Belgium says loot boxes are gambling, wants them banned in Europe

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> Then we should dismiss the whole "loot box" argument (because they aren't) and actually discuss solutions and compromises. That people still band wagon the loot box thing has diminished constructive feedback.

 

The mount licenses are a loot box. They are not the only loot box in the game, but they are one of the loot boxes, and the one that the most people have become bothered by. It is ok for people to be upset about these loot boxes and not have been upset by previous loot boxes. Again, people *can* pick and choose what things upset them.

 

> Like, asking the devs to introduce a couple of in game skin options through achievements wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

That might be nice, but that would not solve the problem. The thirty existing skins would still be locked in the loot boxes. "More free skins" is always nice, but the complaint is not "not *enough* free skins." The problem is *these* skins are locked behind gambling," and *that* is what needs to change.

 

>Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

 

No, it's trying to solve the problem.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> The mount licenses are a loot box. They are not the only loot box in the game, but they are one of the loot boxes, and the one that the most people have become bothered by. It is ok for people to be upset about these loot boxes and not have been upset by previous loot boxes. Again, people *can* pick and choose what things upset them.

 

And when you cherry pick (which is "pick and choose") and then argue from a moral perspective, you've defeated your own argument because cherry picking arguments is **immoral**.

 

> That might be nice, but that would not solve the problem. The thirty existing skins would still be locked in the loot boxes. "More free skins" is always nice, but the complaint is not "not *enough* free skins." The problem is *these* skins are locked behind gambling," and *that* is what needs to change.

 

Unwillingness to compromise. They've already said they do not wish to remove or change the current adoption lisences, thus it isn't a "problem" to be solved. Looking to the actual arguments about why the random skins are bad and finding solutions to those specific problems, is the logical and empathetic way to make change. Players criticized the inability to have 4 dye channels on a mount, so unique skin granting achievements for each mount would add alternatives to gem store bought skins.

 

> >Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

>

> No, it's trying to solve the problem.

 

Considering your solution is "give me what **I **want", yes, it is petty.

[ohericoseo.4316]

YES! Ban this shit. The whole fact that it is readily available to all ages playing the game, has a random outcome, and MAY cost real money is something that should not exist. If they want to make it so you can only buy loot boxes with currency gained ingame that can not be gained by converting gems into it ( like gold ) then I see no problem. You can't pick and choose with this kind of issue or you create allot of loopholes and company's will always cheat the rules. The fact is that you are able to get loot boxes with real life money even if that's not the only way is gambling. This needs to be clearly banned across all games, its a damn plague. In gw2 it is mainly cosmetic and gives no real pay to win element however as I said you either do it right across the board or not at all. Any flinching in such laws would just create loopholes. Company's can sell items for 100% chance of receiving what you bought with no random factor or not at all. It they want to have loot boxes then have them require ingame tokens that there is no way to gain from converting or using real life money. They can still make fine profit. The fact is that most people spend $15+ a month on cash shop stuff when it really could just be a subscription based game. The current crowd of gamer's is too focused on FTP and the result is spending more money per month on cash shops then you would on a subscription. Now we have a issue where we spend money with no guarantee we even get what we want. At least with subscriptions you knew what you got. Now we just get to gamble and hope we get it.... Why even try and support it? The biggest issue is allot of governments don't actually take it that seriously because most people 40+ which are the people that generally gold high ranking positions... don't play many video games if any. ( MOST.. not all )

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > The mount licenses are a loot box. They are not the only loot box in the game, but they are one of the loot boxes, and the one that the most people have become bothered by. It is ok for people to be upset about these loot boxes and not have been upset by previous loot boxes. Again, people *can* pick and choose what things upset them.

>

> And when you cherry pick (which is "pick and choose") and then argue from a moral perspective, you've defeated your own argument because cherry picking arguments is **immoral**.

 

No. If someone cherrypicks in the sense of "this is wrong, but this was ok," then that would be hypocritical. If instead someone makes the argument "that was wrong, but I didn't bother to discuss it at the time, this is wrong now and I'm choosing to talk about it now," then that is not hypocritical. *Neither* of those positions would be "immoral." Gambling is, however.

 

 

> > That might be nice, but that would not solve the problem. The thirty existing skins would still be locked in the loot boxes. "More free skins" is always nice, but the complaint is not "not *enough* free skins." The problem is *these* skins are locked behind gambling," and *that* is what needs to change.

>

> Unwillingness to compromise. They've already said they do not wish to remove or change the current adoption lisences, thus it isn't a "problem" to be solved. Looking to the actual arguments about why the random skins are bad and finding solutions to those specific problems, is the logical and empathetic way to make change.

 

Compromise is not always a valid solution. I am willing to compromise to a point, I doubt I'll get the best possible outcome from my own perspective, but I do have certain red lines. Those red lines are that 1. The existing thirty skins must be made available for individual purchase, and 2. the purchase price must be within reason, such that the combined purchase price for all of them should not exceed 150% the cost of buying out the Mount Licenses. (ideally it would be far lower).

 

They have said that they don't want to fix this. That does not mean that not fixing it should be considered a solution. Their stance on this is wrong, and pressure will be kept on them until they alter it.

 

>Players criticized the inability to have 4 dye channels on a mount, so unique skin granting achievements for each mount would add alternatives to gem store bought skins.

 

Again, that would be nice, that would be better than the current state of things, but it would not resolve the problem. What if the Jackal skin released in this way looked like the Warbeast, or like the Crowned Ancient? How would that resolve the issue for someone that wanted the doggo skin?

 

> > >Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

> >

> > No, it's trying to solve the problem.

>

> Considering your solution is "give me what **I **want", yes, it is petty.

 

No, again, it's solving the problem.

[CharterforGw.3149]

> @ThomasC.1056 said:

> On the french side of the Ardennes, the law is quite clear : any kind of lottery is baseline forbidden (with some cultural exceptions). The law states that a lottery is forbideen when the 4 following conditions are met :

> * It's offered to a public ;

> * There's hope for a gain ;

> * Random factor is involved ;

> * The operator asks for a fee, whatever kind it is (money or anything), and even if a refund is promised.

>

> [Here's the source](https://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf/Publications/Vie-pratique/Fiches-pratiques/Loterie). _French site, baguette speakers only._

>

> Obviously, loot boxes met the 4 criterias : public = gamers, gain = whatever is in it, random outcome, and fee asked (gems, eventhough they can be "no real money", in GW2 case). Legally, the fact that "it's only cosmetic" or "it's only in game" doesn't really matter in french law, just like for theft where it's the very same thing if one steals an egg or a beef.

> On the other hand, a precursor drop can't be considered a lottery because even if it's a random gain, there's no specific fee involved beyond the ISP costs and the game of course (which are excluded in the lottery definition).

>

> Now, I have no clue if French authorities opened an inquiry about the loot boxes topic. If someone knows, please share !

 

* There's hope for a gain ;

 

1. the hope stands for, hoping that you get something instead of nothing.

2. the hope stands for getting something meaningfull (not duplicate), with no chance of getting nothing.

 

if it's the second it would be legal in the case of the mount licenses.

if it's the first, it would be illegal to sell the mount licenses to french citizens.

 

Gamling has many different forms, but all make use of the same "mechanism" that is activated in your brain, that is the main problem in gambling if you ask me, especially looking at the increase of the gambling forms that are in childrens mobile apps. The youth is being exposed to micro transactions, it makes them more vunerable for the "lose everything you have" gambling in casino's.

 

I'm really glad more attention is being brought to the whole loot boxes gambling.

[Nemmar.8491]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > I bet, if this was a mini adoption license, you probably wouldn't give a crap but since it's something you want, you will over dramatize the issue until you get things your way.

> >

> > People are allowed to care about the things they care about and not care about things they don't care about. There's no obligation to care about all things equally, and it doesn't value anyone's positions.

> >

> >

>

> Then we should dismiss the whole "loot box" argument (because they aren't) and actually discuss solutions and compromises. That people still band wagon the loot box thing has diminished constructive feedback. Like, asking the devs to introduce a couple of in game skin options through achievements wouldn't be a bad idea. Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

 

Nothing is to be dismissed. Some here are letting their GW fan-ism get in the way of the discussion.

Loot boxes are gambling when you pay money for them. They are a problem for every game and every person. This isn't about your personal feelings.

This is the games industry, not the gambling industry. Publishers and developer's saw a chance to have unregulated gambling by simulating a casino. That is not OK and must be regulated just like any self destructing addiction.

[Zok.4956]

> @costepj.5120 said:

> Yay for Brexit! We won't have to put up with this Nanny State stuff for much longer.

 

Yay for Brexit! No more brits watering down the consumer protection laws in the EU. ;)

 

 

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> I bet, if this was a mini adoption license, you probably wouldn't give a crap but since it's something you want, you will over dramatize the issue until you get things your way.

>

I have been quite consistently complaining against RNG-style lootboxes in gemshop for a loooong time now. I also didn't even want mounts in this game, and would have been happier if they weren't introduced. So, you may consider that bet to be your loss.

 

Though you're right, i don't uselessly argue about things i do not care about, just for the sake of arguing. I don't think why anyone (except a forum troll) would want to do that however.

 

> @"Game of Bones.8975" said:

> When I enter a Fractal, technically I'm gambling that my squad will finish and I'll be rewarded with "X". There is no guarantee we'll be successful.

You don't pay real money to be able to run fractals. If that was a thing, you can bet people would have been complaining about it as well.

 

> @Bloodstealer.5978 said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > True, and yet without thousands of *rational* government regulations the world would be a nightmare to live in.

>

> One could argue that such regulation actually creates the nightmare or at best make the nightmare just that much worse for some.

_Rational_ regulation? Well, yeah, you could argue that, just as you could argue that the earth is flat. That wouldn't make either to be true however.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> Then we should dismiss the whole "loot box" argument (because they aren't) and actually discuss solutions and compromises. That people still band wagon the loot box thing has diminished constructive feedback. Like, asking the devs to introduce a couple of in game skin options through achievements wouldn't be a bad idea. Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

When gemshop lootboxes are the very specific thing people consider a problem, ignoring them wouldn't exactly help in faciliating the solution to that problem.

 

In short, if people think that the adoption licenses themselves are a problem, having them removed by anet on their own, or (if that won't happen) banned by law is not only not petty, it's the _only_ sensible solution. There can't be a compromise if the basis of it requires us to ignore the problem.

 

Anet saying they won't fix the problem doesn't make it any smaller. Quite the opposite.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > The mount licenses are a loot box. They are not the only loot box in the game, but they are one of the loot boxes, and the one that the most people have become bothered by. It is ok for people to be upset about these loot boxes and not have been upset by previous loot boxes. Again, people *can* pick and choose what things upset them.

> >

> > And when you cherry pick (which is "pick and choose") and then argue from a moral perspective, you've defeated your own argument because cherry picking arguments is **immoral**.

>

> No. If someone cherrypicks in the sense of "this is wrong, but this was ok," then that would be hypocritical. If instead someone makes the argument "that was wrong, but I didn't bother to discuss it at the time, this is wrong now and I'm choosing to talk about it now," then that is not hypocritical. *Neither* of those positions would be "immoral." Gambling is, however.

 

You're arguing from a moral standpoint (i.e. Gambling is bad, which it isn't, you just start from that standpoint). You've defeated your own argument. Not only is it not gambling, it isn't required or forced nor is it targeting a specific part of the audience. All of these moral standpoints fail *BECAUSE* you've cherry picked.

 

>I am willing to compromise to a point, I doubt I'll get the best possible outcome from my own perspective, but I do have certain red lines.

 

That's the entire point of a compromise.

 

Of course you won't get the best possible outcome. If you did, that would be pandering or surrendering. To compromise, you take the opposing side's perspective in mind when suggesting improvements to look more favorably for yourself. The best possible outcome from your perspective would be free mount skins for logging in, however that would be a full sacrifice on their part. You compromise so each side sacrifices something but still gets something out of it.

 

>Those red lines are that 1. The existing thirty skins must be made available for individual purchase, and 2. the purchase price must be within reason, such that the combined purchase price for all of them should not exceed 150% the cost of buying out the Mount Licenses. (ideally it would be far lower).

 

They've already expressed that they will not invalidate the purchases already made. Your line in the sand will not be fulfilled. Your only option is to remain dissatisfied or attempt to compromise.

 

> They have said that they don't want to fix this. That does not mean that not fixing it should be considered a solution. Their stance on this is wrong, and pressure will be kept on them until they alter it.

 

You know the saying "The customer is always right?"? People in sales know that is baloney. They say it so customers *feel* better about spending money. Only pander to the customer if it will cost you more money to retain your position. Just going to tell you now, you won't cost them more money if they keep these licenses the way they are.

 

 

 

[Leo G.4501]

> @Nemmar.8491 said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > I bet, if this was a mini adoption license, you probably wouldn't give a crap but since it's something you want, you will over dramatize the issue until you get things your way.

> > >

> > > People are allowed to care about the things they care about and not care about things they don't care about. There's no obligation to care about all things equally, and it doesn't value anyone's positions.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Then we should dismiss the whole "loot box" argument (because they aren't) and actually discuss solutions and compromises. That people still band wagon the loot box thing has diminished constructive feedback. Like, asking the devs to introduce a couple of in game skin options through achievements wouldn't be a bad idea. Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

>

> Nothing is to be dismissed. Some here are letting their GW fan-ism get in the way of the discussion.

> Loot boxes are gambling when you pay money for them. They are a problem for every game and every person. This isn't about your personal feelings.

> This is the games industry, not the gambling industry. Publishers and developer's saw a chance to have unregulated gambling by simulating a casino. That is not OK and must be regulated just like any self destructing addiction.

 

If you cannot see the clear difference between Casino gambling and a Grab-bag system with no profit capabilities on the consumer end, then you clearly do not know why gambling is regulated in the first place.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > Then we should dismiss the whole "loot box" argument (because they aren't) and actually discuss solutions and compromises. That people still band wagon the loot box thing has diminished constructive feedback. Like, asking the devs to introduce a couple of in game skin options through achievements wouldn't be a bad idea. Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

> When gemshop lootboxes are the very specific thing people consider a problem, ignoring them wouldn't exactly help in faciliating the solution to that problem.

>

> In short, if people think that the adoption licenses themselves are a problem, having them removed by anet on their own, or (if that won't happen) banned by law is not only not petty, it's the _only_ sensible solution. There can't be a compromise if the basis of it requires us to ignore the problem.

>

> Anet saying they won't fix the problem doesn't make it any smaller. Quite the opposite.

 

The licenses are a problem *for you*, likely because of your misconception of the licenses being "loot boxes" despite several clear and distinctive differences, or at the very least over-emphasizing the random feature while ignoring the other aspects of the licenses. So just because a minority have the viewpoint of this being problematic does not elicit a solution. Furthermore, the devs *have* offered a solution to your problem despite only a vocal minority argued for it. At this point, those of the position to ban the licenses do not want a solution, they want to be satisfied. The problem is, in a capitalistic society, equality of outcomes is not possible. Not everyone will be satisfied.

 

Now if we're going further and arguing against all "loot boxes", this is a game-industry wide consideration but even if this change spreads throughout the whole industry and internationally, the effects won't be felt for years from now.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> You're arguing from a moral standpoint (i.e. Gambling is bad, which it isn't, you just start from that standpoint). You've defeated your own argument. Not only is it not gambling, it isn't required or forced nor is it targeting a specific part of the audience. All of these moral standpoints fail *BECAUSE* you've cherry picked.

 

It *is* gambling, gambling *is* immoral (on the part of "the House," at least), it isn't required or forced but it IS detracting from the overall game experience that it's the only way to earn those skins. Something doesn't need to be "forced" for it to be wrong. And no, I've done nothing to compromise any of those positions.

 

> >I am willing to compromise to a point, I doubt I'll get the best possible outcome from my own perspective, but I do have certain red lines.

>

> That's the entire point of a compromise.

>

> Of course you won't get the best possible outcome. If you did, that would be pandering or surrendering. To compromise, you take the opposing side's perspective in mind when suggesting improvements to look more favorably for yourself. The best possible outcome from your perspective would be free mount skins for logging in, however that would be a full sacrifice on their part. You compromise so each side sacrifices something but still gets something out of it.

 

Yes. And as I've said, I am willing to compromise, I am willing to accept a solution that would achieve ANet's overall goals of gaining profits from these skins. I am not asking for or expecting an ideal outcome, but I do expect one better than what they've so far offered.

 

> >Those red lines are that 1. The existing thirty skins must be made available for individual purchase, and 2. the purchase price must be within reason, such that the combined purchase price for all of them should not exceed 150% the cost of buying out the Mount Licenses. (ideally it would be far lower).

>

> They've already expressed that they will not invalidate the purchases already made. Your line in the sand will not be fulfilled. Your only option is to remain dissatisfied or attempt to compromise.

 

And I've already expressed that this is not good enough. EA has done better than this. **E. . . A** I do expect them to do right by the people who already bought the skins, but that doesn't mean NEVER releasing the skins in an alternate method, it means giving those other players something of value in compensation. It's like when they allowed you to transmute Legendary Weapon skins onto other weapons, devaluing the accomplishments of those who'd made duplicate Legendaries in the interest of dual-wielding them. Just because players had done that, ANet did not hold that functionality hostage for all other players, they just gave the dual-wielding players a special Achievement to acknowledge that accomplishment.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Nemmar.8491 said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > I bet, if this was a mini adoption license, you probably wouldn't give a crap but since it's something you want, you will over dramatize the issue until you get things your way.

> > > >

> > > > People are allowed to care about the things they care about and not care about things they don't care about. There's no obligation to care about all things equally, and it doesn't value anyone's positions.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Then we should dismiss the whole "loot box" argument (because they aren't) and actually discuss solutions and compromises. That people still band wagon the loot box thing has diminished constructive feedback. Like, asking the devs to introduce a couple of in game skin options through achievements wouldn't be a bad idea. Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

> >

> > Nothing is to be dismissed. Some here are letting their GW fan-ism get in the way of the discussion.

> > Loot boxes are gambling when you pay money for them. They are a problem for every game and every person. This isn't about your personal feelings.

> > This is the games industry, not the gambling industry. Publishers and developer's saw a chance to have unregulated gambling by simulating a casino. That is not OK and must be regulated just like any self destructing addiction.

>

> If you cannot see the clear difference between Casino gambling and a Grab-bag system with no profit capabilities on the consumer end, then you clearly do not know why gambling is regulated in the first place.

 

If you cannot see the clear similarities between Casino gambling and a Grab-bag system with subjective value on the consumer end, then you clearly do not know why gambling is regulated in the first place.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> The licenses are a problem *for you*, likely because of your misconception of the licenses being "loot boxes" despite several clear and distinctive differences,

 

What, to you, makes these licenses not a "loot box?" Yes, they are not an *actual* "box," but neither is any videogame loot box, really, there is no actual physical box. The "loot box" is just any virtual container that when activated presents one or more random items. That container can take any shape, including an "adoption license." And yes, this particular loot box has a progressive unlocking mechanism, where your odds improve on each pull, but those odds still never drop below 50% until the very last pull in the set. It's a better mechanism than most, but that does not mean that it cannot be criticized.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> It *is* gambling, gambling *is* immoral (on the part of "the House," at least), it isn't required or forced but it IS detracting from the overall game experience that it's the only way to earn those skins. Something doesn't need to be "forced" for it to be wrong. And no, I've done nothing to compromise any of those positions.

 

It's not gambling.

 

But what objective points can you make for the notion that these licenses detract from your overall game experience?

 

>I do expect them to do right by the people who already bought the skins, but that doesn't mean NEVER releasing the skins in an alternate method, it means giving those other players something of value in compensation.

Don't really need to comment on the rest but this is the only part I can agree with you on. My hope is they will, but I wouldn't hold my breath for those to be released anytime soon. We'll have to wait and see but even if they do not, they will likely release *other* skins to purchase outside of adoption licenses.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @Nemmar.8491 said:

> > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > > > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > > > > I bet, if this was a mini adoption license, you probably wouldn't give a crap but since it's something you want, you will over dramatize the issue until you get things your way.

> > > > >

> > > > > People are allowed to care about the things they care about and not care about things they don't care about. There's no obligation to care about all things equally, and it doesn't value anyone's positions.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Then we should dismiss the whole "loot box" argument (because they aren't) and actually discuss solutions and compromises. That people still band wagon the loot box thing has diminished constructive feedback. Like, asking the devs to introduce a couple of in game skin options through achievements wouldn't be a bad idea. Trying to get adoption licenses banned is just petty.

> > >

> > > Nothing is to be dismissed. Some here are letting their GW fan-ism get in the way of the discussion.

> > > Loot boxes are gambling when you pay money for them. They are a problem for every game and every person. This isn't about your personal feelings.

> > > This is the games industry, not the gambling industry. Publishers and developer's saw a chance to have unregulated gambling by simulating a casino. That is not OK and must be regulated just like any self destructing addiction.

> >

> > If you cannot see the clear difference between Casino gambling and a Grab-bag system with no profit capabilities on the consumer end, then you clearly do not know why gambling is regulated in the first place.

>

> If you cannot see the clear similarities between Casino gambling and a Grab-bag system with subjective value on the consumer end, then you clearly do not know why gambling is regulated in the first place.

 

I do see the similarities. I can see the similarities in a rock and a shoe (they're both things that likely touch the ground often), but that does not mean they are the same thing.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > The licenses are a problem *for you*, likely because of your misconception of the licenses being "loot boxes" despite several clear and distinctive differences,

>

> What, to you, makes these licenses not a "loot box?"

 

Chances.

 

The difference between a grab-bag and a loot box is that the pool of items within loot boxes have chances of giving you different things and those pools are usually saturated by things you may not consider valuable (i.e. Overwatch lootboxes have common, rare, epic, etc pools and in the epic pool are emotes among other things yet those emotes could have 0 value to me). The licenses have no precalucated chances. The chance to get a specific skin is the same as any other skin. Even if you value a skin less than another skin, they all have the same objective value (unlike getting an epic skin vs an epic emote).

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> It's not gambling.

 

It is gambling.

 

> But what objective points can you make for the notion that these licenses detract from your overall game experience?

 

What objective points could *anyone* make for the notion that *anything* detracts from their overall game experience?

 

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > If you cannot see the clear similarities between Casino gambling and a Grab-bag system with subjective value on the consumer end, then you clearly do not know why gambling is regulated in the first place.

>

> I do see the similarities. I can see the similarities in a rock and a shoe (they're both things that likely touch the ground often), but that does not mean they are the same thing.

 

No two things with even minor differences are "the same thing." A pair of twins are not "the same thing." A game of Blackjack and a game of Poker are not "the same thing." Nobody is saying that the grab bags are *literally* identical to, say, a slot machine. The argument being put forth is that in terms of the *practical elements* of the two, they are similar enough to be treated similarly. Grab bags are not identical in every aspect to a slot machine, but they do exploit similar psychological mechanisms, they are similarly destructive to those they prey upon, and similar remedies are warranted for the betterment of this game.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @Ohoni.6057 said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > The licenses are a problem *for you*, likely because of your misconception of the licenses being "loot boxes" despite several clear and distinctive differences,

> >

> > What, to you, makes these licenses not a "loot box?"

>

> Chances.

>

> The difference between a grab-bag and a loot box is that the pool of items within loot boxes have chances of giving you different things and those pools are usually saturated by things you may not consider valuable (i.e. Overwatch lootboxes have common, rare, epic, etc pools and in the epic pool are emotes among other things yet those emotes could have 0 value to me). The licenses have no precalucated chances. The chance to get a specific skin is the same as any other skin. Even if you value a skin less than another skin, they all have the same objective value (unlike getting an epic skin vs an epic emote).

 

First, I don't believe that we know for a fact that all items in the mount box have equal odds, but I believe this to be true, as apparently do you, so we'll set that aside from the moment.

 

Second, yes, many loot boxes have a scaled rarity system, a "common," "rare," "super rare" system of some kind. *Many* do, it is not a *necessary* component of the definition. Think of loot boxes like "a card game." There are lots of card games with lots of different rules, some easier than others, some more fair than others, but they are all card games. There are many, many types of loot boxes out there, and the Mount License is one of them.

 

[Ashen.2907]

I dislike gamble boxes, but if there is a 100% chance of getting what you want then something is not gambling, its variable pricing.

[Ohoni.6057]

> @Ashen.2907 said:

> I dislike gamble boxes, but if there is a 100% chance of getting what you want then something is not gambling, its variable pricing.

 

Unless someone commits to spending $120 (more now), then it is gambling. The only way that this would not be gambling would be if the ONLY package ANet made available was the 30-license package. Because they made individual and 10-packs available, they were exploiting human nature to believe that ones' luck will be better than naked chance would dictate.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Ohoni.6057 said:

> What objective points could *anyone* make for the notion that *anything* detracts from their overall game experience?

 

Right, and notice how different your points would sound if you worded it slightly differently:

"It is gambling *to me*, gambling is immoral *to me* (on the part of "the House," at least), it isn't required or forced but it IS detracting from *MY* overall game experience..."

 

I can't really argue against that but at the same time, I can disagree with your points and express why. Even despite it cherry picking, it's not a hyperbole or dramatization of reality, it's just *your* reality. You're arguing from a subjective moral point of view therefore I am criticizing it as objectively as I can. Unless you can prove they specifically prey upon individuals and their vulnerabilities, you're arguing from a subjectively flawed point of view.

 

 

> Second, yes, many loot boxes have a scaled rarity system, a "common," "rare," "super rare" system of some kind. *Many* do, it is not a *necessary* component of the definition. Think of loot boxes like "a card game." There are lots of card games with lots of different rules, some easier than others, some more fair than others, but they are all card games. There are many, many types of loot boxes out there, and the Mount License is one of them.

>

 

But that is only one particular characteristic that differs licenses from loot boxes. Also the particular point about the value of what you receive (a random skin) always carries the same value as every other possibility. Only when you apply opinion (aesthetics) do the values subjectively change. Had the adoption licenses included mount emotes (3 for each mount), that is 15 more possible outcomes that do not match from a value standpoint with the other possibilities. This is why loot boxes can become prevalent, they are saturated in possibilties of unequal value.

 

Ignorable Anecedote: I remember when I went to Sunday school when I was a kid, we had this system throughout the class where if you answer questions or complete activities, you'd get tickets and at the end of class when your parents came to pick you up, you get to spend those tickets on prizes before you left. There were toys and coloring books worth multiple tickets but there was also the grab-bag worth 1 ticket and you'd pick a random piece of candy (usually if you didn't have enough tickets for a toy or you just liked candy). That is not gambling...and you could even get duplicate candies. Putting money on the table for it doesn't make it gambling either. Only when you spin it subjectively can you make this gambling. There is no risk involved with grab bags.

[Grim West.3194]

Loot boxes are gambling and since games are usually marketed to children, it's a problem.

 

There is a significant portion of humanity that has issues with gambling addiction.

 

Having said that, I think GW2's loot boxes are pretty tame. They are just for cosmetic items that are usually account bound.

[Astralporing.1957]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> It's not gambling.

It's a game of chance, in which real money need to be paid to participate. Which the "house" runs for profit.

Seriously, it _is_ gambling.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> So just because a minority have the viewpoint of this being problematic does not elicit a solution.

No, it doesn't, that's true. For that to happen the opinion of the minority needs to spread to either a lot of people, or the people in power. Both things are actually happening right now, if you haven't noticed (which is what pushed EA into admitting they made a mistake, by the way. They definitely didn't do that just because some "minority" was dissatisfied)

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> Furthermore, the devs *have* offered a solution to your problem despite only a vocal minority argued for it.

That "solution" was: "there's no problem and we will do nothing about it". That's no solution at all.

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> At this point, those of the position to ban the licenses do not want a solution, they want to be satisfied. The problem is, in a capitalistic society, equality of outcomes is not possible. Not everyone will be satisfied.

Banning the licenses _is_ a solution. And if Anet (or you) aren't going to be satisfied with it? I wouldn't lose a night's sleep over it. It's not like Anet (or you) cared for my satisfaction either, right?

 

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> Now if we're going further and arguing against all "loot boxes", this is a game-industry wide consideration but even if this change spreads throughout the whole industry and internationally, the effects won't be felt for years from now.

Then the sooner we start, the better.

 

 

[Ohoni.6057]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

>Right, and notice how different your points would sound if you worded it slightly differently:

>"It is gambling to me, gambling is immoral to me (on the part of "the House," at least), it isn't required or forced but it IS detracting from MY overall game experience..."

 

Well, ok, morality is subjective, but I think most agree that psychologically exploiting people into spending more than they would rationally spend is an immoral pratice. You can disagree, but you would be an outlier. As for whether it's gambling, it meets most definitions of the word, so while it ma not be gambling *to you,* it is gambling to the rest of the world, and you aren't allowed to apply your own meaning to words when in discussion with others.

 

> You're arguing from a subjective moral point of view therefore I am criticizing it as objectively as I can.

 

Your position is no more objective than mine, you're just arguing from the position of your own subjective interpretation.

 

>Unless you can prove they specifically prey upon individuals and their vulnerabilities, you're arguing from a subjectively flawed point of view.

 

There have been several studies that this is exactly what loot boxes are designed to do. Anyone in game development who is not aware of this is not deserving of their position.

 

>But that is only one particular characteristic that differs licenses from loot boxes. Also the particular point about the value of what you receive (a random skin) always carries the same value as every other possibility. Only when you apply opinion (aesthetics) do the values subjectively change. Had the adoption licenses included mount emotes (3 for each mount), that is 15 more possible outcomes that do not match from a value standpoint with the other possibilities. This is why loot boxes can become prevalent, they are saturated in possibilties of unequal value.

 

But again, the mount licenses fully qualify for the definition of a loot box.

 

> There were toys and coloring books worth multiple tickets but there was also the grab-bag worth 1 ticket and you'd pick a random piece of candy (usually if you didn't have enough tickets for a toy or you just liked candy). That is not gambling...and you could even get duplicate candies.

 

I hate to tell you, but yes, that was pretty much gambling. Fact, not opinion. That you were fine with it, that your teacher was fine with it, that your parents were fine with it, did not make it not gambling. The only thing that would limit its being gambling is that no money was involved on either end, it was direct labor for prize, but it was at least *simulated* gambling, it followed the basic ruleset of a gamble.

 

>There is no risk involved with grab bags.

 

Sure there is, if you wanted one type of prize, and got a different prize, then you lost. That is gambling. It would only not be gambling if you could look in and select the prize you wanted, or choose to hold on to your tickets if none of the prizes inside appealed to you.

[Leo G.4501]

> @Astralporing.1957 said:

> That "solution" was: "there's no problem and we will do nothing about it". That's no solution at all.

 

Incorrect. Their solution is, for future mount skins, they will not be in the adoption license format.

 

> Banning the licenses _is_ a solution. And if Anet (or you) aren't going to be satisfied with it? I wouldn't lose a night's sleep over it. It's not like Anet (or you) cared for my satisfaction either, right?

 

It's not my job to cater to your satisfaction. It isn't Anet's job to cater to you either. It's their job to put out a good product and turn a profit.