BLTC Chest complaint/suggestion

[Frozen.7245]

> @"Kaas.1304" said:

"I understand the chance to get rare stuff (cuz it's rare) is low. But it feels that uncommon is just as rare to me. Considering the amount of gems keys cost, they should make chances a bit better. By what I read, it takes, in general, 40 chests (for some more, for some less) to get the new exclusive skin (it's Uncommon)."

 

Ok, I agree on both of these points.

 

1st on the Uncommon feeling just as common as rare. I opened 54 chests over the last few days. I only got 4-5 uncommon or rare items. it also took me until the 48th chest to get the new dagger skin which was the thing I was trying for. And honestly if I didn't get the skin I would have had a total and complete melt down to the point to where I was considering just uninstalling so I wouldn't waste my money again.

 

And now to iterate one of my own points that goes with this:

 

The keys in the game are becoming a huge rip off lately. RL money for account bound items that we can't sell and most of us don't even want/use anyways. We used to get 3 items with the chance of a rare fourth. Now we get 2 items per chest that we have no chance of getting anything otherwise, so we're ultimately opening the chest for 2 items which we used to get three and the last couple mandatory items have been huge rip offs in my opinion. Because you can just farm a map for 30min and buy those keys, and the random loot chests which are in there now.... I have to admit 'WOULD' be a great thing if you got more than "1 chest" per key. Since they're **_based on magic find_** which that part makes me _happy_, is that magic find can help you get some good loot. Just not enough chances (again, my horrible RNG), so still getting useless stuff that I'm now way overpaying for.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"Roam.5208" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > It's not "wrong" to group them in such a way, but neither is it particularly helpful to us.

>

> Considering the push lately for transparency when it comes to lootbox stats, I would think it's definitely not a good thing. If we can't get rid of them altogether, then we should at least have a clear picture on what we're dealing with.

 

I have always been in favor of publishing drop rates, but ANet thinks things are more interesting if they leave it to us to figure it out. (This has been true in all 10+ years they've offered RNG drops.) Generally, I am very much against the removal of "lootboxes" — I think they are fun and they generate a good amount of revenue.

 

Plus I can't agree that it would do any good at all to have a clearer picture. There's oodles of evidence to show that people don't change their behavior because the odds of winning (or losing) are transparent. Rather, people are affected by the amount of the jackpot or other goodies. Case in point: the odds of winning state-run lotteries don't change and are very well publicized. The chance of winning big is essentially zero, and the expected results are typically about -50%, i.e. for each dollar (or euro) you spend, you'll get back 50 cents. And yet, when the jackpot increases, so do sales.

 

All RNG games are a tax on people who are bad at math, but... it's also a cheap thrill even for people good at math. It's fun to imagine what things would be like if you win big. And since the odds of getting lucky on a BL chest are far better than winning a multi-hundred-million dollar/euro jackpot, some people are just fine plunking down 50/month.

[Frozen.7245]

 

> I have always been in favor of publishing drop rates, but ANet thinks things are more interesting if they leave it to us to figure it out. (This has been true in all 10+ years they've offered RNG drops.) Generally, I am very much against the removal of "lootboxes" — I think they are fun and they generate a good amount of revenue.

 

I'm starting to favor this too. I'd rather just pay outright for the things I want. Then for a chance to get the things I want but get bombarded for junk that I'm unlikely to use.

 

[Roam.5208]

> @"Frozen.7245" said:

> I'm starting to favor this too. I'd rather just pay outright for the things I want. Then for a chance to get the things I want but get bombarded for junk that I'm unlikely to use.

 

 

I'd like to purchase outright as well, which would also generate tons of revenue. Consider the mount adoption licenses. The ones where you can pick are more expensive, but most people think that it's worth it for taking RNG out of the equation. They must be doing better than the original RNG-only package as well, considering those haven't made any sort of return to the gem store.

 

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

>Generally, I am very much against the removal of "lootboxes" — I think they are fun and they generate a good amount of revenue.

 

The push for transparency in lootboxes isn't limited to Guild Wars. Even companies like Blizzard have started publishing stats in places where it's regulated. And how "fun" they are doesn't really matter when it comes to the law. Gambling is proven to be bad for developing brains. More and more countries are deciding that lootboxes trigger the same reactions as gambling, a practice which is illegal for minors. Basically, if a game is going to have gambling, it needs to be age-restricted. Not all countries are agreeing on this, of course, but it seems to be a concept that is slowly taking hold.

 

Now _my_ opinion in terms of Guild Wars 2 is that there should at least be an additional non-RNG alternative for these sorts of things, like earning it through achievements. I'd rather work hard towards a sure goal than maybe or maybe not get something good by chance.

 

What irritates me most is that the thing I want specifically, the Vial of Liquid Aurillium, was a gemstore equivalent item in China. I'd be happy enough to just buy it as a gemstore item, priced at the usual price point for these sort of things. You could say "why not just trade gems for gold", but it would take over $200 to do that which is absurd.

 

This is all a bit off topic for something that's not technically in the Black Lion chests, but the direction the game is going in lately in terms of RNG kind of bothers me. It feels like a money grab with over-inflated values.

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"Roam.5208" said:

> > @"Frozen.7245" said:

> > I'm starting to favor this too. I'd rather just pay outright for the things I want. Then for a chance to get the things I want but get bombarded for junk that I'm unlikely to use.

>

>

> I'd like to purchase outright as well, which would also generate tons of revenue. Consider the mount adoption licenses. The ones where you can pick are more expensive, but most people think that it's worth it for taking RNG out of the equation. They must be doing better than the original RNG-only package as well, considering those haven't made any sort of return to the gem store.

>

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> >Generally, I am very much against the removal of "lootboxes" — I think they are fun and they generate a good amount of revenue.

>

> The push for transparency in lootboxes isn't limited to Guild Wars. Even companies like Blizzard have started publishing stats in places where it's regulated. And how "fun" they are doesn't really matter when it comes to the law. Gambling is proven to be bad for developing brains. More and more countries are deciding that lootboxes trigger the same reactions as gambling, a practice which is illegal for minors. Basically, if a game is going to have gambling, it needs to be age-restricted. Not all countries are agreeing on this, of course, but it seems to be a concept that is slowly taking hold.

>

> Now _my_ opinion in terms of Guild Wars 2 is that there should at least be an additional non-RNG alternative for these sorts of things, like earning it through achievements. I'd rather work hard towards a sure goal than maybe or maybe not get something good by chance.

>

> What irritates me most is that the thing I want specifically, the Vial of Liquid Aurillium, was a gemstore equivalent item in China. I'd be happy enough to just buy it as a gemstore item, priced at the usual price point for these sort of things. You could say "why not just trade gems for gold", but it would take over $200 to do that which is absurd.

>

> This is all a bit off topic for something that's not technically in the Black Lion chests, but the direction the game is going in lately in terms of RNG kind of bothers me. It feels like a money grab with over-inflated values.

 

Which further reinforces his point about why the psychology works the way it does. Both options are equally bad, but you still want the item enough that keep pursuing it, rather then simply moving on (which would be the smart thing to do). Instead, you're trying to manipulate the odds by coaxing a Dev reaction, and try get them to make it more favorable; an act which also has unfavorable odds of paying out, but has comparatively little upfront investment to execute. Its statistically a waste of time and effort, but the potential pay off is still big enough that you'll try anyway.

 

Think about it... if the non-RNG option had a lower perceived investment requirement, everyone would flock to it. Which is exactly what happened with Pre-Cursor crafting, which drove down the prices of expensive ones until they hit equilibrium with the material costs.

[Roam.5208]

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> > @"Roam.5208" said:

> > > @"Frozen.7245" said:

> > > I'm starting to favor this too. I'd rather just pay outright for the things I want. Then for a chance to get the things I want but get bombarded for junk that I'm unlikely to use.

> >

> >

> > I'd like to purchase outright as well, which would also generate tons of revenue. Consider the mount adoption licenses. The ones where you can pick are more expensive, but most people think that it's worth it for taking RNG out of the equation. They must be doing better than the original RNG-only package as well, considering those haven't made any sort of return to the gem store.

> >

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > >Generally, I am very much against the removal of "lootboxes" — I think they are fun and they generate a good amount of revenue.

> >

> > The push for transparency in lootboxes isn't limited to Guild Wars. Even companies like Blizzard have started publishing stats in places where it's regulated. And how "fun" they are doesn't really matter when it comes to the law. Gambling is proven to be bad for developing brains. More and more countries are deciding that lootboxes trigger the same reactions as gambling, a practice which is illegal for minors. Basically, if a game is going to have gambling, it needs to be age-restricted. Not all countries are agreeing on this, of course, but it seems to be a concept that is slowly taking hold.

> >

> > Now _my_ opinion in terms of Guild Wars 2 is that there should at least be an additional non-RNG alternative for these sorts of things, like earning it through achievements. I'd rather work hard towards a sure goal than maybe or maybe not get something good by chance.

> >

> > What irritates me most is that the thing I want specifically, the Vial of Liquid Aurillium, was a gemstore equivalent item in China. I'd be happy enough to just buy it as a gemstore item, priced at the usual price point for these sort of things. You could say "why not just trade gems for gold", but it would take over $200 to do that which is absurd.

> >

> > This is all a bit off topic for something that's not technically in the Black Lion chests, but the direction the game is going in lately in terms of RNG kind of bothers me. It feels like a money grab with over-inflated values.

>

> Which further reinforces his point about why the psychology works the way it does. Both options are equally bad, but you still want the item enough that keep pursuing it, rather then simply moving on (which would be the smart thing to do). Instead, you're trying to manipulate the odds by coaxing a Dev reaction, and try get them to make it more favorable; an act which also has unfavorable odds of paying out, but has comparatively little upfront investment to execute. Its statistically a waste of time and effort, but the potential pay off is still big enough that you'll try anyway.

>

> Think about it... if the non-RNG option had a lower perceived investment requirement, everyone would flock to it. Which is exactly what happened with Pre-Cursor crafting, which drove down the prices of expensive ones until they hit equilibrium with the material costs.

 

No? Not really? I gave the new chests a shot with the mats I had stored and then gave up. I didn't make this thread to coax anything, I didn't even make this thread at all. I was just weighing in my opinion on a discussion that was already happening. Other people are obviously having a problem with this as a whole, and I was giving my specific example. I highly doubt the devs are even reading. People can partake in a discussion without it being a waste of time.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

> @"otto.5684" said:

> > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > It is kind of the entire point of Lootbox Gambling sadly. The only way it could change would be entirely scrapping the chests in their entirety.

>

> Which they should. Gambling in video games should be illegal. Loot boxes primarily targets vulnerable people to benefit from their addiction tendencies.

 

This an MMO game my friend, "addictions" are what pay the bills. Describe the process of crafting a legendary weapon to a mental health professional - I'm sure they would have a lot to say about it lol

[otto.5684]

> @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> > @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> > funny... you accept RNG yet you complain about it

> >

> > you dont complain to the casino manager after losing all your money at the slot machine do you

>

> Depending on how much money you lost, you usually can. Its a psychological game most casinos run, and shares a lot of similarities to the PR games played by big corporations when it comes to public opinion. The best type of Con is the one where the Mark thinks they won. Guy loses 10 grand in your casino, that draws a lot of attention..... people might not wanna gamble there. But we'll make it up to you..... comp your room or upgrade you to a suite, free food, VIP tickets to a show and a day at the Spa for you and your lady friend. Costs them maybe $700, and you're still out $10k; but you walk out of there thinking you came out on top.

>

>

> > @"Exalted Quality.8534" said:

> > the one rule of gambling is

> > The

> > House

> > Always

> > Wins

>

> ^

> This guy gets it. > @"otto.5684" said:

> > > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > It is kind of the entire point of Lootbox Gambling sadly. The only way it could change would be entirely scrapping the chests in their entirety.

> >

> > Which they should. Gambling in video games should be illegal. Loot boxes primarily targets vulnerable people to benefit from their addiction tendencies.

>

> And the irony here is that if you've been playing games for the last 10 years, you've already been conditioned to favor that model. Constantly banging your head farming mobs and events, on the off chance you might get something valuable, while all the other crap you get has just enough value to placate you.

 

But there is a major difference, no real money is involved. You could argue that you can buy gems with gold. I also do not consider GW2 to be the biggest offender when it comes to loot boxes, but that does not put them in the clear.

 

There is a reason multiple authorities are investigating wither games with loot boxes should be rated as 21 years and up.

[Oglaf.1074]

> @"otto.5684" said:

> > @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> > > @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> > > funny... you accept RNG yet you complain about it

> > >

> > > you dont complain to the casino manager after losing all your money at the slot machine do you

> >

> > Depending on how much money you lost, you usually can. Its a psychological game most casinos run, and shares a lot of similarities to the PR games played by big corporations when it comes to public opinion. The best type of Con is the one where the Mark thinks they won. Guy loses 10 grand in your casino, that draws a lot of attention..... people might not wanna gamble there. But we'll make it up to you..... comp your room or upgrade you to a suite, free food, VIP tickets to a show and a day at the Spa for you and your lady friend. Costs them maybe $700, and you're still out $10k; but you walk out of there thinking you came out on top.

> >

> >

> > > @"Exalted Quality.8534" said:

> > > the one rule of gambling is

> > > The

> > > House

> > > Always

> > > Wins

> >

> > ^

> > This guy gets it. > @"otto.5684" said:

> > > > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > > It is kind of the entire point of Lootbox Gambling sadly. The only way it could change would be entirely scrapping the chests in their entirety.

> > >

> > > Which they should. Gambling in video games should be illegal. Loot boxes primarily targets vulnerable people to benefit from their addiction tendencies.

> >

> > And the irony here is that if you've been playing games for the last 10 years, you've already been conditioned to favor that model. Constantly banging your head farming mobs and events, on the off chance you might get something valuable, while all the other crap you get has just enough value to placate you.

>

> But there is a major difference, no real money is involved. You could argue that you can buy gems with gold. I also do not consider GW2 to be the biggest offender when it comes to loot boxes, but that does not put them in the clear.

>

> There is a reason multiple authorities are investigating wither games with loot boxes should be rated as 21 years and up.

 

I really hope they do everywhere. Then gaming companies will have to either lose a huge chunk/demographic of players/customers or keep the lootbox gambling in their games.

 

Seeing what choice Valve has made on the matter, I’m pretty sure it is a given what most will go with.

 

[crepuscular.9047]

> @"Roam.5208" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > It's not "wrong" to group them in such a way, but neither is it particularly helpful to us.

>

> Considering the push lately for transparency when it comes to lootbox stats, I would think it's definitely not a good thing. If we can't get rid of them altogether, then we should at least have a clear picture on what we're dealing with.

 

anyone have access to GW2's chinese servers?

apparently they introduced a law in 2017 made it mandatory for developers of video games that feature random loot boxes to reveal the odds of players receiving items.

 

lootbox is gambling, same as Magic the Gathering, Pokemon, Yugio and any other collector card, it's all technically gambling

the **social issue** at play here are

1. when real money comes into play, especially those have no alternatives, i.e. EA games and CS:GO keys can only be obtain through real money

2. Accessibility to the game; the age old question, why is a 6 year old playing Counter Strike and Duke Nukem ?

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"otto.5684" said:

> > @"starlinvf.1358" said:

> > > @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> > > funny... you accept RNG yet you complain about it

> > >

> > > you dont complain to the casino manager after losing all your money at the slot machine do you

> >

> > Depending on how much money you lost, you usually can. Its a psychological game most casinos run, and shares a lot of similarities to the PR games played by big corporations when it comes to public opinion. The best type of Con is the one where the Mark thinks they won. Guy loses 10 grand in your casino, that draws a lot of attention..... people might not wanna gamble there. But we'll make it up to you..... comp your room or upgrade you to a suite, free food, VIP tickets to a show and a day at the Spa for you and your lady friend. Costs them maybe $700, and you're still out $10k; but you walk out of there thinking you came out on top.

> >

> >

> > > @"Exalted Quality.8534" said:

> > > the one rule of gambling is

> > > The

> > > House

> > > Always

> > > Wins

> >

> > ^

> > This guy gets it. > @"otto.5684" said:

> > > > @"Oglaf.1074" said:

> > > > It is kind of the entire point of Lootbox Gambling sadly. The only way it could change would be entirely scrapping the chests in their entirety.

> > >

> > > Which they should. Gambling in video games should be illegal. Loot boxes primarily targets vulnerable people to benefit from their addiction tendencies.

> >

> > And the irony here is that if you've been playing games for the last 10 years, you've already been conditioned to favor that model. Constantly banging your head farming mobs and events, on the off chance you might get something valuable, while all the other crap you get has just enough value to placate you.

>

> But there is a major difference, no real money is involved. You could argue that you can buy gems with gold. I also do not consider GW2 to be the biggest offender when it comes to loot boxes, but that does not put them in the clear.

>

> There is a reason multiple authorities are investigating wither games with loot boxes should be rated as 21 years and up.

 

Thats because they haven't fully equated other aspects of game activities to $$$ the way players have been for as long as its been possible. Time and attention are commodities in modern society, bought, spent and stolen in much easier way then physical goods could ever hope. Being an abstract doesn't make it worth less..... not when we've also made information a commodity more valuable then physical goods. Experiences bought and sold, all having a huge impact in how our life works.

 

Its not secret laws have trouble grasping the world we live in now, as many were made in a time when everything was physical, and sharing information involved a lot of physical media. Is an item fit for the purpose it was sold? What happens if it changes for better or worse? You can steal a book, and its still a book. But if you copy a PDF without paying for it, are you stealing it? The original still exist. With that kind of mind set, laws have been trying to bridge the gap by equating $$$ value as being as good as a physical item; and tries to leverage the law around that.

 

Look up news articles in major non-game focused news outlets, and you'll find nearly every single one of them talks about how much $$$ in Ships were involved/lost. But rarely, if ever, hints at the fact that those Ships could had been (and usually are) gained entirely through time spent gathering and processing resources, measured in hundreds or even thousands of man hours. The average person doesn't comprehend value that way, and in most cases has trouble accurately equating effort as a derivative of time. "5 Hours to dig a hole" can mean different level of effort expended based on the method...... a hand shovel or a case of dynamite.

 

Yet any discussion with Players involving the accumulation of wealth in this game often boils down to Gold Per Hour, not $$$. And its from this derivative we compare against the value of activities we could be doing, and determine the level of efficiency for hours spent. The only other place we normally do that is a Job. Candy Crush has no loot boxes (at least last time I checked), but it wastes your time and effort with masterful precision, in an attempt to coax you to spend $$$ to make it easier to pass levels, and progress further into the game. Does this sound remotely familiar?

 

Data collected about people can be and is monetized with shockingly high pay out. But this method is indirect, and is subject to a wider market that a company can't have exclusive control over when it comes to the value of that data. Monetize directly, and you have more control over the system..... you just need to convince people to buy into it. Games used to work like products; you buy it, and use it until you or need a new one. Now they worked like Ecosystems, so they can collect money and control spending habits of consumers at every interaction. That exchange happens in $$$, and is a concept the laws can easily grasp..... which is why they are reacting to loot boxes, and not the equally crippling, often more dangerous aspect of how much time and attention those games are taking up. Remember all those South Koreans found dead from binge playing games to the point of starvation or loss of health?

[Zaklex.6308]

Sooner or later this is what will happen here in the U.S., Congress will be convinced by real $$$ that loot boxes are harmless for various reasons, someone will craft a bill that will basically state loot boxes are not gambling and therefore do not require regulation. Several other Congressman that also have been convinced by $$$ will sign on as co-sponsors, it will be discussed, a few amendments will be debated, added on, removed and the bill will pass through Congress and onto the Presidents desk where it will be signed into law without so much as a single headline on the evening news.

 

Also, no one cares about how much time and attention games take up, because it makes it simple for parents to not have to parent by plopping their children in front of the video console and letting them sit there and play video games all day long.

[Voltekka.2375]

I opened 75 chests. No lightning dagger, no super rare rewards (no fused weps), most rewards were absolute TRASH. Sad. I wish you would at least get that rare seasonal drop guaranteed after a specific number of chests...

[Mosh.9306]

well this kind of gambling is probably in breach of the Belgian law for it (https://www.gamingcommission.be/opencms/export/sites/default/jhksweb_nl/documents/onderzoeksrapport-loot-boxen-Engels-publicatie.pdf)

[Mosh.9306]

but I like it anyways ;)

[starlinvf.1358]

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> Sooner or later this is what will happen here in the U.S., Congress will be convinced by real $$$ that loot boxes are harmless for various reasons, someone will craft a bill that will basically state loot boxes are not gambling and therefore do not require regulation. Several other Congressman that also have been convinced by $$$ will sign on as co-sponsors, it will be discussed, a few amendments will be debated, added on, removed and the bill will pass through Congress and onto the Presidents desk where it will be signed into law without so much as a single headline on the evening news.

>

> Also, no one cares about how much time and attention games take up, because it makes it simple for parents to not have to parent by plopping their children in front of the video console and letting them sit there and play video games all day long.

 

You need to give Congress more credit then that. They're going to slip it into a bill related to trade agreement that changes the tariffs for imported napkins; something boring enough that no one would bother to read it, much less have the amendment removed. If they really wanted it, they slip it into a bill under the guise of regulating microtranscations with explicit focus on paying to advance progress. I not even going to describe how I think that can work, because they'd probably try it.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

Loot boxes are working as intended. When you ask yourself why the drop chances are not more favorable, try thinking about the _purpose_ for loot boxes to exist. Their purpose is to make the _population which consumes them in general_ pay more for the desirable virtual things they want than they would be willing to pay if the items were sold straight up.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> > @"Roam.5208" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > It's not "wrong" to group them in such a way, but neither is it particularly helpful to us.

> >

> > Considering the push lately for transparency when it comes to lootbox stats, I would think it's definitely not a good thing. If we can't get rid of them altogether, then we should at least have a clear picture on what we're dealing with.

>

> anyone have access to GW2's chinese servers?

> apparently they introduced a law in 2017 made it mandatory for developers of video games that feature random loot boxes to reveal the odds of players receiving items.

it's a moot point, because hardly anything about acquisition is the same in the KongZhong version of the game. In particular, drop rates will not be comparable.

 

> lootbox is gambling, same as Magic the Gathering, Pokemon, Yugio and any other collector card, it's all technically gambling

To be "technically gambling" depends entirely on the context. In this case, none of those are legally gambling, not according to _existing_ laws. And it's not all that helpful as an argument, because people use the word to mean different things.

 

 

> the **social issue** at play here are

No, it's not a social issue, except for those who think that games of chance are bad regardless of the context.

 

> 1. when real money comes into play, especially those have no alternatives, i.e. EA games and CS:GO keys can only be obtain through real money

In this game, there are many alternative ways to obtain keys, without real money.

 

> 2. Accessibility to the game; the age old question, why is a 6 year old playing Counter Strike and Duke Nukem ?

How is this relevant to Guild Wars 2?

 

[Mosh.9306]

> > lootbox is gambling, same as Magic the Gathering, Pokemon, Yugio and any other collector card, it's all technically gambling

> To be "technically gambling" depends entirely on the context. In this case, none of those are legally gambling, not according to _existing_ laws. And it's not all that helpful as an argument, because people use the word to mean different things.

 

It is according to Belgian law. Read my post above. The gaming commission looked into lootboxes in other games and decided its gambling.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"Mosh.9306" said:

> > > lootbox is gambling, same as Magic the Gathering, Pokemon, Yugio and any other collector card, it's all technically gambling

> > To be "technically gambling" depends entirely on the context. In this case, none of those are legally gambling, not according to _existing_ laws. And it's not all that helpful as an argument, because people use the word to mean different things.

>

> It is according to Belgian law. Read my post above. The gaming commission looked into lootboxes in other games and decided its gambling.

 

Who cares about Belgian law, this game is made in the United States and is made under the premise of U.S. law, so that's a moot point. If it was my company I'd just stop selling the game in countries that think loot boxes(especially those that have alternate means of acquiring other than RL$) are considered gambling. You don't ever lose, you might not get what you want, but you always gets something, that is the antithesis of gambling.

[Mosh.9306]

> @"Zaklex.6308" said:

> > @"Mosh.9306" said:

> > > > lootbox is gambling, same as Magic the Gathering, Pokemon, Yugio and any other collector card, it's all technically gambling

> > > To be "technically gambling" depends entirely on the context. In this case, none of those are legally gambling, not according to _existing_ laws. And it's not all that helpful as an argument, because people use the word to mean different things.

> >

> > It is according to Belgian law. Read my post above. The gaming commission looked into lootboxes in other games and decided its gambling.

>

> Who cares about Belgian law, this game is made in the United States and is made under the premise of U.S. law, so that's a moot point. If it was my company I'd just stop selling the game in countries that think loot boxes(especially those that have alternate means of acquiring other than RL$) are considered gambling. You don't ever lose, you might not get what you want, but you always gets something, that is the antithesis of gambling.

 

Let's wait and see what the rest of Europe does (btw Fb did alot of changes because they were convicted of a breach of the Belgian privacy law)

[Nuka Cola.8520]

I wish those BL chest rewards were actually available in the game. You know, getting items by playing the video game and earning them through gameplay? Hello?

 

Is standing in LA opening chests you spend $ on fun? Its like this game is conditioning their players into doing nothing but stand in LA and 1- play/manipulate TP 2- Gamble ectos 3- Spend $ and buy the whole Casino on the Gem store.

[Kaas.1304]

So many interesting points of view. Was very interesting to read. I am happy that I opened this discussion.

Ideally I also want Anet's point of view on this topic, because we are mainly talking on the issue within their game here (or if there is an issue).

 

Oh, how about this: don't do anything to Chests, but also Very Rarely add Items exclusive to Chests to regular Gemstore but put them at extra high price. This way, people who like gambling, can try and get those items cheaper through chests/statuettes. And people, who hate RNG or have horrible luck, like myself, can wait for longer and pay some extra gems but avoid chests all together. Add them to chests first, but in few month make them a very short term and extra price Gemstore Items, I am sure there will be a lot of people willing to buy it even with high price, because they know they might spend even more through chests. But if you think that your luck is good and you can get it faster through the chests/statuettes - go ahead.

I don't think this model will hurt anyone. Might even bring more money for Anet, by catering to a wider range of people.

[Kaas.1304]

> @"Nuka Cola.8520" said:

> I wish those BL chest rewards were actually available in the game. You know, getting items by playing the video game and earning them through gameplay? Hello?

 

I am sure there will be people arguing with you on topic of "available in game", by saying that it is the same, as when you buy gems with gold and it becomes an equivalent of "available in game". I will be faster then those people and say that I agree with you. And the difference is, that in game you have to do concrete "task" to get a concrete "reword". Like with legendarys(or even Raid rewards): it is a hard and long process, but you know what amazing, rare, cool item you will for sure get in return - so it makes sense. When with gambling you may waste time and gold, and time to get more gold, to get useless stuff, that you can't even sell most of the time, and may never actually use.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

> @"Kaas.1304" said:

> So many interesting points of view. Was very interesting to read. I am happy that I opened this discussion.

> Ideally I also want Anet's point of view on this topic, because we are mainly talking on the issue within their game here (or if there is an issue).

>

> Oh, how about this: don't do anything to Chests, but also Very Rarely add Items exclusive to Chests to regular Gemstore but put them at extra high price. This way, people who like gambling, can try and get those items cheaper through chests/statuettes. And people, who hate RNG or have horrible luck, like myself, can wait for longer and pay some extra gems but avoid chests all together. Add them to chests first, but in few month make them a very short term and extra price Gemstore Items, I am sure there will be a lot of people willing to buy it even with high price, because they know they might spend even more through chests. But if you think that your luck is good and you can get it faster through the chests/statuettes - go ahead.

> I don't think this model will hurt anyone. Might even bring more money for Anet, by catering to a wider range of people.

 

I think that's already covered by the Statuettes. The exclusive items show up, later, on the Statuette vendors; you can purchase enough Keys (the higher price mentioned above) and acquire the item that way (plus possibly get other items of interest).