Will Black Lion Chests be forbidden in the USA?

[Ayrilana.1396]

Sure. Remove keys from the gem store and have all black lion weapon skins available separately for 2K gems a piece.

[Einlanzer.1627]

> @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > @"VDAC.2137" said:

> > > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > > [A U.S. Senator has introduced a bill to ban loot boxes and "pay-to-win" microtransactions](https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-introduces-bill-to-ban-loot-boxes-and-pay-1834612226).

> > >

> > > While the "pay-to-win" ban probably wouldn't have any impact on Guild Wars 2, the Black Lion Chests are loot boxes, so they would be forbidden if this bill passes.

> > >

> > > What do you think will happen?

> >

> > Ugh, I really hope this bill is shot down, not as much for the BLCs as for the principle of it. I am sick of the encroachment of the nanny state, always infringing on our rights while hiding behind “it’s for the children” or whatever. :angry:

>

> Yeah, laws and governments exist only to deprive us of our freedom. It's not like anything bad would happen if noone was trying to enforce nice behaviour on us. And even if it would, it is our personal choice to act as nice or bad as we want, with no consequences, and noone should be able to tell us otherwise.

>

> > @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > > @"Aaralyna.3104" said:

> > > What will happen is that you cannot purchase keys for them in gem store nor can buy packages containing these or rng packages inside these. Basically what they did in game to Belgium last year. Which has a ban on lootboxes law. And yes it was for children but they took it out for the whole country.

> >

> > Parents are responsible for their children, not government. Even the worst, laziest and incompetent parents can do a better job protecting their child than a government official.

>

> Yeah, why do we even need police for. Let parents protect their families, they will surely do a far better job at it.

>

> ...yeah, i'm being sarcastic if somebody didn't notice.

>

> Honestly, i don't think that this bill will pass. Not this time, anyway. Still, it's not the first attempt, and they keep happening more and more often, so i am certain that eventually some restrictions will get through. And if by that time the game businesses won't start to regulate themselves, i fully expect those restrictions to be unreasonably strict.

 

Yeah, we have a problem in this country of certain media outlets indoctrinating the population into thinking government is all bad as if it's not solely responsible for all the safety, health, and fair labor privileges we enjoy in the 21st century as well as being responsible for creating the internet and innovations in all kinds of industries through the military, space program, etc.

 

Not very bright really.

[Balthazzarr.1349]

This isn't even April 1st. I read through this wide eyed... lol... if this isn't a troll thread of some sort then someone somewhere down there seriously needs to find new work.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"trixantea.1230" said:

> The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

 

Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

[IndigoSundown.5419]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

>

> everything is gambling, even buying food. You might not like it, it might not be as you expected, you might be allergic to it. Therefore maybe we should just ban all the foods that don't sit well with you personally. Thats the same thing you're saying.

 

No, it's not the same. You cannot walk into any supermarket I've been in and buy a chance to get the food you came for. There may be a "gamble" inherent in trying a food you've never eaten, but that's not the same as laying down money because you want a kilo of hamburger and getting 20 milligrams of suet instead.

 

> @"mauried.5608" said:

> If lootboxes are removed, Anet will have to make up the lost revenue somehow.

> How would you suggest they do that?

 

See, this question points to the elephant in the room.

 

Loot boxes are designed with one purpose in mind -- to get players to spend more money for the ultra-rare "desired" loot box drop than those same players would be willing to pay if the item were priced at whatever the "average" expected cash outlay is likely to be. That some players find anticipation "fun" is a sideshow. People can try to dispute this if they want. However, the answer to the question, "Why does a business do anything"" is usually, "Money." Add that to the fact that between gambler's fallacy and sunk-cost fallacy, we _know_ that the loot-box tactic does exactly what I've described. Given those two facts, I find it impossible to believe that game developers are not milking the heck out of the loot box cow.

 

So, the question really is, "Can developers make good games that will support themselves while avoiding tactics designed to milk the maximum money out of players?" A decade ago, the answer was a resounding, "Yes." Lately, it seems like the answer is increasingly becoming, "No." _Games-as-a-service_ is becoming a euphemism for, "Put out a piece-of-crap bare-bones game and then monetize the heck out of it." When I look at the trend in the gaming industry, the picture looks increasingly bleak. To tie that into GW2, how many times do we see complaints that LS episodes provide 'an hour's new content' every 3-5 months. Sure, LS is _not_ what's monetized (except for new adopters). It does keep people around (barely, if the forums are right) to spend on micro-transactions.

 

So, to answer Mauried's question, ANet would have to find some other means to monetize the game. This might mean more high-priced bundles and skins. It might mean more frequent XPac's. It might mean replacing free LS with paid DLC. The question at that point becomes, "Would people pay, or not?" Surely, given the HoT-is-not-worth-it backlash, there is a real risk that many would not.

 

What I often wonder is, "If it costs so much more to make games these days, why don't developers just charge more for the games?" Is it because they think people would not pay? Or, is it because developers are moving toward a higher-profit model wherein they produce bare-minimum games and use tactics (like loot-boxes, or leaving stuff out of games and selling it soon after release), to obtain profit. Make a piece-of-kitten game saves on development costs, nickel-and-dime the consumer to make the most revenue. As long as consumers don't demand more, that's what we're likely to get.

 

As a consumer, I recognize that businesses are out to make money. However, I greatly preferred a time when businesses who provided value and entertainment got rewarded with consumer dollars. What I see more and more of these days is companies producing garbage because consumers still reward them for doing so -- although the Fallout 76 and Anthem situations may impact that. GW2 is certainly better than a lot of games in that regard, but could it provide more value-for money? Maybe, maybe not. It's hard for me to imagine it providing less value-for-money for me, but that's a different thread.

[trixantea.1230]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

>

> Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

 

Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

 

 

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> So, the question really is, "Can developers make good games that will support themselves while avoiding tactics designed to milk the maximum money out of players?" A decade ago, the answer was a resounding, "Yes." Lately, it seems like the answer is increasingly becoming, "No."

 

A decade ago, games required a subscription or at least those with new content actively being added which weren’t expansions.

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> >

> > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

>

> Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

>

>

 

Oh so you mean like all of capitalism

[VDAC.2137]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > @"VDAC.2137" said:

> > > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > > [A U.S. Senator has introduced a bill to ban loot boxes and "pay-to-win" microtransactions](https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-introduces-bill-to-ban-loot-boxes-and-pay-1834612226).

> > >

> > > While the "pay-to-win" ban probably wouldn't have any impact on Guild Wars 2, the Black Lion Chests are loot boxes, so they would be forbidden if this bill passes.

> > >

> > > What do you think will happen?

> >

> > Ugh, I really hope this bill is shot down, not as much for the BLCs as for the principle of it. I am sick of the encroachment of the nanny state, always infringing on our rights while hiding behind “it’s for the children” or whatever. :angry:

>

> You may think you're a freethinking, rational adult, but you aren't. That's something Americans are indoctrinated into thinking. In reality, humans are easily manipulated through their dopamine-driven impulses and then rationalize their behavior after the fact. That's why Stockholm Syndrome exists.

>

> In short - we aren't rational. We're rationalizing.

 

So the answer is to have the state protect us from ourselves and those who would prey on us poor helpless creatures? We could have a wild like Orwell’s “1984” and everyone is monitored to make sure they exercise, etc., all for their own good, of course. Even if the state were a completely benevolent rational entity, I would find such a notion abhorrent. But what does the state consist of? More of these irrational but rationalizing beings who are themselves driven by whatever need for power, money, sex, adulation or whatever drove them to seek positions of power in the first place.

[trixantea.1230]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> > >

> > > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

> >

> > Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> > By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> > I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

> >

> >

>

> Oh so you mean like all of capitalism

 

Try to take a deep breath and think about what you just said. Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic :/

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

 

> What I often wonder is, "If it costs so much more to make games these days, why don't developers just charge more for the games?" Is it because they think people would not pay? Or, is it because developers are moving toward a higher-profit model wherein they produce bare-minimum games and use tactics (like loot-boxes, or leaving stuff out of games and selling it soon after release), to obtain profit. Make a piece-of-kitten game saves on development costs, nickel-and-dime the consumer to make the most revenue. As long as consumers don't demand more, that's what we're likely to get.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you wrote but I just wanted to add to the point about charging more for games. It's not like the 60$ + expansions model doesn't work anymore. There are devs, even AAA, who still follow it and have massive success with it, CD Project Red for example. It is perfectly sustainable but most AAA studios are being practically ran by shareholders at this point. And those people (who often have nothing to do with gaming) won't settle for _just_ making money, they want _all_ the money. Take Blizzard and WoW for example. That game, being the genre leader it is, was perfectly sustainable with its sub + paid xpacs model for many years. But when Blizzard realized the golden goose that is MtX they added a cash store on top. It's not a matter of sustainability anymore but pure greed instead, although that's not exclusive to the gaming industry.

 

 

[Angoril.2179]

> @"IndigoSundown.5419" said:

> What I often wonder is, "If it costs so much more to make games these days, why don't developers just charge more for the games?" Is it because they think people would not pay? Or, is it because developers are moving toward a higher-profit model wherein they produce bare-minimum games and use tactics (like loot-boxes, or leaving stuff out of games and selling it soon after release), to obtain profit.

 

This is an argument that has been going back and forth for many years now with both sides having sound arguments. Personally, I am in the camp that doesn't support a price increase. The companies that are usually after such things are the ones that always make the news about their bad practices, EA, Ubisoft etc. A few years ago, one could argue that you can't have a high quality game without spending too much to make it and support it but then... The Witcher 3 happened. CD Projekt RED if anything, has proven that you don't need to follow frowned upon methods, like overly expensive DLCs, microtransactions, aggressive DRMs in order to have a successful game that sells millions of copies, you just need to have a good game.

 

The problem with the industry today, the way I see it at least, is that there are too many involved that have nothing to do with gaming. They just see money and they want to make more. Games that were created with passion always stand out of the crowd for all the right reasons and they always sell. Those that are created just to have the loyal fanbase open their wallets again though...

[Jumpin Lumpix.6108]

> @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> > > >

> > > > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

> > >

> > > Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> > > By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> > > I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Oh so you mean like all of capitalism

>

> Try to take a deep breath and think about what you just said. Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic :/

 

yes it does money goes in. There's no guarantee of any return or what you expect. This is true of all of life. You're deluding yourself if you think there is no risk in any of these processes or that they are not all gambles. Nothing in life is guaranteed and life isn't fair or the same.

[Ensign.2189]

> @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said:

> None of the Euro laws, like the Belgian one, or suggested bills like this, are calling for a blanket ban on lootboxes. They are calling for adherence to existing gambling regulations.

 

Belgian gambling regulations may have started as consumer protections, but regulators have been co-opted and largely act to serve the interests of casinos. The regulations in question are designed to be unreasonable to comply with and are a ban in practice.

[Hesione.9412]

> @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > @"castlemanic.3198" said:

> > Real money randomized reward systems (including ecto gambling because of the gems to gold exchange) should be removed on the basis that children can see it and can be affected by it, whether under parental supervision or not. they are manipulative practices on the whole. GW2 has a ton of things on the gem store and shouldn't be affected majorly by their removal (or adjustment on the mount skin licenses). Alcohol and gambling is already legally legislated to prevent children having access to them, and any game marketed as being playable by anyone under the age of 18 should not have loot boxes or pay to win mechanics. If you want pay to win mechanics or loot boxes you should make your game 18+. Kind of as simple as that. Keep it entirely out of the games that are marketed towards anyone below the age of 18.

>

> Ectogambling doesn't need to be removed. Currency Exchange is the thing that needs to be removed. The Ectogambling itself is relative to the game, the currency exchange is not since it causes a form of pay to win scenario.

 

Currency exchange is not gambling, plus it enables people to purchase items ingame without spending real money. If the gems-to-gold currency exchange goes, then gold-to-gems will also disappear (because there is no offset). That will mean that everything in the store will need to be purchased directly with real money.

 

I don't believe that most gemstore items bought with purchased gems are BLC keys.

 

Additionally, how is currency exchange pay-to-win?

[trixantea.1230]

> @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> > > > >

> > > > > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

> > > >

> > > > Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> > > > By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> > > > I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Oh so you mean like all of capitalism

> >

> > Try to take a deep breath and think about what you just said. Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic :/

>

> yes it does money goes in. There's no guarantee of any return or what you expect. This is true of all of life. You're deluding yourself if you think there is no risk in any of these processes or that they are not all gambles. Nothing in life is guaranteed and life isn't fair or the same.

 

As a healthy natural state for human beings, people need to work in order to provide a specific service/product and recieve the equivalent value of money. It's true that sometimes commerce involves taking risks but if you lose your money you can either blame "fate" or blame yourself for your poor management. No one else is to blame here.

 

This case is different, gaming companies offer players a gamble by selling them loot boxes which contains random items with let's say 1% to 100% of its money's value and a chance of 1% to get 500% of your money's worth and a 0.001% chance to get the ingame marchendise you'd like to buy. If a player wants to get an item worth 10$, he will have to buy 100 5$ lootboxes in order to get it.

 

This dishonest behavior from these companies aims to milk players by selling them Items they don't need and in many cases players will recive worthless items compared to what they payed for. Gambling companies work almost the same way but with different currencies, rewards and chances.

 

And I'll say it again: Capitalism has nothing to do with the subject.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"Einlanzer.1627" said:

> > @"VDAC.2137" said:

> > > @"Erasculio.2914" said:

> > > [A U.S. Senator has introduced a bill to ban loot boxes and "pay-to-win" microtransactions](https://kotaku.com/u-s-senator-introduces-bill-to-ban-loot-boxes-and-pay-1834612226).

> > >

> > > While the "pay-to-win" ban probably wouldn't have any impact on Guild Wars 2, the Black Lion Chests are loot boxes, so they would be forbidden if this bill passes.

> > >

> > > What do you think will happen?

> >

> > Ugh, I really hope this bill is shot down, not as much for the BLCs as for the principle of it. I am sick of the encroachment of the nanny state, always infringing on our rights while hiding behind “it’s for the children” or whatever. :angry:

>

> Blah blah blah.

>

> You must not understand that some things actually need regulation to curb exploitation and the proliferation of bigger problems. That's how we have reasonable labor standards in the 21st century, although we really need to do some catching up with Europe.

>

> You may think you're a freethinking, rational adult, but you aren't. That's something Americans are indoctrinated into thinking. In reality, humans are easily manipulated through their dopamine-driven impulses and then rationalize their behavior after the fact. That's why Stockholm Syndrome exists.

>

> In short - we aren't rational. We're rationalizing.

 

You are right there are good times for regulation, labor is one. But we have been removing them about things like clean water. I think I would prefer they go back to regulating water purity over regulating an issue where a consumer is unhappy they choose to buy an item that might contain junk knowingly. Not even to mention regulation of pharmaceutical companies that buy patents and then increase prices by a thousand fold. These things are not in the same league here. But without reading what they are proposing it seems already like they should be spending time on bigger issues.

 

I also am not sure this would apply here anyway since you can acquire the same item without ever spending any real money by in game conversion.

 

 

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

> > > > >

> > > > > Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> > > > > By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> > > > > I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Oh so you mean like all of capitalism

> > >

> > > Try to take a deep breath and think about what you just said. Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic :/

> >

> > yes it does money goes in. There's no guarantee of any return or what you expect. This is true of all of life. You're deluding yourself if you think there is no risk in any of these processes or that they are not all gambles. Nothing in life is guaranteed and life isn't fair or the same.

>

> As a healthy natural state for human beings, people need to work in order to provide a specific service/product and recieve the equivalent value of money. It's true that sometimes commerce involves taking risks but if you lose your money you can either blame "fate" or blame yourself for your poor management. No one else is to blame here.

>

> This case is different, gaming companies offer players a gamble by selling them loot boxes which contains random items with let's say 1% to 100% of its money's value and a chance of 1% to get 500% of your money's worth and a 0.001% chance to get the ingame marchendise you'd like to buy. If a player wants to get an item worth 10$, he will have to buy 100 5$ lootboxes in order to get it.

>

> This dishonest behavior from these companies aims to milk players by selling them Items they don't need and in many cases players will recive worthless items compared to what they payed for. Gambling companies work almost the same way but with different currencies, rewards and chances.

>

> And I'll say it again: Capitalism has nothing to do with the subject.

 

It’s a bit disingenuous to call it ‘dishonest’ because you dislike it.

[trixantea.1230]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> > > > > > By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> > > > > > I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Oh so you mean like all of capitalism

> > > >

> > > > Try to take a deep breath and think about what you just said. Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic :/

> > >

> > > yes it does money goes in. There's no guarantee of any return or what you expect. This is true of all of life. You're deluding yourself if you think there is no risk in any of these processes or that they are not all gambles. Nothing in life is guaranteed and life isn't fair or the same.

> >

> > As a healthy natural state for human beings, people need to work in order to provide a specific service/product and recieve the equivalent value of money. It's true that sometimes commerce involves taking risks but if you lose your money you can either blame "fate" or blame yourself for your poor management. No one else is to blame here.

> >

> > This case is different, gaming companies offer players a gamble by selling them loot boxes which contains random items with let's say 1% to 100% of its money's value and a chance of 1% to get 500% of your money's worth and a 0.001% chance to get the ingame marchendise you'd like to buy. If a player wants to get an item worth 10$, he will have to buy 100 5$ lootboxes in order to get it.

> >

> > This dishonest behavior from these companies aims to milk players by selling them Items they don't need and in many cases players will recive worthless items compared to what they payed for. Gambling companies work almost the same way but with different currencies, rewards and chances.

> >

> > And I'll say it again: Capitalism has nothing to do with the subject.

>

> It’s a bit disingenuous to call it ‘dishonest’ because you dislike it.

 

Can you elaborate on that? Because I made a very clear and logical argument here.

[ChronoPinoyX.7923]

> @"Hesione.9412" said:

> > @"ChronoPinoyX.7923" said:

> > > @"castlemanic.3198" said:

> > > Real money randomized reward systems (including ecto gambling because of the gems to gold exchange) should be removed on the basis that children can see it and can be affected by it, whether under parental supervision or not. they are manipulative practices on the whole. GW2 has a ton of things on the gem store and shouldn't be affected majorly by their removal (or adjustment on the mount skin licenses). Alcohol and gambling is already legally legislated to prevent children having access to them, and any game marketed as being playable by anyone under the age of 18 should not have loot boxes or pay to win mechanics. If you want pay to win mechanics or loot boxes you should make your game 18+. Kind of as simple as that. Keep it entirely out of the games that are marketed towards anyone below the age of 18.

> >

> > Ectogambling doesn't need to be removed. Currency Exchange is the thing that needs to be removed. The Ectogambling itself is relative to the game, the currency exchange is not since it causes a form of pay to win scenario.

>

> Currency exchange is not gambling, plus it enables people to purchase items ingame without spending real money. If the gems-to-gold currency exchange goes, then gold-to-gems will also disappear (because there is no offset). That will mean that everything in the store will need to be purchased directly with real money.

>

> I don't believe that most gemstore items bought with purchased gems are BLC keys.

>

> Additionally, how is currency exchange pay-to-win?

 

I literally addressed this after this particular quote.

 

>Honestly, even I don't agree with my statement. And the only other plausible solution with currency exchange to prevent something like what I stated is if you can convert gold to gems, but not gems to gold.

 

>I'm just throwing potential work around right now, I have little knowledge on the current economy on the game to warrant a full statement on this.

 

It would only be considered pay to win to some extent because the gold needed to buy items in game can be just as easily gained by converting the cash shop currency into in-game currency which in turn can be used to purchase goods that advances one's stats in game.

 

The currency exchange being one sided, as I stated above, isn't fool proof. Though it doesn't necessarily need an offset unless the exchange for Gems to Gold remains but not Gold to Gems (which is where a really heavy Pay to Win concept becomes obvious). Hard to explain but what it essentially means is that you can earn both in-game goods and cash shop goods with just gold alone (you'd need to balance the rates of gold to gems like we currently have) but you're not forced to spend any gems and convert them to gold to earn any of the in-game goods.

 

For cash shop items it boils down to either you put the hours in playing the game so you can convert your Gold into Gems that you need, or you can use real life money to purchase Gems. No effects on the in-game content whatsoever since the Gold you earned in game was earned playing the game and you can still buy what you want whether it be something in game or something in the cash shop.

 

Whereas right now, I can basically go to the gem store, get 5000 gems using my real life money, and I can convert that right now to about 999 Gold (which is about 4150 gems at the moment). I just paid for that 5000 gem using my real life money to get 999 gold that I can now use to buy things in game.

 

Again, it's really complex to work around it so the things I'm posting at this current moment are all theoretical based on what I've seen in game so far.

[Ayrilana.1396]

> @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> > > > > > > By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> > > > > > > I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Oh so you mean like all of capitalism

> > > > >

> > > > > Try to take a deep breath and think about what you just said. Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic :/

> > > >

> > > > yes it does money goes in. There's no guarantee of any return or what you expect. This is true of all of life. You're deluding yourself if you think there is no risk in any of these processes or that they are not all gambles. Nothing in life is guaranteed and life isn't fair or the same.

> > >

> > > As a healthy natural state for human beings, people need to work in order to provide a specific service/product and recieve the equivalent value of money. It's true that sometimes commerce involves taking risks but if you lose your money you can either blame "fate" or blame yourself for your poor management. No one else is to blame here.

> > >

> > > This case is different, gaming companies offer players a gamble by selling them loot boxes which contains random items with let's say 1% to 100% of its money's value and a chance of 1% to get 500% of your money's worth and a 0.001% chance to get the ingame marchendise you'd like to buy. If a player wants to get an item worth 10$, he will have to buy 100 5$ lootboxes in order to get it.

> > >

> > > This dishonest behavior from these companies aims to milk players by selling them Items they don't need and in many cases players will recive worthless items compared to what they payed for. Gambling companies work almost the same way but with different currencies, rewards and chances.

> > >

> > > And I'll say it again: Capitalism has nothing to do with the subject.

> >

> > It’s a bit disingenuous to call it ‘dishonest’ because you dislike it.

>

> Can you elaborate on that? Because I made a very clear and logical argument here.

 

The part about you labeling any company selling items that have an RNG nature as being dishonest.

[Blude.6812]

> @"Turkeyspit.3965" said:

> > @"Aaralyna.3104" said:

> > What will happen is that you cannot purchase keys for them in gem store nor can buy packages containing these or rng packages inside these. Basically what they did in game to Belgium last year. Which has a ban on lootboxes law. And yes it was for children but they took it out for the whole country.

>

> Parents are responsible for their children, not government. Even the worst, laziest and incompetent parents can do a better job protecting their child than a government official.

 

LMAO and crying at the same time. I guess you have never had to deal parents that lock up their kids, beat them, use them in a sexual way, hurt them, mentally abuse them, starve them, kill them etc etc. You are so off base and out of touch!!!!!!!!! When you have a more than a few instances of "Even the worst, laziest and incompetent parents can do a better job protecting their child" destroying a child and in some instances responsible for their death. Your point of view is obviously not thought out nor can it be taken seriously and only shows you ignorance!!!!!! I have had experience and when a childs passes while you are doing your best to get them to a safe place. I'll take the hit from anet and lose a few points for this, oh well it's worth it in this case.

[Zaklex.6308]

> @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> >

> > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

>

> Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

>

>

 

One problem, that isn't the definition of gambling, at least the definition as it is in the U.S....which what this thread is all about. By definition as it's written in the Federal Register gambling means that you have a chance to win but also a chance to lose and get nothing from your gamble. Loot boxes do not meet this standard as you're guaranteed to get something from them each and every time, now if there was a chance you ended up with nothing, then it would be gambling. Just because you don't get that rare or the object you want and you get something else instead does not constitute gambling for the purposes we're discussing.

[trixantea.1230]

> @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > > > > > > > > > The world needs to forbid gambling alltogether. Nothing good comes from it.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Wow that's a huge judgement. Life is a gamble I dont understand your logic.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Either your logic is biased against my claim or perhaps we are not talking about the same definition of gambling.

> > > > > > > > By gambling I mean betting money on a game of random chance. A game where the house wins money without producing anything and where the gambler may or may not get his money's worth.

> > > > > > > > I can only see greedy companies, lazy people and gambling addicts defending this act.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Oh so you mean like all of capitalism

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Try to take a deep breath and think about what you just said. Capitalism has nothing to do with the topic :/

> > > > >

> > > > > yes it does money goes in. There's no guarantee of any return or what you expect. This is true of all of life. You're deluding yourself if you think there is no risk in any of these processes or that they are not all gambles. Nothing in life is guaranteed and life isn't fair or the same.

> > > >

> > > > As a healthy natural state for human beings, people need to work in order to provide a specific service/product and recieve the equivalent value of money. It's true that sometimes commerce involves taking risks but if you lose your money you can either blame "fate" or blame yourself for your poor management. No one else is to blame here.

> > > >

> > > > This case is different, gaming companies offer players a gamble by selling them loot boxes which contains random items with let's say 1% to 100% of its money's value and a chance of 1% to get 500% of your money's worth and a 0.001% chance to get the ingame marchendise you'd like to buy. If a player wants to get an item worth 10$, he will have to buy 100 5$ lootboxes in order to get it.

> > > >

> > > > This dishonest behavior from these companies aims to milk players by selling them Items they don't need and in many cases players will recive worthless items compared to what they payed for. Gambling companies work almost the same way but with different currencies, rewards and chances.

> > > >

> > > > And I'll say it again: Capitalism has nothing to do with the subject.

> > >

> > > It’s a bit disingenuous to call it ‘dishonest’ because you dislike it.

> >

> > Can you elaborate on that? Because I made a very clear and logical argument here.

>

> The part about you labeling any company selling items that have an RNG nature as being dishonest.

 

As I said , it is dishonest because it makes players buy dupes and items they don't need and sometimes this RNG gives them worthless items. You still didn't provide any logical argument here.

[TheGrimm.5624]

> @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > @"Ayrilana.1396" said:

> > > @"trixantea.1230" said:

> > >

> > > As a healthy natural state for human beings, people need to work in order to provide a specific service/product and recieve the equivalent value of money. It's true that sometimes commerce involves taking risks but if you lose your money you can either blame "fate" or blame yourself for your poor management. No one else is to blame here.

> > >

> > > This case is different, gaming companies offer players a gamble by selling them loot boxes which contains random items with let's say 1% to 100% of its money's value and a chance of 1% to get 500% of your money's worth and a 0.001% chance to get the ingame marchendise you'd like to buy. If a player wants to get an item worth 10$, he will have to buy 100 5$ lootboxes in order to get it.

> > >

> > > This dishonest behavior from these companies aims to milk players by selling them Items they don't need and in many cases players will recive worthless items compared to what they payed for. Gambling companies work almost the same way but with different currencies, rewards and chances.

> > >

> > > And I'll say it again: Capitalism has nothing to do with the subject.

> >

> > It’s a bit disingenuous to call it ‘dishonest’ because you dislike it.

>

> Can you elaborate on that? Because I made a very clear and logical argument here.

 

Sorry but cutting out some of previous quote to narrow it down some. I also have to agree I don't think dishonest is valid. When I buy keys, and it's normally for cash not conversion, I know what I bought. I just bought keys that equal however much I spent. No randomness there. I understand that key will then combine with another item I did not buy with cash that will grant me a random experience. So again I am fully aware of what I bought. I have never felt that was dishonest, I know all the way thru what I am buying. If I choose to pay for that random experience that was my choice, I wasn't conned into it. In some cases I have sat on keys for a while so in reality if you break it down that way there is no randomness in the original purchase at all. I bought a key that is worth $1.56. Whether or not I do something with it from there is on me. But we all know the purpose of the key it to open the BLTC so we will leave that there.

 

Now back in the day when we couldn't preview I think I would agree a bit more, but even then, I still knew I was spending $20-100 on a random experience, but I still choose to do it. When I don't want that randomness, I just don't buy keys. For it to be dishonest they would need to say you have to buy this thing but we aren't telling you what it is and you really don't have to.

 

Now let's go the other way for a second and look at something not guild wars. Lets say it was a new game and the only way you could level up and grow stronger was by buying random loot chests. You still don't have to play, walk away from the game. You spending money is what empowers yourself, choose not to transact with them. They go out of business.

 

This would be a whole different discussion if this was something like you need to buy loot boxes to get your medicine for an illness you have.