Veprovina.4876 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Seriously, so many arguings about semantics. It's a gamble. ANet introduced gambling for mount skins. It really is that simple, and it really is gambling no matter how you choose to argue about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Wolfheart.7483 said: > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > > > @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, you do have some amount of control over what lessons are being learned here. Like, you can just as easily make it a positive learning experience for them if you really want, I don't believe that you can honestly claim that it's an inherently negative one. > > > > How old are you? 20s? 30s? 40s? You were not programmed to be exploited this way in your childhood years. You have self control. Currently the industry is teaching kids to enjoy gambling. To profit on it in the future. > > I collected sports trading cards when I was a kid in the 80's and early 90's. Opening booster packs of cards was always hit or miss whether I got something I wanted or not. It didn't teach me gambling was ok. My *parents* taught me gambling is a risk and if I do it then I better be prepared for the worst possible outcome. Can you trade unwanted mount skin for the one you want with other player, like you can with TCGs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haishao.6851 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @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. "you got a pretzel" https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20171031/308600/How_the_ESRB_is_Promoting_Childrens_Gambling.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanfearShadowflame.3189 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrubySzymek.1362 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @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. Your reasoning is exactly the hole gaming industry learned to use to implement gambling in games for children without any supervision or control from law enforcers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfheart.7483 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > @Wolfheart.7483 said: > > > @Kheldorn.5123 said: > > > > @Rashagar.8349 said: > > > > > @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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, you do have some amount of control over what lessons are being learned here. Like, you can just as easily make it a positive learning experience for them if you really want, I don't believe that you can honestly claim that it's an inherently negative one. > > > > > > How old are you? 20s? 30s? 40s? You were not programmed to be exploited this way in your childhood years. You have self control. Currently the industry is teaching kids to enjoy gambling. To profit on it in the future. > > > > I collected sports trading cards when I was a kid in the 80's and early 90's. Opening booster packs of cards was always hit or miss whether I got something I wanted or not. It didn't teach me gambling was ok. My *parents* taught me gambling is a risk and if I do it then I better be prepared for the worst possible outcome. > > Can you trade unwanted mount skin for the one you want with other player, like you can with TCGs? No part of my post specified that not being able to trade/sell unwanted skins was a good thing. This thread is about the nature of the gambling aspect. Your comment has no bearing on what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasa Devi.7958 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @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. 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: > > @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. 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. 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: > > @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. There talking about the legal definition of gambling, because this thread claims these purchases are gambling. The people making the claims that this is gambling are being refuted, yet for some reason, they don't want to listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarcShriek.5829 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Veprovina.4876 said: > Seriously, so many arguings about semantics. It's a gamble. ANet introduced gambling for mount skins. It really is that simple, and it really is gambling no matter how you choose to argue about it. It's not a gamble. Your purchasing a skin, you're getting a skin. 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: > > > @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. > > There talking about the legal definition of gambling, because this thread claims these purchases are gambling. The people making the claims that this is gambling are being refuted, yet for some reason, they don't want to listen. No one should be talking about the legal definition of gambling at this point. If you'd read the entire thread you'd find we've been talking about this layman's definition: "take risky action in the hope of a desired result" for a while now. 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: > > > > @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. > > > > There talking about the legal definition of gambling, because this thread claims these purchases are gambling. The people making the claims that this is gambling are being refuted, yet for some reason, they don't want to listen. > > No one should be talking about the legal definition of gambling at this point. If you'd read the entire thread you'd find we've been talking about this layman's definition: "take risky action in the hope of a desired result" for a while now. It's not a risky action. You're purchasing a skin, you're receiving a skin. There is no risk. You're either talking about gambling or you're not. If you're talking about gambling then its essential you use the proper definition or you're just making stuff up and you're not really talking about gambling. Which is really the point here. The whole issue of gambling is just a smokescreen. People are upset about how these skins are being sold. It's a horrible way to sell them, but it's not gambling. Don't use "It's gambling" to say why you hate it, call it what it is. You hate it because it's a crappy way to sell the skins. As someone that has made a living designing gambling devices for the last 12 years, it amazes me that anyone can call this gambling. Mathematically there is no risk. The Volatility Index of these transactions is 0.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veprovina.4876 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @DarcShriek.5829 said: > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > @DarcShriek.5829 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. > > > > > > There talking about the legal definition of gambling, because this thread claims these purchases are gambling. The people making the claims that this is gambling are being refuted, yet for some reason, they don't want to listen. > > > > No one should be talking about the legal definition of gambling at this point. If you'd read the entire thread you'd find we've been talking about this layman's definition: "take risky action in the hope of a desired result" for a while now. > > It's not a risky action. You're purchasing a skin, you're receiving a skin. There is no risk. Actually, no. You didn't factor in what the user wants. It's not just about "hey let's buy a skin", it's about "let's buy a *specific skin* because a user wants to buy a specific skin. It's more along the lines of: You want skin A, you purchase a **chance** to get skin A, you get skin C. Next time you still want skin A because skin C looks bad to you. You again purchase a **chance** to get skin A but at least you won't get skin C again because you already have ti, you get skin B. It's really not that difficult, but i see increasingly absurd arguments in defense of this practice ANet is going for. It's gambling, simple as that, and people are forced into it. 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: > > > > > @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. > > > > > > There talking about the legal definition of gambling, because this thread claims these purchases are gambling. The people making the claims that this is gambling are being refuted, yet for some reason, they don't want to listen. > > > > No one should be talking about the legal definition of gambling at this point. If you'd read the entire thread you'd find we've been talking about this layman's definition: "take risky action in the hope of a desired result" for a while now. > > It's not a risky action. You're purchasing a skin, you're receiving a skin. There is no risk. > You're either talking about gambling or you're not. If you're talking about gambling then its essential you use the proper definition or you're just making stuff up and you're not really talking about gambling. Current loot box works like this: You pay 400 for a ticket, the rewards may be one of 20+ things worth <400 or one of 5-6 things worth 400< Skins are put into one box but they have different value considering special effects they offer. And the amount of premium skins in the box is significantly lower to put players on disadvantage and make them buy more tickets. I hope USA and EU soon start regulating this kind of gambling because the only reason it works today is because it's not regulated so they can run away with providing lottery games without any control. 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: > You're either talking about gambling or you're not. If you're talking about gambling then its essential you use the proper definition or you're just making stuff up and you're not really talking about gambling. > > Which is really the point here. The whole issue of gambling is just a smokescreen. People are upset about how these skins are being sold. It's a horrible way to sell them, but it's not gambling. Don't use "It's gambling" to say why you hate it, call it what it is. You hate it because it's a crappy way to sell the skins. "Gambling" isn't a word with a single definition. "Take risky action in the hope of a desired result" is a definition from a reputable dictionary. 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: > > > @"Manasa Devi.7958" said: > > > > @DarcShriek.5829 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. > > > > > > > > There talking about the legal definition of gambling, because this thread claims these purchases are gambling. The people making the claims that this is gambling are being refuted, yet for some reason, they don't want to listen. > > > > > > No one should be talking about the legal definition of gambling at this point. If you'd read the entire thread you'd find we've been talking about this layman's definition: "take risky action in the hope of a desired result" for a while now. > > > > It's not a risky action. You're purchasing a skin, you're receiving a skin. There is no risk. > > You're either talking about gambling or you're not. If you're talking about gambling then its essential you use the proper definition or you're just making stuff up and you're not really talking about gambling. > > Current loot box works like this: > > You pay 400 for a ticket, the rewards may be one of 20+ things worth <400 or one of 5-6 things worth 400< > > Skins are put into one box but they have different value considering special effects they offer. And the amount of premium skins in the box is significantly lower to put players on disadvantage and make them buy more tickets. > > I hope USA and EU soon start regulating this kind of gambling because the only reason it works today is because it's not regulated so they can run away with providing lottery games without any control. The flaw in equating what value each skin has is that it is unique for each person. For example, you think many of the skins are worth less than 400 gems whereas I think all the basic mount skins are worth 400-500 gems and those with special effects/appearance are worth more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @"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. This. I am pretty sure that casinos would not be able to operate $1 slot machines in areas where gambling is illegal just by having an automatic payout of a penny gumball with each pull of the lever. If they could, they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanfearShadowflame.3189 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @Kheldorn.5123 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. > > Your reasoning is exactly the hole gaming industry learned to use to implement gambling in games for children without any supervision or control from law enforcers. My reasoning is simple logic, and it's been a thing since long before online games. As we are discussing _children_, they should be supervised. It is not the game industry's fault that parents no longer do their jobs. They are not there to hold the child's hand. They are not the child's babysitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanfearShadowflame.3189 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suinz.5968 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manasa Devi.7958 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @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. 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: > > > > @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. > > > > There talking about the legal definition of gambling, because this thread claims these purchases are gambling. The people making the claims that this is gambling are being refuted, yet for some reason, they don't want to listen. > > No one should be talking about the legal definition of gambling at this point. If you'd read the entire thread you'd find we've been talking about this layman's definition: "take risky action in the hope of a desired result" for a while now. It's not a risky action. You're purchasing a skin, you're receiving a skin. There is no risk.> @"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. 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. Your argument isn't helping to solve the problem. Let it go. 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: > > 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. 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: > > > 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LanfearShadowflame.3189 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 > @"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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts