New mount skins and gambling

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > It's really very simple. If something falls under any definition of a thing, it is that thing. Specifically, if these mount tickets fall under any definition of gambling, it is gambling. Any argument against that is purely semantics and doesn't further the discussion.

> > >

> > > Unfortunately, your argument is the one that relies on semantics. Your definition of gambling is too broad. It covers just about any choice a person can make.

> >

> > That's only true if you're being disingenuous. But you know that.

>

> I'm not being disingenuous. Please stop the personal attack.

 

Your "Just about any choice a person can make" is gambling, speaks for itself. That's only not disingenuous if you actually believe that. Do you actually believe that the layman's use of gambling intends to cover that? Do you really believe "gambling" in common speech has that meaning?

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > > > > I know many view this as gambling, and to an extent I do understand their view. However, gambling typically entails a 'risk' and this does not. In gambling you risk 'x' and potentially receive _nothing_ in return. There is no risk here. You are guaranteed a skin for every ticket you purchase.

> > > > > > > > A skin I don't want and won't ever use until the day I quit the game is the equivalent of nothing. Following your logic, playing roulette in a casino wouldn't be gambling if they gave you a piece of candy with every spin of the wheel.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Just because you won't use it / dont like it doesnt mean you actually got nothing. You received an item, regardless of your like or dislike, for the $4 you spent.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Roulette is a different animal than what we have here, and is intended to be highly risky.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Look, there is obviously a risk involved in these tickets: the risk of getting something you have no use for. That makes purchasing them a gamble. It's not rocket science (or even brain surgery).

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, you have a distinct chance of not getting the skin you desire. That is not the same at getting nothing though. People _need_ to understand that there is a difference there.

> > > > >

> > > > > People are having a fits over 'risk involved' and as such are claiming this is 'Gambling' because there is 'risk.' By the simplest definition of the word, everything is a gamble. Life itself is a gamble, because everything has risk. Just sitting in your chair, you run the risk of the ceiling falling on your head. Its highly unlikely, but the risk exists. 'Gambling' in the sense they are using it, which is legally regulated, has certain requirements that need to be met in order for it to be 'Gambling' by the definition they are trying to use. As those requirements are not met, this is not 'Gambling' in that sense of the word. Is it a gamble in the general sense, yes. But so it stepping outside. This isn't going to teach a child gambling habits, or spark an addiction, and more than buying them trading card packs will so long as parents do their job.

> > > >

> > > > No one here is talking about the legal definition of gambling. That would be pointless because RNG box providers skirt around that definition in order to make money. Duh.

> > >

> > > The legal argument of whether or not this is 'gambling' comes up every time any type of rng loot box comes into the game. Yes, it has come up, more than once across several threads now as people lay out the definition of the term. Many of the arguments that it is "Gambling" aren't spurred from the general term. _Especially_ not when the argument presented is that it will incite _gambling addiction_. That most definitely isn't using the term in any general sense.

> > >

> >

> > It's really very simple. If something falls under any definition of a thing, it is that thing. Specifically, if these mount tickets fall under any definition of gambling, it is gambling. Any argument against that is purely semantics and doesn't further the discussion.

>

> I did concede that it does qualify in the general sense of the term. The same way getting out of bed in the morning qualifies as gambling. It just doesn't qualify in the sense that others are trying to use it. Which is where understanding the difference is key.

 

The first part of your statement deserves no answer for obvious reasons. But I do wonder, who are those others?

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > > > > > I know many view this as gambling, and to an extent I do understand their view. However, gambling typically entails a 'risk' and this does not. In gambling you risk 'x' and potentially receive _nothing_ in return. There is no risk here. You are guaranteed a skin for every ticket you purchase.

> > > > > > > > > A skin I don't want and won't ever use until the day I quit the game is the equivalent of nothing. Following your logic, playing roulette in a casino wouldn't be gambling if they gave you a piece of candy with every spin of the wheel.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Just because you won't use it / dont like it doesnt mean you actually got nothing. You received an item, regardless of your like or dislike, for the $4 you spent.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Roulette is a different animal than what we have here, and is intended to be highly risky.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Look, there is obviously a risk involved in these tickets: the risk of getting something you have no use for. That makes purchasing them a gamble. It's not rocket science (or even brain surgery).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes, you have a distinct chance of not getting the skin you desire. That is not the same at getting nothing though. People _need_ to understand that there is a difference there.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > People are having a fits over 'risk involved' and as such are claiming this is 'Gambling' because there is 'risk.' By the simplest definition of the word, everything is a gamble. Life itself is a gamble, because everything has risk. Just sitting in your chair, you run the risk of the ceiling falling on your head. Its highly unlikely, but the risk exists. 'Gambling' in the sense they are using it, which is legally regulated, has certain requirements that need to be met in order for it to be 'Gambling' by the definition they are trying to use. As those requirements are not met, this is not 'Gambling' in that sense of the word. Is it a gamble in the general sense, yes. But so it stepping outside. This isn't going to teach a child gambling habits, or spark an addiction, and more than buying them trading card packs will so long as parents do their job.

> > > > >

> > > > > No one here is talking about the legal definition of gambling. That would be pointless because RNG box providers skirt around that definition in order to make money. Duh.

> > > >

> > > > The legal argument of whether or not this is 'gambling' comes up every time any type of rng loot box comes into the game. Yes, it has come up, more than once across several threads now as people lay out the definition of the term. Many of the arguments that it is "Gambling" aren't spurred from the general term. _Especially_ not when the argument presented is that it will incite _gambling addiction_. That most definitely isn't using the term in any general sense.

> > > >

> > >

> > > It's really very simple. If something falls under any definition of a thing, it is that thing. Specifically, if these mount tickets fall under any definition of gambling, it is gambling. Any argument against that is purely semantics and doesn't further the discussion.

> >

> > I did concede that it does qualify in the general sense of the term. The same way getting out of bed in the morning qualifies as gambling. It just doesn't qualify in the sense that others are trying to use it. Which is where understanding the difference is key.

>

> The first part of your statement deserves no answer for obvious reasons. But I do wonder, who are those others?

 

Why are you arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[DarcShriek.5829]

> @Suinz.5968 said:

> > @CharterforGw.3149 said:

> > technically not gambling though, you always get something and it's never the same thing (ofcourse they might change this in the future)

> > Doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it's not the same as gambling.

> >

> > However as a parent you should teach your childeren about such things, and make sure they can't just spend there money willy nilly on a game, you can't make Anet be responsible for how your childeren spend their money.

> >

> > Anet can make it more obivious when an item is based on RNG, in a way a child would understand they can get something they didn't want to get.

> >

> > edit: I have been corrected on the first part of my post, it is gambling, I got the definition wrong. it's a grey area when it comes to the laws for internet gambling

>

> You are paying real money for a chance to get something you want. That's literally the definition of gambling.

 

1.) Your not paying real money. Your using gems which have no legal value once purchased because you cannot sell them to anyone else.

2.) You're getting an unidentified skin, which is exactly what was advertised.

3.) All of these skins have the same market value.

4.) You lost no money.

5.) You gained no money.

6.) Therefore, you did not gamble.

[Michael Conrad.6704]

I would like my money back on the newest commercial gimmick aka "adoption" of Mount skins. I paid 400 GEMs and got a dud but will not fall for the same thing twice. I demand my GEMs back. This is the sleaziest tactic that Arena Net has stooped to yet and all the while I have been touting ANet as an upstanding conscientious enterprise.

Shame on you in the merchandising department. There are lies, damnable lies and salesmen.

M. Conrad Kabay

[LanfearShadowflame.3189]

> @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> > > > > > > > > > I know many view this as gambling, and to an extent I do understand their view. However, gambling typically entails a 'risk' and this does not. In gambling you risk 'x' and potentially receive _nothing_ in return. There is no risk here. You are guaranteed a skin for every ticket you purchase.

> > > > > > > > > A skin I don't want and won't ever use until the day I quit the game is the equivalent of nothing. Following your logic, playing roulette in a casino wouldn't be gambling if they gave you a piece of candy with every spin of the wheel.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Just because you won't use it / dont like it doesnt mean you actually got nothing. You received an item, regardless of your like or dislike, for the $4 you spent.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Roulette is a different animal than what we have here, and is intended to be highly risky.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Look, there is obviously a risk involved in these tickets: the risk of getting something you have no use for. That makes purchasing them a gamble. It's not rocket science (or even brain surgery).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes, you have a distinct chance of not getting the skin you desire. That is not the same at getting nothing though. People _need_ to understand that there is a difference there.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > People are having a fits over 'risk involved' and as such are claiming this is 'Gambling' because there is 'risk.' By the simplest definition of the word, everything is a gamble. Life itself is a gamble, because everything has risk. Just sitting in your chair, you run the risk of the ceiling falling on your head. Its highly unlikely, but the risk exists. 'Gambling' in the sense they are using it, which is legally regulated, has certain requirements that need to be met in order for it to be 'Gambling' by the definition they are trying to use. As those requirements are not met, this is not 'Gambling' in that sense of the word. Is it a gamble in the general sense, yes. But so it stepping outside. This isn't going to teach a child gambling habits, or spark an addiction, and more than buying them trading card packs will so long as parents do their job.

> > > > >

> > > > > No one here is talking about the legal definition of gambling. That would be pointless because RNG box providers skirt around that definition in order to make money. Duh.

> > > >

> > > > The legal argument of whether or not this is 'gambling' comes up every time any type of rng loot box comes into the game. Yes, it has come up, more than once across several threads now as people lay out the definition of the term. Many of the arguments that it is "Gambling" aren't spurred from the general term. _Especially_ not when the argument presented is that it will incite _gambling addiction_. That most definitely isn't using the term in any general sense.

> > > >

> > >

> > > It's really very simple. If something falls under any definition of a thing, it is that thing. Specifically, if these mount tickets fall under any definition of gambling, it is gambling. Any argument against that is purely semantics and doesn't further the discussion.

> >

> > I did concede that it does qualify in the general sense of the term. The same way getting out of bed in the morning qualifies as gambling. It just doesn't qualify in the sense that others are trying to use it. Which is where understanding the difference is key.

>

> The first part of your statement deserves no answer for obvious reasons. But I do wonder, who are those others?

 

Let's start with the OP for one. One does not cite "gambling addiction" when considering the freaking "general" nature of gambling. Oh yes, the title of this thread has since been changed, but gambling addition and the affect of gambling on children remains the OPs target thought line. As a parent is _their job_ to supervise their child and teach them those life skills they talk about. Instead, they would like the game to do it for them by simply removing the item they find offensive. That's just sticking your head in the sand.

 

> @"Michael Conrad.6704" said:

> I would like my money back on the newest commercial gimmick aka "adoption" of Mount skins. I paid 400 GEMs and got a dud but will not fall for the same thing twice. I demand my GEMs back. This is the sleaziest tactic that Arena Net has stooped to yet and all the while I have been touting ANet as an upstanding conscientious enterprise.

> Shame on you in the merchandising department. There are lies, damnable lies and salesmen.

> M. Conrad Kabay

 

This is the wrong place for this. You should open a support ticket with your request. You'll get much further.

[Kelian Ravenwood.4130]

> @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> I know many view this as gambling, and to an extent I do understand their view. However, gambling typically entails a 'risk' and this does not. In gambling you risk 'x' and potentially receive _nothing_ in return. There is no risk here. You are guaranteed a skin for every ticket you purchase.

>

> I don't think this is teaching 'gambling' per se. RNG is simply a marketing tactic, in essentially all industries. The child's toy in a happy meal. The hidden item in a box of cereal. That monopoly piece on your McDonald's fry. The prize on the under side of a soda lid. A raffle at your company's holiday party. It's all the same thing with the same intent - to entice you to purchase an item you may or may not have to begin with. If the enticement is good enough you'll purchase more than you typically would have if it's something you'd normally purchase.

>

> In a sense, it's right up there with trying to win the "big" prize at a carnival game. Some people find it fun. Some people hate it.

>

> What it _should_ be teaching is self-discipline, hard work, and goal setting. However, that requires the parent's of said children to do their job. (Or, for older players, self-discipline and will power.) For example, if my son would like these mount skins, he's going to work his butt off for them. Either to earn the real world money for gems (via chores, mowing other peoples lawns, etc) or working towards making the gold to convert to gems in game during the times he's allowed to play or a combination there of. There is no reason this could not be used as a positive teaching tool, but very few will step back and look it at it from that perspective.

 

I could not have put this better; of course it's a "game of chance", just like so many other things we do (and when I say "we", I mean teens as well). When a middle-school student buys a CCG pack, they are taking the same risk (actually worse, since duplicates are inevitable). This would be an opportunity to teach your child, "Not everything you want will just be given to you, and you can't buy everything you want." If you feel it is so VERY important to have a skin that affects your gameplay in no way whatsoever, pay what they ask. If you don't, you will still be able to play the way you wish. You just won't have the fanciest ride, and that's okay.

It's also a good time to introduce the concept of budgeting funds ("if you want that mount skin, you may not have enough to buy those mats for that legendary you are making... you can't have both unless you work for it).

 

If you have a gambling addiction, I would suggest to stay away from games that include simulated gambling in the description. For the rest of us, let them test our self-control and, if we fail that test, let us learn from that loss.

[Manasa Devi.7958]

> @"Kelian Ravenwood.4130" said:

> If you have a gambling addiction, I would suggest to stay away from games that include simulated gambling in the description. For the rest of us, let them test our self-control and, if we fail that test, let us learn from that loss.

Where does GW2 include simulated gambling in its description?

[Rodney Gallowglass.2310]

So, in my opinion, the real problem with"loot boxes" or pay to play rng is that it uses principles developed by a fellow named B.F. Skinner.

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner)

 

These techniques user the way or brains are election to respond to rewards to manipulate you on a subconscious level to keep playing. You find these techniques in most modern games, especially MMOs, loot and shoot games and the like.

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/15510-Skinner-Boxes-and-How-Games-Use-Them

 

These "Mount licenses" are just like micro Skinner boxes designed to suck the money or if your wallet. We'll see more of these, they're to profitable for them to do anything else. Just hope they suck to cosmetics and not actually power.

[TheLastNobody.8319]

> @MsAngel.8640 said:

> I am really concerned about this, the game is for children and young adults onward in age, but the way these things are offered it is gambling and that is very inappropriate, especially for children. A thirteen year old has very poor life skills as a rule and gambling in any form is attractive.

> If these games are made for kids then those who think these things up need to look at the young they want to play. Micro transactions are all well and good, offer the skins separately, not on a RNG basis, those that want the skins will buy them. You guys want more money offer individual armour skin pieces or sets, not outfits, they will sell like hot cakes.

>

> A parent.

> -= Nothing is fool-proof to a talented fool. =-

 

They did originally have a lot of armor skins, but stopped selling them saying they didn’t mesh well with other armor sets (clipping issues and weird proportions on models) and that’s why we have so many outfits. Also easier to design em, personally I despise outfits.

 

On the gambling aspect, agree on the children part as it plays into the whole risk reward aspect, and using shiny lights and sounds and yadayada. Can’t remember what the principle is but I’m hearing a lot about it nowadays cause of other lootboxes. Probably already been mentioned as I type this up.

 

On a consumer part, this whole system is ridiculous. It’s just a glorified trading card system, minus the ability to trade or sell the cards ya don’t want, and buy the ones ya do. They’re just hoping you get the right level of frustrated to where you’ll just keep buying gems until you get wtf you want. Did that before in Mass Effect 3, and god I still kick myself in the butt when I think about it.

 

So please ANET, add these in as content you can actually get in game...and don’t put it behind a massive timegated grind like you seem to enjoy doing sometimes, or RNG with chances so low, you need every lucky charm in existence to get it.

[Disig.7169]

> @Zedek.8932 said:

> To be honest, I don't think gambling is dangerous per se.

> I've gambled in LoL (random skin boxes) and here for a bit. After my chests were gone, they were gone. I already had a loss from it, read as: The bank always wins.

> I didn't even had the _"Nex time it'll be the Jackpot"_ feel, it was more of _**"FU man, never again!".**_

>

> Aren't you people from the U.S. used to Arcades and video game machines? In Germany, I rarely bumbed into one, but in Italy there was an Arcade, and the kids came with a fixed amount of money, let's say a 10 Euro bill, changed it into tokens and then played. When it was over, they left or watched other players. Nobody pulled a knife and threatened anyone else for more so they could play longer. All of them were like 8-16 years young.

>

> So maybe you should stop wrapping kids and young adults in cotton and make them learn life lessons. Helicopter parents are awful, just sayin'.

>

 

Gambling Addiction. Heard of it? Children are far more susceptible to it. LOTS of studies out there on it. Yeah, gambling can be really super harmful, especially to children. And children can steal mom and dad's money easily. I have several friends who do not allow their children to purchase anything online. They still stole their credit cards in order to buy loot boxes because "they needed them." Before you judge, maybe actually research the real issue.

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> Not the same at all. It's not gambling, You paid for a skin, you received a skin. **The skin you received has the same market value as any of the other skins available**.

 

Sorry, but that's patently untrue. And if the skins were tradable, you'd be able to easily see it.

 

> @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> I know many view this as gambling, and to an extent I do understand their view. However, gambling typically entails a 'risk' and this does not. In gambling you risk 'x' and potentially receive _nothing_ in return. There is no risk here. You are guaranteed a skin for every ticket you purchase.

That matters only if you were interested in purchasing every skin. If you are not, then there _is_ a risk - risk that you won't get what you wanted to buy. Remember, that for buyers not every skin will have the same value. For many, at least some skins on their own will not be worth the gem cost of a single purchase - those players will buy the licence only because there are skins they wanted among all the possibilities. For those people, buying the license _will_ be a gamble.

 

> @LanfearShadowflame.3189 said:

> Yes, you have a distinct chance of not getting the skin you desire. That is not the same at getting nothing though. People _need_ to understand that there is a difference there.

If what you got was something you wouldn't buy if you had a choice (so, something that in your opinion has less worth than what you paid for it), then no, there's no practical difference. The only difference is in semantics.

 

So, it may not be a gamble as far as law terminology in your country is concerned, but for all practical purposes it's exactly the same thing, just hidden behind a technicality.

 

[Djinn.9245]

This is to help educate those who don't understand why many GW2 players are upset that Anet has added yet another gamble box to the game. Gamble boxes are designed to take advantage of specific human psychological response - what PC Gamer calls a "dark compulsion". Is Anet the only game to utilize this system? Of course not. But just because it is prolific doesn't mean we have to like it.

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/behind-the-addictive-psychology-and-seductive-art-of-loot-boxes/

 

"Dr Luke Clark, director at the Center for Gambling Research at the University of British Columbia. "We know that the dopamine system, which is targeted by drugs of abuse, is also very interested in unpredictable rewards. Dopamine cells are most active when there is maximum uncertainty, and the dopamine system responds more to an uncertain reward than the same reward delivered on a predictable basis.""

[jdmThor.3806]

Except, the mount adoption license is far from being what the loot boxes being discussed in the article are:

 

1. You get a maximum of 30 trials to get that one skin that you supposedly want.

2. You are guaranteed to get that skin within the 30 trials.

3. Your odds of getting that skin increases with every skin that you unlock because you never get duplicates.

 

Massive difference there.

[feroxeu.7416]

> @jdmThor.3806 said:

> Except, the mount adoption license is far from being what the loot boxes being discussed in the article are:

>

> 1. You get a maximum of 30 trials to get that one skin that you supposedly want.

> 2. You are guaranteed to get that skin within the 30 trials.

> 3. Your odds of getting that skin increases with every skin that you unlock because you never get duplicates.

>

> Massive difference there.

 

Sir, is RNG for a reward involved at all. Yes? then the OP is correct.

[jdmThor.3806]

> @feroxeu.7416 said:

> > @jdmThor.3806 said:

> > Except, the mount adoption license is far from being what the loot boxes being discussed in the article are:

> >

> > 1. You get a maximum of 30 trials to get that one skin that you supposedly want.

> > 2. You are guaranteed to get that skin within the 30 trials.

> > 3. Your odds of getting that skin increases with every skin that you unlock because you never get duplicates.

> >

> > Massive difference there.

>

> Sir, is RNG for a reward involved at all. Yes? then the OP is correct.

 

Please read the article first before commenting. Thanks.

[Ashen.2907]

> @jdmThor.3806 said:

> Except, the mount adoption license is far from being what the loot boxes being discussed in the article are:

>

> 1. You get a maximum of 30 trials to get that one skin that you supposedly want.

> 2. You are guaranteed to get that skin within the 30 trials.

> 3. Your odds of getting that skin increases with every skin that you unlock because you never get duplicates.

>

> Massive difference there.

 

Agreed.

 

I still don't like it, but the fact that you are guaranteed to get the skin you want if you spend enough does make for a significant difference. The RNG effect here is not a matter of will you get the desired item, but rather of how much will you have to spend. Essentially the skins have a variable price tag.

[troops.8276]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @jdmThor.3806 said:

> > Except, the mount adoption license is far from being what the loot boxes being discussed in the article are:

> >

> > 1. You get a maximum of 30 trials to get that one skin that you supposedly want.

> > 2. You are guaranteed to get that skin within the 30 trials.

> > 3. Your odds of getting that skin increases with every skin that you unlock because you never get duplicates.

> >

> > Massive difference there.

>

> Agreed.

>

> I still don't like it, but the fact that you are guaranteed to get the skin you want if you spend enough does make for a significant difference. The RNG effect here is not a matter of will you get the desired item, but rather of how much will you have to spend. Essentially the skins have a variable price tag.

 

Dopamine triggers aren't concerned with the reward nor are they aware of a 1/30 chance with increasing chance per 'spin'. Its the "will I get it, will I get, will I get it" feeling that one would experience up too certainly the penultimate try and possibly even still on the final try due to any habitual, visual or auditory triggers present that help drive the whole thing.

 

The concern is that this is just a taste of what's to come, fuelled largely by moves in the industry. If that is the case then this cannot be viewed as if it's in isolation.

[DeadlySynz.3471]

Is it actually gambling though? Or is it more of a case of the actual skins being over-inflated with real money... I mean what would it cost to buy all 30 so you actually get all 30... $120?

 

Is $120 reasonable for 30 skins? I'd say absolutely not. Is one skin as desirable as the next? Subjective, but I'm fairly certain that nearly everybody would say all 30 are not as equally desirable as the next.

 

The fact that people are arguing/debating here whether this is actual gambling or not is actually conclusively proving this direction by Anet is a problem in itself. This is an MMORPG where cosmetic items are a large part of the journey. There is absolutely no positive action on the gamer's experience for the way Anet introduced it; this proves it was completely and utterly unnecessary. Anet could have either:

 

- Allowed the player to purchase the skin they choose separately for 400 gems (truth be told, they'd likely make far more money this way)

- Sell the skins in packs or bundles at a reduced price; like all 30 skins for the equivalent of say $80 instead of the $120 or so it costs now, or sell 15 of your choosing at a reduced price

 

Whether this direction is considered gambling or not is a moot point because it's wrong as it offers no positive experience to the player. Further to that, it's also a clear cut case of nickle & diming.

 

 

[Djinn.9245]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> > @jdmThor.3806 said:

> > Except, the mount adoption license is far from being what the loot boxes being discussed in the article are:

> >

> > 1. You get a maximum of 30 trials to get that one skin that you supposedly want.

> > 2. You are guaranteed to get that skin within the 30 trials.

> > 3. Your odds of getting that skin increases with every skin that you unlock because you never get duplicates.

> >

> > Massive difference there.

>

> Agreed.

>

> I still don't like it, but the fact that you are guaranteed to get the skin you want if you spend enough does make for a significant difference. The RNG effect here is not a matter of will you get the desired item, but rather of how much will you have to spend. Essentially the skins have a variable price tag.

 

If I only want one skin, it is a terrible ploy on Anet's part to potentially make me pay 9600 gems for it. And unlike many other skins, you can't sell them on the TP which forces people to either gamble or simply not get the skin. Very greedy method which I, for one, will not support. And this is another tick on my list of reasons to leave the game altogether. Once the list is long enough, that's it for me.

[Ashen.2907]

> @Djinn.9245 said:

> > @Ashen.2907 said:

> > > @jdmThor.3806 said:

> > > Except, the mount adoption license is far from being what the loot boxes being discussed in the article are:

> > >

> > > 1. You get a maximum of 30 trials to get that one skin that you supposedly want.

> > > 2. You are guaranteed to get that skin within the 30 trials.

> > > 3. Your odds of getting that skin increases with every skin that you unlock because you never get duplicates.

> > >

> > > Massive difference there.

> >

> > Agreed.

> >

> > I still don't like it, but the fact that you are guaranteed to get the skin you want if you spend enough does make for a significant difference. The RNG effect here is not a matter of will you get the desired item, but rather of how much will you have to spend. Essentially the skins have a variable price tag.

>

> If I only want one skin, it is a terrible ploy on Anet's part to potentially make me pay 9600 gems for it. And unlike many other skins, you can't sell them on the TP which forces people to either gamble or simply not get the skin. Very greedy method which I, for one, will not support. And this is another tick on my list of reasons to leave the game altogether. Once the list is long enough, that's it for me.

 

As I said, I dislike this sort of approach to monetization. I dont say hate because I reserve that word for things more important, to me, than video games. Even so this sort of thing is as close to that word as a game is likely ever to get. It wont push me out of the game for the simple fact that I dont care enough about mounts to have much interest in spending money on them. So, essentially, this doesnt affect me and I still enjoy the game, but...when your monetization is designed around exploiting your customers rather than attempting to provide value for their purchases, there is something wrong.

[Elyssandariel.2679]

> @"Rodney Gallowglass.2310" said:

> So, in my opinion, the real problem with"loot boxes" or pay to play rng is that it uses principles developed by a fellow named B.F. Skinner.

> (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner)

>

> These techniques user the way or brains are election to respond to rewards to manipulate you on a subconscious level to keep playing. You find these techniques in most modern games, especially MMOs, loot and shoot games and the like.

>

> http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/15510-Skinner-Boxes-and-How-Games-Use-Them

>

> These "Mount licenses" are just like micro Skinner boxes designed to suck the money or if your wallet. We'll see more of these, they're to profitable for them to do anything else. Just hope they suck to cosmetics and not actually power.

 

Fellow psychologist, I salute you! This is exactly like Skinner boxes. Push that lever as fast as you can, and the food (LOOT) will come out eventually. But how many times do you have to push the lever? One? Two? Five? Twenty? Skinner showed that if you make the food drops random, then the lever gets pushed down more, and faster, than if it was a continual, guaranteed thing. And THIS RIGHT HERE is what I was talking about when I was explaining in another thread that these games have been designed around stimulating the limbic system in your brain (reward center that floods you with dopamine). I cannot give this enough helpfuls.

[Djinn.9245]

> @Elyssandariel.2679 said:

> > @"Rodney Gallowglass.2310" said:

> > So, in my opinion, the real problem with"loot boxes" or pay to play rng is that it uses principles developed by a fellow named B.F. Skinner.

> > (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner)

> >

> > These techniques user the way or brains are election to respond to rewards to manipulate you on a subconscious level to keep playing. You find these techniques in most modern games, especially MMOs, loot and shoot games and the like.

> >

> > http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/columns/experienced-points/15510-Skinner-Boxes-and-How-Games-Use-Them

> >

> > These "Mount licenses" are just like micro Skinner boxes designed to suck the money or if your wallet. We'll see more of these, they're to profitable for them to do anything else. Just hope they suck to cosmetics and not actually power.

>

> Fellow psychologist, I salute you! This is exactly like Skinner boxes. Push that lever as fast as you can, and the food (LOOT) will come out eventually. But how many times do you have to push the lever? One? Two? Five? Twenty? Skinner showed that if you make the food drops random, then the lever gets pushed down more, and faster, than if it was a continual, guaranteed thing. And THIS RIGHT HERE is what I was talking about when I was explaining in another thread that these games have been designed around stimulating the limbic system in your brain (reward center that floods you with dopamine). I cannot give this enough helpfuls.

 

Yes, how underhanded of game developers to manipulate people by using their brain chemistry against them in order to make more money. Truly scummy.

[ImTasty.2163]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @Wanze.8410 said:

> > Either make sure that your underage kids are playing and spending money in online games in a responsible fashion or dont let them play online at all.

> >

> > And most importantly, be a role model to your kids in those regards as well and dont make cosmetic shinies in a video game such a big deal of your life.

>

> It's not about what the children are or are not doing, it's about what the children are *learning.* Whether a parent *allows* them to gamble in the game or not, if the kid is playing, and sees all these cool skins, and knows that the only way to get them is to gamble for them, then they learn that gambling is good, whether they're allowed to actively participate in it or not. It's like taking your kid onto the casino floor and letting them watch you play blackjack. The only way to not expose them to that is to not let them play GW2 at all.

>

>

 

This sounds like blaming a third party source for not teaching your kids the right thing instead of taking responsibility as a parent to teach your children right things. At some point, a child will be exposed to things like theft through things like news media or from their peers. There is no stopping that unless you just lock them away in a windowless room with no outside contact ever. The job of the parent is to teach their children how to handle those situations when exposed to it. If you are taking your child to a casino floor then you, as the parent, should explain the risks and dangers of gambling instead of relying on some company to do your job as a parent for you.

[inubasiri.8745]

> @DarcShriek.5829 said:

> > @Suinz.5968 said:

> > > @CharterforGw.3149 said:

> > > technically not gambling though, you always get something and it's never the same thing (ofcourse they might change this in the future)

> > > Doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it's not the same as gambling.

> > >

> > > However as a parent you should teach your childeren about such things, and make sure they can't just spend there money willy nilly on a game, you can't make Anet be responsible for how your childeren spend their money.

> > >

> > > Anet can make it more obivious when an item is based on RNG, in a way a child would understand they can get something they didn't want to get.

> > >

> > > edit: I have been corrected on the first part of my post, it is gambling, I got the definition wrong. it's a grey area when it comes to the laws for internet gambling

> >

> > You are paying real money for a chance to get something you want. That's literally the definition of gambling.

>

> 1.) Your not paying real money. Your using gems which have no legal value once purchased because you cannot sell them to anyone else.

> 2.) You're getting an unidentified skin, which is exactly what was advertised.

> 3.) All of these skins have the same market value.

> 4.) You lost no money.

> 5.) You gained no money.

> 6.) Therefore, you did not gamble.

 

You can statistically prove that 3.) is not right.

People will stop when they get the skins they want (unless they wanted all for completion's sake) or when they run out of funds. But it will still leave a statistical dent.

How:

- If all I want is skin X, and don't use the sale option (which rounds it up statistically, but still applies), then I will stop as soon as I get it.

- If skin X is more popular than skin Y, then people will put less funds in RNG for skin Y than skin X.

- While it's random when I stop (1-30), all people that only want skin X will stop at skin X and thus not all of them will have skin Y.

- You can now evaluate how much more skin X is driving overall RNG item sale compared to skin Y and thus its actual worth (market value, market potential, sales drive).

 

Other points stand, though.