DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Mathematically, there is no risk because all skins have the same value. The volatility index is 0.0. No court in the world would call this gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasa Devi.7958 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 That's because courts use the legal definition of gambling, which isn't the one being discussed here. But you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > That's because courts use the legal definition of gambling, which isn't the one being discussed here. But you know that. It's the only definition worth talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > Mathematically, there is no risk because all skins have the same value. The volatility index is 0.0. No court in the world would call this gambling. There are 20+ colour patterns and only few "premium" skins with aura or different model. There is obvious push for gambling towards premium skins with majority of low-tier filler drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > Mathematically, there is no risk because all skins have the same value. The volatility index is 0.0. No court in the world would call this gambling. > > There are 20+ colour patterns and only few "premium" skins with aura or different model. There is obvious push for gambling towards premium skins with majority of low-tier filler drop. Any value that you place on these skins other than the price of purchasing one skin is your opinion. It is not fact. The only fact is the cost of buying one skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfheart.7483 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > Mathematically, there is no risk because all skins have the same value. The volatility index is 0.0. No court in the world would call this gambling. > > There are 20+ colour patterns and only few "premium" skins with aura or different model. There is obvious push for gambling towards premium skins with majority of low-tier filler drop. Still doesn't change the fact that inherently all skins are the same value. The value only shifts up or down based on the player preference which, for the record, does not always sway in favor of the flashier skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > Mathematically, there is no risk because all skins have the same value. The volatility index is 0.0. No court in the world would call this gambling. > > > > There are 20+ colour patterns and only few "premium" skins with aura or different model. There is obvious push for gambling towards premium skins with majority of low-tier filler drop. > > Any value that you place on these skins other than the price of purchasing one skin is your opinion. It is not fact. The only fact is the cost of buying one skin. That's the grey area industry is using to push gambling habits into games because law enforcers are too slow to regulate this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aplethoraof.2643 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Arzurag.7506 said: > The term "gambling" is thrown off pretty quickly these days. And the more a word is thrown around, the less meaningful it becomes. And people who think they are trying to help end up harming by diluting an issue. "Keeping it real" would help more, but people tend to exaggerate when emotions get the best of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > > Mathematically, there is no risk because all skins have the same value. The volatility index is 0.0. No court in the world would call this gambling. > > > > > > There are 20+ colour patterns and only few "premium" skins with aura or different model. There is obvious push for gambling towards premium skins with majority of low-tier filler drop. > > > > Any value that you place on these skins other than the price of purchasing one skin is your opinion. It is not fact. The only fact is the cost of buying one skin. > > That's the grey area industry is using to push gambling habits into games because law enforcers are too slow to regulate this. It's not a grey area. I've been designing gambling devices for over 12 years, it's quite clear why this isn't grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikilamaru.5842 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 I absolutely hate the idea of loots boxes you have to pay cash to open. Its both gambling and predatory. If you want to change this problem dont go to esrb, go to the US gambling board and petition them to review cash loots boxes. If they determine that lootboxes are gambling then the esrb would make all games with lootboxes in them A rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasa Devi.7958 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > That's because courts use the legal definition of gambling, which isn't the one being discussed here. But you know that. > > It's the only definition worth talking about. No, it's the only definition not worth talking about, because obviously, any company selling RNG loot boxes are going to skirt around that definition to make money. This practice, in general, of skirting around legalities is what causes changes in legislation. If we take laws for granted, as infallible and unassailable, we'd still have slavery and apartheid. So let's call this what it obviously is: gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @rikilamaru.5842 said: > I absolutely hate the idea of loots boxes you have to pay cash to open. > Its both gambling and predatory. > If you want to change this problem dont go to esrb, go to the US gambling board and petition them to review cash loots boxes. > If they determine that lootboxes are gambling then the esrb would make all games with lootboxes in them A rated. Nothing in this game is a "cash" loot box. Also, there is no entity called the US Gambling board. It's not regulated federally. You would have a better chance at the state level anyways. If you can get one state to declare this as gambling, others would soon follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikilamaru.5842 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > @rikilamaru.5842 said: > > I absolutely hate the idea of loots boxes you have to pay cash to open. > > Its both gambling and predatory. > > If you want to change this problem dont go to esrb, go to the US gambling board and petition them to review cash loots boxes. > > If they determine that lootboxes are gambling then the esrb would make all games with lootboxes in them A rated. > > Nothing in this game is a "cash" loot box. Also, there is no entity called the US Gambling board. It's not regulated federally. i didnt say federal did i? since im to lazy type all of them http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Useful-Sites/State-Gambling-Agencies.htm And anet is bought to get dragged into a shit show such great idea of adding more loots boxes when a ongoing lootbox shitshow going on with the gaming industry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @rikilamaru.5842 said: > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > @rikilamaru.5842 said: > > > I absolutely hate the idea of loots boxes you have to pay cash to open. > > > Its both gambling and predatory. > > > If you want to change this problem dont go to esrb, go to the US gambling board and petition them to review cash loots boxes. > > > If they determine that lootboxes are gambling then the esrb would make all games with lootboxes in them A rated. > > > > Nothing in this game is a "cash" loot box. Also, there is no entity called the US Gambling board. It's not regulated federally. > > i didnt say federal did i? > since im to lazy type all of them http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Useful-Sites/State-Gambling-Agencies.htm > > And anet is bought to get dragged into a kitten show > such great idea of adding more loots boxes when a ongoing lootbox shitshow going on with the gaming industry Unfortunately, you said the federal level. Gaming is done primarily at the state level. However Indian reservations also have their own rules. The gaming commissions don't make the rules, they only enforce them. The best way to get a change made is to go to your state reps. They're the ones that make the actual laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > That's because courts use the legal definition of gambling, which isn't the one being discussed here. But you know that. > > > > It's the only definition worth talking about. > > No, it's the only definition not worth talking about, because obviously, any company selling RNG loot boxes are going to skirt around that definition to make money. This practice, in general, of skirting around legalities is what causes changes in legislation. If we take laws for granted, as infallible and unassailable, we'd still have slavery and apartheid. So let's call this what it obviously is: gambling. No, it is the only definition to use. No other definition is enforcable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DorDor.8617 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 People, the OP of this post is a **GAMBLING ADDICT.** I think OP knows a lot more about what constitutes gambling than the rest of us. If OP says it's gambling, I'm willing to believe them on that. So should the rest of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > > That's because courts use the legal definition of gambling, which isn't the one being discussed here. But you know that. > > > > > > It's the only definition worth talking about. > > > > No, it's the only definition not worth talking about, because obviously, any company selling RNG loot boxes are going to skirt around that definition to make money. This practice, in general, of skirting around legalities is what causes changes in legislation. If we take laws for granted, as infallible and unassailable, we'd still have slavery and apartheid. So let's call this what it obviously is: gambling. > > No, it is the only definition to use. No other definition is enforcable. Currently. Laws are slow to follow online gaming. Sooner or later such practices gonna get regulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikilamaru.5842 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DorDor.8617 said: > People, the OP of this post is a **GAMBLING ADDICT.** I think OP knows a lot more about what constitutes gambling than the rest of us. > > If OP says it's gambling, I'm willing to believe them on that. So should the rest of you. funny enough some country's all rdy classify it as gambling, like china for example company has to disclose the drop rate of each item from a lootbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torolan.5816 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 I was about to write how economy lobbyists for stuff like that also ruin and despoil everything else they touch in bloomy words, but it would fall only on deaf ears anyway. I would have never thought that day would come, but I am actually waiting for the soccer mum lobby ( voters! ) to rear its ugly head and bring this whole idea down on its knees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasa Devi.7958 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > > That's because courts use the legal definition of gambling, which isn't the one being discussed here. But you know that. > > > > > > It's the only definition worth talking about. > > > > No, it's the only definition not worth talking about, because obviously, any company selling RNG loot boxes are going to skirt around that definition to make money. This practice, in general, of skirting around legalities is what causes changes in legislation. If we take laws for granted, as infallible and unassailable, we'd still have slavery and apartheid. So let's call this what it obviously is: gambling. > > No, it is the only definition to use. No other definition is enforcable. Nothing written on this forum is enforc**e**able. And that's not the point. But you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaaCrow.3076 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > > > That's because courts use the legal definition of gambling, which isn't the one being discussed here. But you know that. > > > > > > > > It's the only definition worth talking about. > > > > > > No, it's the only definition not worth talking about, because obviously, any company selling RNG loot boxes are going to skirt around that definition to make money. This practice, in general, of skirting around legalities is what causes changes in legislation. If we take laws for granted, as infallible and unassailable, we'd still have slavery and apartheid. So let's call this what it obviously is: gambling. > > > > No, it is the only definition to use. No other definition is enforcable. > > Currently. Laws are slow to follow online gaming. Sooner or later such practices gonna get regulated. Either that or they will just ignore the issue and leave those susceptible people because they are cash cows, i'd do that if i was them, personally. mo money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DorDor.8617 said: > People, the OP of this post is a **GAMBLING ADDICT.** I think OP knows a lot more about what constitutes gambling than the rest of us. > > If OP says it's gambling, I'm willing to believe them on that. So should the rest of you. I disagree. I think I know a lot more about what constitutes gambling than he does. It's been my job to know for over a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasa Devi.7958 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > @DorDor.8617 said: > > People, the OP of this post is a **GAMBLING ADDICT.** I think OP knows a lot more about what constitutes gambling than the rest of us. > > > > If OP says it's gambling, I'm willing to believe them on that. So should the rest of you. > > I disagree. I think I know a lot more about what constitutes gambling than he does. It's been my job to know for over a decade. You edit a dictionary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @inubasiri.8745 said: > > @Swagger.1459 said: > > I love how some of you invoke “gambling” to the argument... A skin is guaranteed to drop, and no duplicates... There is zero chance of loss here. Anet also allows players to obtain these skins for free, by allowing players to exchange gold for gems... > > > > This game has $0 in monthly fees, and graciously allows players to buy anything from the gemstore for free, so please take the morality and “gambling” complaints to another game that actually milks players... These vanity skin are optional too, and do not magically give a player an advantage over another player. > > Error. Gold has an objective value in real money. $100 = 8000 gems = 1695 gold. Not sure what argument you’re trying to make, but that was pretty pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rococo.8347 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 For everyone shrugging their shoulders or worse at the OP I want to say that my admittedly not comprehensive knowledge of European and British Law and how statute in general is produced around the world is still good enough to point out something VERY important - its one of the first things I was taught. Law frequently lags behind what society is up to, considers acceptable and is using in terms of technology, sometimes Law gets it wrong and follows through on nonsensical Law mimicking something that is all the rage in society but actually shouldn't be protected in statute and sometimes Law - particularly with technology fails to keep up and create effective Law that takes into account the bad ways tech is being used. Loots boxes are the classic example of this - they ARE gambling in every sense, but the Law makers just haven't yet grasped that pixels are just as capable of the effects that RL gambling has on people, hell they haven't even managed to work up realistic law for many things connected to the Internet gaming etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts