Unavailable skins for Belgians

[Ok I Did It.2854]

> @"thehipone.6812" said:

> Yeah it kinda sucks, but the path is to complain to your politicians who passed the stupid laws. You can't really expect a private (and foreign) company to spend resources/incur costs and a loss to create a system to get around silly laws.

 

You know i understand what you are saying, but this is a growing concern across many countries, i can see other countries in the EU following suit with this, espically if it shows to work in Belgium, i get that Anet is not as bad as other companies, but its the other companies that are making it difficult for others, Anet should 100% be looking at a way to get around this in terms of even offering the items on the TP directly for gems, ( removing the RNG factor ) what would Anet do if all of the EU said no to loot boxes tomorrow, that is a massive chunk of $$ they would be losing out on.

[Biff.5312]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> This isn't online poker.

 

Whether it's equivalent is what's up for discussion. If you want to pretend that nobody spends unwisely to acquire these keys then that's your prerogative. It's also naive.

 

> And all marketing is ultimately a way of exploiting people.

 

lol - I guess you're a cynic. Marketing is supposed to be for the purpose of exchange - selling products that are of value in exchange for money. To say it's all exploitative is preposterous.

 

> If you make the claims, you have to back it up with data and research.

 

If this is so then we should all just clam up since no one here is an expert who's done research. What we do have access to, and what is understood to be the basis of these threads, is common sense and a basic knowledge of how things work in the world.

 

> In fact, I think it's a disservice to parents and gambling addicts to make it seem as if the government can provide sufficient protection. It's better to distinguish between different practices, treat them accordingly, and to leave some responsibility on the individual/family.

 

And yet, the government does regulate things that can lead compulsive/addictive personalities to become hooked. Again, to believe that nobody is hooked on these keys you'd have to pretty much believe that Anet is offering them despite no great profit being available. The very nature of the key sales is that it only makes sense if people are buying unwisely.

 

> There are other ways to address this, which take a nuanced approach. That's especially important when considering that these regulations affect _everyone_, while only a tiny fraction of people need special attention.

 

I'm not arguing that gambling should be regulated. I'm arguing that it IS regulated, and that this is gambling. Why should this form of gambling be excepted?

 

And I know - you guys always assert that it isn't gambling. The government in Belgium disagrees. As does anyone who isn't being disingenuous.

 

Or actually - let me put it this way: Take my argument simply as a refutation of what you said - that it isn't predatory because nobody needs the items available.

 

Also, re: the gambling question - interesting how nobody questions that ecto gambling or the card game at the casino (hello?) in the game are forms of gambling, even though you always get SOMETHING - and those don't involve spending money. Suddenly when it involves real money the word 'gambling' becomes very contentious and people pretend it means something other than what everyone uses it to mean.

[Leo G.4501]

Make the skin sellable on the tp so the player can profit off of the Belgians.

[zombyturtle.5980]

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"zombyturtle.5980" said:

> > Any cash box that has RNG unqiue rewards is predatory

> Except it's not predatory, because none of these items are _necessary_ to enjoy the game. They are entirely optional.

>

> I get that you don't like the practice, but it's no worse than a car company only selling the feature you really want in the model with 8 features you don't. It's hype and marketing.

>

> There are games that do have predatory loot boxes, that contain items you actually need to progress or keep playing. GW2 is not one of them.

>

 

It makes no difference if the item in the box is cosmetic or provides a competitive advantage. The psychological manipulation used to encourage consumers to buy more is exactly the same.

 

• variable ratio reinforcement schedules;

• game-play experience such as sensory feedback;

• entrapment and other mechanisms encouraging continued spending; and

• ready and constant availability.

 

While it was conclusive that loot boxes meet the psychological criteria for gambling, unless the contents can be monetised for real-world value, they do not meet the legal definition under Australian law.

- this is from the ECRC official government report of nov 2018

 

Games with cosmetic only boxes dont constituent gambling legally but the report found the psychological mechanisms used are identical to those used by gambling organisations. Therefore they are predatory and I would personally argue that what the legal definition states is less important than the psychological effect it has on people.

 

Regardless of whether you agree. Its a fact that many triple A publishers push out sub quality products, gutting the actual content in order to sell it in lootboxes. I am tired of this industry trend and would happily sacrifice all loot boxes to ensure we get at least half decent products for what we pay.

[anninke.7469]

I'm now even more confused than at the beginning. So far I understood (from various posts) that:

 

a) Lootboxes in games **ARE** gambling (and thus predatory, wrong...) because they have a **random drop,** no matter if there's something guaranteed and **no matter the actual real value** of such drop and regardless if the dropped item can acually be traded in any way. Because what matters is the **excitement leading to a risk of addiction and that comes even with no value items**.

It's bad to teach teens spending any kind of resources on this risky beahivour.

 

b) Kinder eggs (mystery packs and yes, the secret toys from cereals) **ARE NOT** lootboxes (and thus predatory...) because the **randomly dropped** items "have **no real value"** (really?) and regardless that they can be traded for other items as well as money (and quite good money, I do remember all the collector markets with those little "worthless pieces of plastic") and as for the eggs and cereals **they come with lots of sugar** (which seems to be important for some reason).

It's OK to teach kids to spend real money on those not-lootboxes and **enjoy the excitement that they might find desirable and maybe even sellable** items inside.

 

You know what? I might be totally stupid and misunderstandig but I still can't see any relevant difference.

It's not even me defending lootboxes, I dislike them quite a lot with my poor luck and all and if they're gone I'll be only glad. But I see this as a major inconsistency and a willing ignoration of common features of those things and it bothers me. Would video game lootboxes be alright if they came with chocolate?

 

And for the gambling-should-be-taxed... Well, wouldn't it be fun if all the shops had to pay casino taxes? I might be a malicious evil kitten here, but it'd sure amuse me as hell.

 

(Oh, and thanks for reacting, everyone who did :) )

[kharmin.7683]

> @"anninke.7469" said:

> And for the gambling-should-be-taxed... Well, wouldn't it be fun if all the shops had to pay casino taxes? I might be a malicious evil kitten here, but it'd sure amuse me as hell.

I believe it was Ronald Reagan who said that if you wanted something to stop, then tax it (paraphrasing here). People (naturally?) tend to shy away from things that cost them more money than the perceived value of the thing. Would there be less casinos if they were taxed? I'd think so -- I can't imagine $1 slot machines that actually cost more than $1 due to taxes would attract enough people. Then, of course, you'd still tax any winnings.

 

 

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"anninke.7469" said:

> I'm now even more confused than at the beginning. So far I understood (from various posts) that:

>

> a) Lootboxes in games **ARE** gambling (and thus predatory, wrong...) because they have a **random drop,** no matter if there's something guaranteed and **no matter the actual real value** of such drop and regardless if the dropped item can acually be traded in any way. Because what matters is the **excitement leading to a risk of addiction and that comes even with no value items**.

> It's bad to teach teens spending any kind of resources on this risky beahivour.

>

> b) Kinder eggs (mystery packs and yes, the secret toys from cereals) **ARE NOT** lootboxes (and thus predatory...) because the **randomly dropped** items "have **no real value"** (really?) and regardless that they can be traded for other items as well as money (and quite good money, I do remember all the collector markets with those little "worthless pieces of plastic") and as for the eggs and cereals **they come with lots of sugar** (which seems to be important for some reason).

> It's OK to teach kids to spend real money on those not-lootboxes and **enjoy the excitement that they might find desirable and maybe even sellable** items inside.

>

> You know what? I might be totally stupid and misunderstandig but I still can't see any relevant difference.

> It's not even me defending lootboxes, I dislike them quite a lot with my poor luck and all and if they're gone I'll be only glad. But I see this as a major inconsistency and a willing ignoration of common features of those things and it bothers me. Would video game lootboxes be alright if they came with chocolate?

>

> And for the gambling-should-be-taxed... Well, wouldn't it be fun if all the shops had to pay casino taxes? I might be a malicious evil kitten here, but it'd sure amuse me as hell.

>

> (Oh, and thanks for reacting, everyone who did :) )

 

What you've tapped into is a controversial issue with different people taking different sides. Some pro-loot-box posters believe that government regulation of business is bad; others believe that developers need to make money and this justifies the practice; still others like loot box systems; and still others believe that people ought to learn self-control. All of us (maybe almost all) posting on every side of the issue are amateurs. This means that there are going to be inconsistencies not only across posters, but sometimes in the internal logic (or lack thereof) in a given post.

 

The best thing you can do is to decide for yourself where you stand on loot boxes (and Kinder eggs). This may mean making decisions as to where you stand on regulation and deregulation, consumers v. business, and other issues. You could also choose to ignore the issue -- which is what a lot of people do.

[Biff.5312]

> @"anninke.7469" said:

> You know what? I might be totally stupid and misunderstandig but I still can't see any relevant difference.

 

Nobody buys a Kinder Egg for the 'prize'. They buy it for the chocolate. Equating this to a loot box is like equating a Cracker Jack box or a cereal box to one. The 'prize' is just a 'bonus', but is not principally what is being purchased, and never has value greater than the cost of the egg.

 

Loot boxes have no value EXCEPT for the potential of value within them, which is hit-or-miss. You don't always get a chocolate treat when you buy a loot box. Sometimes you get jack shit. And it's the hope of something more valuable than the cost that incentivizes people to buy them. This sort of (unrealistic) incentive preys upon a certain type of personality which is prone to gambling addiction.

 

Loot boxes are (by design) likely to result in a net loss for the purchaser. The more you buy, the more the odds are stacked against you. Eventually the house always wins. There's no equivalent dynamic in the sale of Kinder Eggs.

 

 

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I'm not sure people only purchase Kinder Eggs for the chocolate. Just like they don't/didn't purchase baseball trading cards for the gum.

If you've never had children, you might think it's the chocolate they want; it's not, it's the prize they covet. (Can purchase a Hershey bar for much less.)

[hugo.4705]

Yeah kinder surprise, pokemon cards, happy meal toy, lootboxes in games.... all of that is the same thing, RNG or let's say random reward container. Mount licences as example, should have never existed; It should have been only one item. A mount skin selector. For 400 gems you select the skin you want, and yes some will purchase more than one due to the cool skins...

 

And in same time you have 2000 gems skins which are a scam because the real worth is 400 gems. Not the price of an xpac, a thing that possess way more goodies compared to a simple mount skin. Even bl chest is a scam, whereas I agree you can farm keys, what are the chances of getting good loot?

Anyway. At least I least the rarity should be set prperly, so seeing more rare/uncommon dropping, not only useless blues (mystic forge stones as example can be removed). Really hard to get key if not creating a new character each week... yeah also completion but why? 75% of time the reward doesn't worth anything, the worst is when they are exclusive skins locked in it: chainsaw sword.... exalted shoulder pads and now the ether bagpack...

[derd.6413]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> I'm not sure people only purchase Kinder Eggs for the chocolate. Just like they don't/didn't purchase baseball trading cards for the gum.

 

that's a false equation my dude

 

the toy in kinder surprises (or happy meals or cereal)is there to incentivise ppl to buy the candy (or cereal or fastfood) while with baseball trading cards the gum is the incentive to buy the cards and not the otherway around.

[Glider.5792]

> @"hugo.4705" said:

> And in same time you have 2000 gems skins which are a scam because the real worth is 400 gems.

Im not saying they are worth 2000 gems, but, the also definetly aint worth only 400gems. The 2000 gem ones actualy have a different model (with some possible extra effects), not just a different pattern/effect over the base skin. It all comes down to the amount of effort there was put into making the skin, and the 2000 ones definetly needed alot more than 400 ones.

[derd.6413]

> @"Glider.5792" said:

> > @"hugo.4705" said:

> > And in same time you have 2000 gems skins which are a scam because the real worth is 400 gems. Not the price of an xpac, a thing that possess way more goodies

>

> Im not saying they are worth 2000 gems, but, the also definetly aint worth only 400gems. The 2000 gem ones actualy have a different model (with some possible extra effects), not just a different pattern/effect over the base skin. It all comes down to the amount of effort there was put into making the skin, and the 2000 ones definetly needed alot more than 400 ones.

 

i would like to add that it's entirely possible to pay for those skin in gold (even just partially) which will be accounted for in the price.

[mercury ranique.2170]

There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

 

So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

[derd.6413]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

>

> So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

 

there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> > 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> > 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

> >

> > So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

>

> there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

 

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> > 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> > 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

> >

> > So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

>

> there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

 

True, but, children can buy a lot of things that is unhealthy for them. In many countries, banks deny children to buy things online without consent of their parents (as you need to have their permission to actually use a digital payment method). But you are correct, and it is an element of the moral involved.

[derd.6413]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> > > 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> > > 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

> > >

> > > So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

> >

> > there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

>

> True, but, children can buy a lot of things that is unhealthy for them. In many countries, banks deny children to buy things online without consent of their parents (as you need to have their permission to actually use a digital payment method). But you are correct, and it is an element of the moral involved.

 

it's less about weather it's healthy but rather if it's exploitative.

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> > > > 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> > > > 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

> > > >

> > > > So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

> > >

> > > there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

> >

> > True, but, children can buy a lot of things that is unhealthy for them. In many countries, banks deny children to buy things online without consent of their parents (as you need to have their permission to actually use a digital payment method). But you are correct, and it is an element of the moral involved.

>

> it's less about weather it's healthy but rather if it's exploitative.

 

Not really. An exploit in itself is not a bad thing . It is the effect it has. There is someone who is happy with an exploit, and someone who suffers from it. The amount of suffering it causes is important when making a moral judgement, so health (also mental health) is important, not just wether or not it is exploitative.

 

People react here from a moral ground that needs to be defended. It is very human to have a moral opinion without knowing every detail in and out (it just feels wrong or right), but when debating such a moral and discussing who's moral is better (if that is actually a thing), it often circulates around these details. I'm not saying another persons moral is better or lesser then mine, but try to stick to what is really the subject instead of revolving around semantics.

[hugo.4705]

> @"Glider.5792" said:

> > @"hugo.4705" said:

> > And in same time you have 2000 gems skins which are a scam because the real worth is 400 gems.

> Im not saying they are worth 2000 gems, but, the also definetly aint worth only 400gems. The 2000 gem ones actualy have a different model (with some possible extra effects), not just a different pattern/effect over the base skin. It all comes down to the amount of effort there was put into making the skin, and the 2000 ones definetly needed alot more than 400 ones.

 

Yup gonna agree about that, 800 seems to be a good price, I'm thinking that 1000 will repel potential buyers.

[derd.6413]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> > > > > 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> > > > > 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

> > > > >

> > > > > So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

> > > >

> > > > there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

> > >

> > > True, but, children can buy a lot of things that is unhealthy for them. In many countries, banks deny children to buy things online without consent of their parents (as you need to have their permission to actually use a digital payment method). But you are correct, and it is an element of the moral involved.

> >

> > it's less about weather it's healthy but rather if it's exploitative.

>

> Not really. An exploit in itself is not a bad thing . It is the effect it has. There is someone who is happy with an exploit, and someone who suffers from it. The amount of suffering it causes is important when making a moral judgement, so health (also mental health) is important, not just wether or not it is exploitative.

>

> People react here from a moral ground that needs to be defended. It is very human to have a moral opinion without knowing every detail in and out (it just feels wrong or right), but when debating such a moral and discussing who's moral is better (if that is actually a thing), it often circulates around these details. I'm not saying another persons moral is better or lesser then mine, but try to stick to what is really the subject instead of revolving around semantics.

 

this isn't about morals tho. it's about whether video game companies where selling "gambling products" to children and if said products should fall under gambling regulations.

[Tiny Doom.4380]

The Kinder Egg and the Black Lion Chest are similar but not identical. The Kinder Egg, being edible, falls under food regulations and has an intrinsic value as "food". It also contains only one non-food item, which is randomized. The BLC, apart, obviously, from having no physical existence, is not edible (not even within the terms of the game) and has a larger range of randomized contents.

 

If ANEt made and sold a physical, chocolate version of the BLC it would be a Kinder Egg, where "Kinder Egg" is a generic. If Kinder sold a virtual version of their Egg it would be a BLC, where BLC is a generic.

 

There are quite a lot of objects and activities that follow the descriptive of "gambling" that we do not usually class as "gambling". Language is like that. The law isn't. At any time Kinder Eggs could be included within the terms of legislation. It would only require will on the part of legislators. I certainly wouldn't rule it out but it's probably not high on anyone's list right now.

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > > There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> > > > > > 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> > > > > > 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

> > > > >

> > > > > there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

> > > >

> > > > True, but, children can buy a lot of things that is unhealthy for them. In many countries, banks deny children to buy things online without consent of their parents (as you need to have their permission to actually use a digital payment method). But you are correct, and it is an element of the moral involved.

> > >

> > > it's less about weather it's healthy but rather if it's exploitative.

> >

> > Not really. An exploit in itself is not a bad thing . It is the effect it has. There is someone who is happy with an exploit, and someone who suffers from it. The amount of suffering it causes is important when making a moral judgement, so health (also mental health) is important, not just wether or not it is exploitative.

> >

> > People react here from a moral ground that needs to be defended. It is very human to have a moral opinion without knowing every detail in and out (it just feels wrong or right), but when debating such a moral and discussing who's moral is better (if that is actually a thing), it often circulates around these details. I'm not saying another persons moral is better or lesser then mine, but try to stick to what is really the subject instead of revolving around semantics.

>

> this isn't about morals tho. it's about whether video game companies where selling "gambling products" to children and if said products should fall under gambling regulations.

 

And as explained it is all about morals. The definition of gambling differs per country and state, the laws wether or not that is legal or illegal differ per country and state, and those laws and definitions are based on the morals of those elected to write those laws (and should reflect that of the citizens).

 

I think it would be much wiser to discuss the morals behind it, cause local laws judging an international community is a bad thing to start with.

[derd.6413]

> @"Tiny Doom.4380" said:

> The Kinder Egg and the Black Lion Chest are similar but not identical. The Kinder Egg, being edible, falls under food regulations and has an intrinsic value as "food". It also contains only one non-food item, which is randomized. The BLC, apart, obviously, from having no physical existence, is not edible (not even within the terms of the game) and has a larger range of randomized contents.

>

> If ANEt made and sold a physical, chocolate version of the BLC it would be a Kinder Egg, where "Kinder Egg" is a generic. If Kinder sold a virtual version of their Egg it would be a BLC, where BLC is a generic.

>

> There are quite a lot of objects and activities that follow the descriptive of "gambling" that we do not usually class as "gambling". Language is like that. The law isn't. At any time Kinder Eggs could be included within the terms of legislation. It would only require will on the part of legislators. I certainly wouldn't rule it out but it's probably not high on anyone's list right now.

 

no, actually. kinder surprises (and other such food products) have guide lines they need to follow. (iirc the food item needs to be more valuable then the price and the price can't exceed a max value among a few others.)

[derd.6413]

> @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > > > There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> > > > > > > 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> > > > > > > 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

> > > > >

> > > > > True, but, children can buy a lot of things that is unhealthy for them. In many countries, banks deny children to buy things online without consent of their parents (as you need to have their permission to actually use a digital payment method). But you are correct, and it is an element of the moral involved.

> > > >

> > > > it's less about weather it's healthy but rather if it's exploitative.

> > >

> > > Not really. An exploit in itself is not a bad thing . It is the effect it has. There is someone who is happy with an exploit, and someone who suffers from it. The amount of suffering it causes is important when making a moral judgement, so health (also mental health) is important, not just wether or not it is exploitative.

> > >

> > > People react here from a moral ground that needs to be defended. It is very human to have a moral opinion without knowing every detail in and out (it just feels wrong or right), but when debating such a moral and discussing who's moral is better (if that is actually a thing), it often circulates around these details. I'm not saying another persons moral is better or lesser then mine, but try to stick to what is really the subject instead of revolving around semantics.

> >

> > this isn't about morals tho. it's about whether video game companies where selling "gambling products" to children and if said products should fall under gambling regulations.

>

> And as explained it is all about morals. The definition of gambling differs per country and state, the laws wether or not that is legal or illegal differ per country and state, and those laws and definitions are based on the morals of those elected to write those laws (and should reflect that of the citizens).

>

> I think it would be much wiser to discuss the morals behind it, cause local laws judging an international community is a bad thing to start with.

 

it's pointless to argue morals because morals are subjective and discussions about subjective things lead nowhere.

[mercury ranique.2170]

> @"derd.6413" said:

> > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > > > @"derd.6413" said:

> > > > > > > > @"mercury ranique.2170" said:

> > > > > > > > There are lootboxes and lootboxes, they come in various shapes and sizes and disguises. Much of the discussion is about the category lootboxes (thinking and assuming all lootboxes are bad). But not all are bad. A better angle would be to define gambling, now there are two viewpoints.

> > > > > > > > 1: Gambling according to the law, this differs per country (and sometimes per state). So it is not easy to get a solid definition out of it. In my country, it would be described as a situation where you gamble with something that holds a real value, with a change of recieving something that holds a higher or lower value, based on luck. If you look at lootboxes, the GW2 lootboxes are ok. Non of the items inside hold any real value, as they are untradable. In other games, it is different as they are tradable for a real value.

> > > > > > > > 2: Gambling from a moral point of view. Let's take the example of the Kinder-egg. Although the items inside do not hold a real value, I do see that they are designed to hold personal value. I can buy a package of three eggs, with e.g. smurfs advertised on them. One of the three eggs actually contains a smurf and it is the smurf, my 7 year old is after. So he wants to open as many as needed to obtain the smurf. The same goes for lootboxes in GW2. They do not hold a real solid value, but they might hold a personal value for the person opening them. This can be considered wrong, but I also am teaching my kid that you should only open one egg at a time, as you still need to eat all the chocolate and get hell if you don't eat your supper.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > So it is on this. Moral says that lootboxes can have a negative effect, but also says that people should be able to constrict themselfs from buying more then they can afford. It is in essence a debate about wether or not people should have imposed morals where everyone is protected from lootboxes, or it is someones personal moral to decide how many they open. An important element here is also the social pressure. I am personal for a more liberal system where people can have their personal moral without having an imposed one forced upon them. But I also see the delicacy of the different sides.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > there's one issue with that assessment which is that children also buy microtransactions (and thus lootboxes) which does complicate the matter

> > > > > >

> > > > > > True, but, children can buy a lot of things that is unhealthy for them. In many countries, banks deny children to buy things online without consent of their parents (as you need to have their permission to actually use a digital payment method). But you are correct, and it is an element of the moral involved.

> > > > >

> > > > > it's less about weather it's healthy but rather if it's exploitative.

> > > >

> > > > Not really. An exploit in itself is not a bad thing . It is the effect it has. There is someone who is happy with an exploit, and someone who suffers from it. The amount of suffering it causes is important when making a moral judgement, so health (also mental health) is important, not just wether or not it is exploitative.

> > > >

> > > > People react here from a moral ground that needs to be defended. It is very human to have a moral opinion without knowing every detail in and out (it just feels wrong or right), but when debating such a moral and discussing who's moral is better (if that is actually a thing), it often circulates around these details. I'm not saying another persons moral is better or lesser then mine, but try to stick to what is really the subject instead of revolving around semantics.

> > >

> > > this isn't about morals tho. it's about whether video game companies where selling "gambling products" to children and if said products should fall under gambling regulations.

> >

> > And as explained it is all about morals. The definition of gambling differs per country and state, the laws wether or not that is legal or illegal differ per country and state, and those laws and definitions are based on the morals of those elected to write those laws (and should reflect that of the citizens).

> >

> > I think it would be much wiser to discuss the morals behind it, cause local laws judging an international community is a bad thing to start with.

>

> it's pointless to argue morals because morals are subjective and discussions about subjective things lead nowhere.

 

I agree and dissagree. You are correct about morals being subjective, but morals also decide what is good or bad. For example, GW2 has many rules about exploiting, RMT-gold selling, faul language, naming policies, etc. They all are about morals, being imposed on us by Arenanet (although we did agree with them when we clicked I agree on installing the game and creating the account). But before Arenanet upholds most of them, they want the person who is offended to report the person who is offensive. This is cause the rules exist cause of the subjective morals. Politics and lawmaking evolves around just that. Making subjective morals into objective laws. But when it comes to the subject of anything in an online game, it is an issue that this is done on a local base, while we are an international community of gamers. So discussing morals (not arguing), helps a lot in the debate, and hopefuly also for Arenanet how to act in the current debate.