This doesn't make chests gambling any more than anything else in the game.

> > > > (2): When you open a chest, you're getting a statuette with some additional bonus items. This constitutes, at the minimum, a guaranteed purchase. It doesn't count as gambling because of this.

> > >

> > > Legally, this is on a very shaky ground. I can easily point out that even that these two factors exist, it does not negate the value of what you get is lower than what you put in. Also, the effort to farm the gold is substantially high that without putting significant effort, you cannot realistically afford the boxes. Ultimately, it is substance over form. Is the objective of RNG in the boxes is to get people to purchase more of them, which is available to do through actual money? Would that make people addicted to gambling and/or people with mental sickness more vulnerable? Yes and yes. Then the game should be flagged as 18+ or remove the RNG entirely.

> >

> > Idk sports card packs and Pokémon packs are the same thing except you get a physical item. Everyone wants the Joe Borrow rookie card instead they get the Rex Chapman and Robby Anderson cards. So they buy more packs then a box of the cards.

> > It is the same mechanics except with pixels. Oddly no one going after them since they don't expect card packs to baby sit their kids.

> >

> > Maybe Anet puts a 18 years + warning on it and an age checker. But much like the tobacco industry successfully argued for many years in court, till the MSA agreement, the personal responsibility defense. Whether or not the companies would band together or file individual suits who knows. They probably have already thought of more mechanics to put in place to generate the revenue they'd lose like time gating mechincs you can buy pass with a day pass ect.

>

> No, actually, case law has shown that things like Pokemon or baseball cards offer value. People buy the packs to get the random cards - each card has value since if they were offered for sale individually, people would buy them to complete collections. It was only in the mid-90s that companies began to play with the odds and offer "chaser" cards that were more rare than others. But the courts have so far determined that you are still purchasing something of value, and that the chaser card was a nice bonus.

>

> But do the contents of "loot boxes" offer the same value? For example, my most recent black lion chest (got a random key drop) had three things that I would never purchase on their own - okay, the statuette was fine and given enough of them, I could get something I would use - but the rest were essentially things I would never purchase or that no one would pay for. Like a Revive Orb and a Teleport to a Friend. These are things that have little, to no, value. And then there's a question of "personal" value. For instance, I don't care about minis. But if I get something that's account bound, I can't even sell it to gain some value from it. So yeah, there's a difference between trading cards and virtual loot boxes.

 

Like someone said value is subject and your account has value each item added increases the value, maybe by penny's whether it is account bound or not. You can sell your account for money. GW2efficiency gives you a value of your account which increases with the skins obtained in BLC increase your account monetary value.

 

People sell their game accounts all the time for cash so it does add value.

 

Again it is very much the same principle as card packs per the gambling argument being applied to packs.

 

There has been an argument made about this already:

"American self-regulatory organisation that assigns age and content ratings to video games, have cited and compared loot boxes to booster packs of trading card games and argued that loot boxes do not constitute gambling because booster packs of trading card games were found by the United States courts not to constitute gambling."

[battledrone.8315]

> @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > @"battledrone.8315" said:

> > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > @"battledrone.8315" said:

> > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said:

> > > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said:

> > > > > > It is gambling. You might notice that in threads like these, people always come to defend it, every time. You might ask, why? Because if the addicts pay anets bills, they don't have to and as long as anet makes money, the game will propably continue.

> > > > >

> > > > > As a defender I take offense to that statement.

> > > > >

> > > > > I own all of GW1's campaigns as well as a reasonable amount of account upgrades in that game.

> > > > > Likewise I preordered a collectors edition of Gw2 and own both expansion Ultimate editions.

> > > > > I will be buying Expansion 3's collectors/Ultimate editions as well and I have invested god knows how much money in the gemstore over the years.

> > > > > Not to mention I bought a friend both expansions as well a few years back.

> > > > >

> > > > > I've paid more than my fair share into this game and I am no addict.

> > > > > I support this franchse because I love this franchise.

> > > > > Plus if you give me the option to support something I care about of my own free will then I will.

> > > > > But if you try to force me to keep throwing money into something under the threat you'll take that thing away from me regardless of how much i've already invested in it.. ergo the entire premise of mandatory subscription fees!! then I will walk the hell away faster than you can say Wait!!

> > > > > Hell that is the main reason I've straight up quit supporting consoles after 30 years of collecting them, mandatory online subfees.. to hell with that.

> > > > >

> > > > > For all the hate Lootboxes are getting here I am amazed that Subscription fees are not being brought up more..

> > > > > Mandatory Subfees are by far the most predatory and greedy practice in this industry.. far worse than any lootboxes i've ever seen.. and yet they are far more accepted despite how much they deserve to be utterly despised by gamers.

> > > >

> > > > if i dont like a game, then i prolly wont pay a sub for it, how is that PREDATORY?

> > > > lootboxes OTOH, they are manifestations of pure GREED. the desirable objects always have a astronomically low droprate.

> > > > and then they just fill the rest with low grade junk.

> > > > sub fees requires a thing, that has become rather scarce in the mmo business : TRUST

> > >

> > > I won't pay a sub even for something I like.

> > > As far as I am concerned when I buy a game that game is mine to play as I see fit.

> > >

> > > If a company tells me "oh no.. actually you're just renting the game and that initial price was nothing more than a downpayment and if you stop paying us we'll take the game away from you" then im pretty much going to tell said company to go straight to hell.

> > >

> > > Sub based games are predatory in the sense that their price tag/cost is unlimited.

> > > You'll be paying to play them forever without the possibility of ever owning the game.

> > > Just look at those who've been playing Wow non stop for the past 16 years, they've put almost 3 grand into that game just on sub costs with nothing to show for it.. Everything goes away if they decide they don't want to pay for it anymore.

> > >

> > > Oh and Wow of course also has a cash shop and lootboxes as well.. because ripping people off with a subfee just wasn't greedy enough.

> > > That's why pro sub arguments don't make any sense when criticizing alternative monetization methods like cash shops and lootboxes.

> >

> > 16 years of gaming for 3 grand sounds like a good deal to me. have you seen the price of new games, and how many hours they last?

> > i would take a good sub game over any F2P model, but sadly there arent many left

>

> Yes, because the model realistically doesn't work on a market wide scale.

> It creates a market where only X amount of games can even survive due to the nature of subscription fees, a problem that we are eventually going to run into with TV at some point as well, especially with more focus being pushed on service exclusive shows.

>

> Too many services means excessive amounts of subfees needed to access them and that ultimately limits peoples options pretty significantly.

> This is exactly the reason why so many MMO's have gone free 2 play over the years, while many others have straight up died and vanished from the world entirely.

> As much as I love Gw1, if the game had launched with a mandatory sub fee then I would place a hard bet that Gw2 would never have existed.

>

> For me it's not about the money, I'll gladly pay more to avoid being forced to pay a mandatory sub with the added penalty of having my games and movies etc taken away if I stop paying.

> I'd rather have a large physical game and movie collection that gives me total freedom and control over what entertainment I consume than pay a subscription for something like like Playstation now or Netflix.

>

> You can argue the experience is what you get when you pay for sub services and you're not entirely wrong.. but it's an expreience you can only enjoy while you're paying..

> When you stop paying you loose everything.. you are back to square one with absolutely nothing to show for all that money you spent.

> And even then your options were always limited by the service you're paying for, you have no control over what movies and shows and games come and go on the platform and there's always a risk something you are half way through will be gone the next day and no longer available to you even though you are paying for it.

>

> At least with physical games, movies, tv shows etc you will always have access to them and you can enjoy them at any time you wish without ever having to pay for them again.

> That is something I will gladly pay for and have gladly paid for since I was old enough to earn an income.

> But I will never support a mandatory subfee service, no chance in hell.

>

wrong, if i let my sub lapse for a month, all my toons dont get wiped to level 1. do you even know, how mmos work?

i still have a huge box with all of my old albums...useless, because i dont have a record player anymore. same with my box of old VHS tapes. and i was one of the smart ones, who didnt buy a betamax player, those guys were screwed. when you have your OWN collection, you just have to pay the fee in hardware

PS my collection of DVDs are already on the way out too, it is getting hard to find a player WITHOUT blu ray crap

[coso.9173]

Getting a statuette doesn't automatically make it non gambling. The law surely considers those cases too as a cheap loophole.

[Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582]

> @"coso.9173" said:

> Getting a statuette doesn't automatically make it non gambling. The law surely considers those cases too as a cheap loophole.

 

If all the items were purchasable with Statuettes, it would be. Then any uncommon item you get is pure bonus. You're buying it for the Statuette to work towards your end goal. Like a layaway/layby system with tokens.

[sigur.9453]

> @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > @"coso.9173" said:

> > Getting a statuette doesn't automatically make it non gambling. The law surely considers those cases too as a cheap loophole.

>

> If all the items were purchasable with Statuettes, it would be. Then any uncommon item you get is pure bonus. You're buying it for the Statuette to work towards your end goal. Like a layaway/layby system with tokens.

 

nope, since the "bonus" items each represent a different "value". (= literally gambling) they could bypass this by making EVERY items cost the same amount of statuettes, so technically all items would be valued the same.

[misterman.1530]

At the end of the day, the courts will decide. Gambling, by its very definition, is "the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning". So...any stakes, whether real world money or in-game currency, used to purchase a chest containing random prizes of significant differences in value, would constitute gambling. That's the kinds of decisions we are seeing in the EU.

[coso.9173]

> @"sigur.9453" said:

> > @"Heimskarl Ashfiend.9582" said:

> > > @"coso.9173" said:

> > > Getting a statuette doesn't automatically make it non gambling. The law surely considers those cases too as a cheap loophole.

> >

> > If all the items were purchasable with Statuettes, it would be. Then any uncommon item you get is pure bonus. You're buying it for the Statuette to work towards your end goal. Like a layaway/layby system with tokens.

>

> nope, since the "bonus" items each represent a different "value". (= literally gambling) they could bypass this by making EVERY items cost the same amount of statuettes, so technically all items would be valued the same.

 

I don't think that even in that case, it wouldn't be considered gambling.

Because what is the spirit of the law? People would still be buying the boxes in hopes of the special items, not because of the statuettes.

That like saying that each time you bid in a casino you get 1 dollar back. It would still be considered gambling.