Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > > > > @"Tukaram.8256" said: > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > Why should I be confined to a playpen all for the sake of children which I have no interest in? > > > > > > Maybe you should not play games for children if you do not want to follow rules for children. It is an easy solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > >Why should my enjoyment be impacted when a parents job is to supervise their kid? > > > > > > It is, indeed, a parents' job to supervise their children. Some parents do it by enacting certain laws protecting their children. Are arguing that those parents do not do their job? Or are you trying to say that you want to play a game for children but are not willing to follow the rules? > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > The game is rated 13+ btw. > > > > > > Recent neuroscience shows that the frontal lobe (a region of the brain responsible for decision making among other things) is not fully formed at this age. Moreover, there is interesting research suggesting that in males the development of this region continues until the age of 25. Scientists and parents start to talk about revising age categories and permissions based on this data. Especially considering that addictive behaviours tend to become life-long problems if formed during the frontal lobe development phase. > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree that 13+ is not an appropriate age rating. Perhaps it would be a better child supervision job if any game that has gambling were rated 25+. > > > > > > > > > > Well then you should exclude any game that has rng in it because technically all of that is a gamble. Everything should have 0 rng if it's so destructive because all gambling is rng. > > > > > > > > > > 25+ lol? You really think playing gw2 with rng requires more responsibility then smoking, drinking and joining the military? > > > > > > > > Yeah, this entire thread, and the concept, is asinine. Everything in games run on a RNG. So if you pay a subscription fee, and kill a monster for loot, that is essentially the same as a loot box. The insanity shown in this thread would be comical if I did not think they were serious. To say buying pixels is gambling, is quite ridiculous. > > > > > > Do you truly believe that random numbers generators (RNG) and Black Lion Chests are the same and share the exact same mechanics in the game? > > > > Yes I do. > > > > Kill mobs = get loot > > Open black lion chest = get loot > > Mob loot resell value = 0 > > Blc contents resell value = 0 > > Kill mobs/do story = black lion key > > gold to gems = black lion key > > Pay cash = black lion key > > Is this the only way RNGs are used in the game? > > >@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > This is just a time save really which means you're paying for convenience with no value associated other than entertainment. When you buy it with cash you don't have to spend hours farming mobs hoping RNG drops a key. You don't have to spend hours farming for gold or flipping items on the tp to convert to gems to buy a key. You can just buy it with cash saving you time. > > Would you agree that buying a key does not guarantee that a buyer will get a specific item from a BLC? > How is that different from buying casino tokens? > > >@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > I've played since day one and flip items on tp and farm events and play the game. Never once needed to buy a black lion key with cash. > > Would you agree that your experience is not necessarily reflective or representative of other players? > > >@"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > All of the stuff in the black lion chest is cosmetic as well and doesnt grant a gameplay advantage, making this whole argument even more moot. > > Would you agree that gambling is something that the majority of people do for fun and do not see as a source of income or a way to get ahead in life? > > ------ > P.S. Not all items in BLC are pure cosmetics. Permanent contracts give a rather significant gameplay advantage, especially bank and TP access contracts (according to your own words, you flip items on TP, so you should understand the value of these contracts). Home instance nodes also provide gameplay advantage since they allow you to finish core Tyria gathering dailies faster and they guarantee daily materials inflow. Quality of life items (bank access, teleport to a friend, merchant, etc.) also grant a small gameplay advantage. The subjective value of these items is beyond the scope of this discussion. Yes I would agree that you are not.guaranterd to get what you want from a blc. Same as when you kill a mob or mobs for hours and dont get that precursor you want Permanent contracts are not gameplay advantages. They're convenience items. A gameplay advantage would be +100 to all stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Dalec.9853" said: > I honestly cannot believe there are some attempts at defending BLC, even trying to say they are "harmless" or some form of 'not like the others', there is absolutely no benefit to the player when you would almost always end up spending more than the appropriate normal gem cost (E.g. an outfit being 700 gems vs the most likely scenario of spending far more gems on BLC for an outfit drop) - you have to be very lucky to do better than the standard/non-gambling gem price of items They are no more harmful then the addiction one gets from playing mmos or games in general. What do you want to do ban or regulate games too? I don't recall there being an esrb rating for a game being too addictive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > @"Tukaram.8256" said: > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > Why should I be confined to a playpen all for the sake of children which I have no interest in? > > > > > > > > Maybe you should not play games for children if you do not want to follow rules for children. It is an easy solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > >Why should my enjoyment be impacted when a parents job is to supervise their kid? > > > > > > > > It is, indeed, a parents' job to supervise their children. Some parents do it by enacting certain laws protecting their children. Are arguing that those parents do not do their job? Or are you trying to say that you want to play a game for children but are not willing to follow the rules? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > The game is rated 13+ btw. > > > > > > > > Recent neuroscience shows that the frontal lobe (a region of the brain responsible for decision making among other things) is not fully formed at this age. Moreover, there is interesting research suggesting that in males the development of this region continues until the age of 25. Scientists and parents start to talk about revising age categories and permissions based on this data. Especially considering that addictive behaviours tend to become life-long problems if formed during the frontal lobe development phase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree that 13+ is not an appropriate age rating. Perhaps it would be a better child supervision job if any game that has gambling were rated 25+. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well then you should exclude any game that has rng in it because technically all of that is a gamble. Everything should have 0 rng if it's so destructive because all gambling is rng. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 25+ lol? You really think playing gw2 with rng requires more responsibility then smoking, drinking and joining the military? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, this entire thread, and the concept, is asinine. Everything in games run on a RNG. **So if you pay a subscription fee, and kill a monster for loot, that is essentially the same as a loot box.** The insanity shown in this thread would be comical if I did not think they were serious. To say buying pixels is gambling, is quite ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know about the thread, but the absurdity in the logical fallacy you wrote, is enough to turn a sane man insane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be fair, depending on how gambling in video games is defined, in combination with the gem to gold exchange some pure gold gambles could be considered 18+. > > > > > > > > Now I am aware that that sounds like a far stretch but ask yourself. > > > > > > > > Would you consider ectogambling a lootbox. > > > > Do you consider opening unid gear as a lootbox? > > > > > > No, those are purely in-game activities. I understand that, therotically, gold aquired through exchanging gems could be used. But gold is the main in game currency and could be used for a billion other things. There is no intentional design, specifically tailored to squeeze RL money through that activity. > > > > > > On the other hand, keys exist purely for that purpose.You buy them from a cash store for the sole purpose of opening lootboxes. With a whole monetization strategy around them (cooler skins, exclusives etc). Same for mount licences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I've heard some people put ectogambling with the problematic gambling practices. > > > > My only point was though that the debate should be had why some rng things are allowed and others not. How do we set the bounds etc. > > > > I don't really have faith that it will be done well. > > > > BTW I do agree regulations should be their. I just don't agree that the implications of the gem to gold exchange should be. Overlooked. > > > > This works both ways btw. You can get it without spending money should not be a defense. > > > > I don't disagree that ectogambling is problematic because of the exchange but it's nowhere near the extent of gem store items. And I cant ever see any regulation going that far in depth, they will just focus on the obvious (and main moneymakers). > > I think Anet hasn't pulled ectogambling in Belgium. I'm not sure it's even possible as it's in-game, not a gem store item to be region locked. You see your argument shows how all of this is a personal moral decision as to where to draw the line at "gambling" the US has clearly defined gambling laws and lootboxes dont come anywhere near close to meeting them because you cannot cash out your "winnings" from black lion chests into cash. Since it's a moral issue why not just take the extreme approach and say all rng of any kind is "gambling" thus eliminating all rpg videogames or any program that has variable outcomes? It's the same logic. Especially when you say ecto gambling isnt as "bad" as black lion chests. Or we could just leave it alone and let people do what they want and maybe they take some personal responsibility for themselves, like one needs to do with everything in life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor.5068 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 If ecto gambling OR better yet BUYING KEYS to open the fractal encryption boxes from fractals are ok, then the BLTC chests should be ok too. the only difference between the fractal chests and BLTC chest is the loot in them and that the key for one is gotten with gems. But the argument can be made that what if we took the BL key out of the gemshop and just added an ingame vendor that sells keys for 95g or whatever the current price of gem-gold conversion is. Is it now ok since ur doing the exact same thing for the fractal box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > @"Tukaram.8256" said: > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > Why should I be confined to a playpen all for the sake of children which I have no interest in? > > > > > > > > > Maybe you should not play games for children if you do not want to follow rules for children. It is an easy solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > >Why should my enjoyment be impacted when a parents job is to supervise their kid? > > > > > > > > > It is, indeed, a parents' job to supervise their children. Some parents do it by enacting certain laws protecting their children. Are arguing that those parents do not do their job? Or are you trying to say that you want to play a game for children but are not willing to follow the rules? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > The game is rated 13+ btw. > > > > > > > > > Recent neuroscience shows that the frontal lobe (a region of the brain responsible for decision making among other things) is not fully formed at this age. Moreover, there is interesting research suggesting that in males the development of this region continues until the age of 25. Scientists and parents start to talk about revising age categories and permissions based on this data. Especially considering that addictive behaviours tend to become life-long problems if formed during the frontal lobe development phase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree that 13+ is not an appropriate age rating. Perhaps it would be a better child supervision job if any game that has gambling were rated 25+. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well then you should exclude any game that has rng in it because technically all of that is a gamble. Everything should have 0 rng if it's so destructive because all gambling is rng. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 25+ lol? You really think playing gw2 with rng requires more responsibility then smoking, drinking and joining the military? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, this entire thread, and the concept, is asinine. Everything in games run on a RNG. **So if you pay a subscription fee, and kill a monster for loot, that is essentially the same as a loot box.** The insanity shown in this thread would be comical if I did not think they were serious. To say buying pixels is gambling, is quite ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know about the thread, but the absurdity in the logical fallacy you wrote, is enough to turn a sane man insane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be fair, depending on how gambling in video games is defined, in combination with the gem to gold exchange some pure gold gambles could be considered 18+. > > > > > > > > > > Now I am aware that that sounds like a far stretch but ask yourself. > > > > > > > > > > Would you consider ectogambling a lootbox. > > > > > Do you consider opening unid gear as a lootbox? > > > > > > > > No, those are purely in-game activities. I understand that, therotically, gold aquired through exchanging gems could be used. But gold is the main in game currency and could be used for a billion other things. There is no intentional design, specifically tailored to squeeze RL money through that activity. > > > > > > > > On the other hand, keys exist purely for that purpose.You buy them from a cash store for the sole purpose of opening lootboxes. With a whole monetization strategy around them (cooler skins, exclusives etc). Same for mount licences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I've heard some people put ectogambling with the problematic gambling practices. > > > > > > My only point was though that the debate should be had why some rng things are allowed and others not. How do we set the bounds etc. > > > > > > I don't really have faith that it will be done well. > > > > > > BTW I do agree regulations should be their. I just don't agree that the implications of the gem to gold exchange should be. Overlooked. > > > > > > This works both ways btw. You can get it without spending money should not be a defense. > > > > > > > I don't disagree that ectogambling is problematic because of the exchange but it's nowhere near the extent of gem store items. And I cant ever see any regulation going that far in depth, they will just focus on the obvious (and main moneymakers). > > > > I think Anet hasn't pulled ectogambling in Belgium. I'm not sure it's even possible as it's in-game, not a gem store item to be region locked. > > You see your argument shows how all of this is a personal moral decision as to where to draw the line at "gambling" the US has clearly defined gambling laws and lootboxes dont come anywhere near close to meeting them This thread is about the UK not the US. Also, I realize this might come as a shock to you but laws can change. > Since it's a moral issue why not just take the extreme approach and say all rng of any kind is "gambling" thus eliminating all rpg videogames or any program that has variable outcomes? Because not all rng in every rpg empties an addict's bank account (or their parent's). An addiction's severity is defined by effect and consequence. Nobody would care about alcohol abuse if all it did was burn your throat a little. > Or we could just leave it alone and let people do what they want and maybe they take some personal responsibility for themselves, like one needs to do with everything in life. Feel free to leave it alone. I'm gonna go with nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Doctor.5068" said: > If ecto gambling OR better yet BUYING KEYS to open the fractal encryption boxes from fractals are ok, then the BLTC chests should be ok too. the only difference between the fractal chests and BLTC chest is the loot in them and that the key for one is gotten with gems. Money is a _big_ difference. If you think the fact that RL cash is (or can be in GW2) involved in the transaction is not a factor in the anti-loot-box movement, then you need to think again. Sure, there is talk about gambling being addictive, and about how it affects minors, but that is only part of the problem. Where gambling is allowed, it's regulated and taxed. Governments like tax, and take a dim view of attempts to avoid taxes. Also, parents being hit with credit bills because Junior bought 500 keys are upset about the money. Wars are fought over economics. Money is a big deal. So, no, it's not just about "the children." > But the argument can be made that what if we took the BL key out of the gemshop and just added an ingame vendor that sells keys for 95g or whatever the current price of gem-gold conversion is. Is it now ok since ur doing the exact same thing for the fractal box? This is a hypothetical situation that _will not happen_. That said, the answer is going to depend on whether someone's objection to loot boxes is due to the psychological effect or the economic effect of the box/key thing. So, some will say it's the same, others won't. Me? I think we consumers are better off when we can see exactly how much something costs so we can make an informed decision as to whether we buy it or not. Sure, I can avoid buying keys with gold or gems, and I do. However, the fact that ANet chooses to obfuscate the price of items in the chests makes me think less of them as a business. I would also rather that government not be involved in regulating business. However, the unpleasant reality in life is that people and businesses are going to take advantage of other people, and one way for that to be curbed is for government to step in. Now, businesses could police themselves. Nice thought, but fat chance that is going to happen. Even a company like ANet, whose chests are arguably more benign than some, isn't going to if the big players _will not_ self-regulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > I would also rather that government not be involved in regulating business. However, the unpleasant reality in life is that people and businesses are going to take advantage of other people, and one way for that to be curbed is for government to step in. Now, businesses could police themselves. Nice thought, but fat chance that is going to happen. Even a company like ANet, whose chests are arguably more benign that some, isn't going to if the big players _will not_ self-regulate. This. The businesses self-regulate only if they are afraid that if they won't do it, _even more harsh_ regulations will be enforced on them, or if they decide those regulations will net them more profit. Barring one of those factors, the businesses would always prefer to be as predatory and unfair as possible, and you should never count on them having your best interest in mind. They would only if it would benefit them, or if somehing would force them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > > > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > > > > > @"Tukaram.8256" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > @"Ol Nik.2518" said: > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > > Why should I be confined to a playpen all for the sake of children which I have no interest in? > > > > > > > > > > Maybe you should not play games for children if you do not want to follow rules for children. It is an easy solution. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > >Why should my enjoyment be impacted when a parents job is to supervise their kid? > > > > > > > > > > It is, indeed, a parents' job to supervise their children. Some parents do it by enacting certain laws protecting their children. Are arguing that those parents do not do their job? Or are you trying to say that you want to play a game for children but are not willing to follow the rules? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > > > > > The game is rated 13+ btw. > > > > > > > > > > Recent neuroscience shows that the frontal lobe (a region of the brain responsible for decision making among other things) is not fully formed at this age. Moreover, there is interesting research suggesting that in males the development of this region continues until the age of 25. Scientists and parents start to talk about revising age categories and permissions based on this data. Especially considering that addictive behaviours tend to become life-long problems if formed during the frontal lobe development phase. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree that 13+ is not an appropriate age rating. Perhaps it would be a better child supervision job if any game that has gambling were rated 25+. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well then you should exclude any game that has rng in it because technically all of that is a gamble. Everything should have 0 rng if it's so destructive because all gambling is rng. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 25+ lol? You really think playing gw2 with rng requires more responsibility then smoking, drinking and joining the military? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, this entire thread, and the concept, is asinine. Everything in games run on a RNG. **So if you pay a subscription fee, and kill a monster for loot, that is essentially the same as a loot box.** The insanity shown in this thread would be comical if I did not think they were serious. To say buying pixels is gambling, is quite ridiculous. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know about the thread, but the absurdity in the logical fallacy you wrote, is enough to turn a sane man insane. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be fair, depending on how gambling in video games is defined, in combination with the gem to gold exchange some pure gold gambles could be considered 18+. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I am aware that that sounds like a far stretch but ask yourself. > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you consider ectogambling a lootbox. > > > > > > Do you consider opening unid gear as a lootbox? > > > > > > > > > > No, those are purely in-game activities. I understand that, therotically, gold aquired through exchanging gems could be used. But gold is the main in game currency and could be used for a billion other things. There is no intentional design, specifically tailored to squeeze RL money through that activity. > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, keys exist purely for that purpose.You buy them from a cash store for the sole purpose of opening lootboxes. With a whole monetization strategy around them (cooler skins, exclusives etc). Same for mount licences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I've heard some people put ectogambling with the problematic gambling practices. > > > > > > > > My only point was though that the debate should be had why some rng things are allowed and others not. How do we set the bounds etc. > > > > > > > > I don't really have faith that it will be done well. > > > > > > > > BTW I do agree regulations should be their. I just don't agree that the implications of the gem to gold exchange should be. Overlooked. > > > > > > > > This works both ways btw. You can get it without spending money should not be a defense. > > > > > > > > > > I don't disagree that ectogambling is problematic because of the exchange but it's nowhere near the extent of gem store items. And I cant ever see any regulation going that far in depth, they will just focus on the obvious (and main moneymakers). > > > > > > I think Anet hasn't pulled ectogambling in Belgium. I'm not sure it's even possible as it's in-game, not a gem store item to be region locked. > > > > You see your argument shows how all of this is a personal moral decision as to where to draw the line at "gambling" the US has clearly defined gambling laws and lootboxes dont come anywhere near close to meeting them > > This thread is about the UK not the US. Also, I realize this might come as a shock to you but laws can change. > > > Since it's a moral issue why not just take the extreme approach and say all rng of any kind is "gambling" thus eliminating all rpg videogames or any program that has variable outcomes? > > Because not all rng in every rpg empties an addict's bank account (or their parent's). An addiction's severity is defined by effect and consequence. Nobody would care about alcohol abuse if all it did was burn your throat a little. > > > Or we could just leave it alone and let people do what they want and maybe they take some personal responsibility for themselves, like one needs to do with everything in life. > > Feel free to leave it alone. I'm gonna go with nope. > > Well I totally disagree with you on everything. I dont see how this is anymore gambling then killing mobs or using the mystic forge for precursors. The mystic forge and ecto gamble you can use real life money to participate in those as well. Yet the focus is on black lion chests? It's all the exact same thing lol. Yet some are "ok" and others arent and it seems to be at your own personal moral discretion as to where the line should be drawn, with no logic used whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trise.2865 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > Well I totally disagree with you on everything. I dont see how this is anymore gambling then killing mobs or using the mystic forge for precursors. > > The mystic forge and ecto gamble you can use real life money to participate in those as well. Yet the focus is on black lion chests? It's all the exact same thing lol. Yet some are "ok" and others arent and it seems to be at your own personal moral discretion as to where the line should be drawn, with no logic used whatsoever. You're right about one thing: It's all potentially destructive, definitively manipulative, operant conditioning. The difference is the conditioned behaviors: one conditions you to do or repeat an activity, the other conditions you to repeat spending money. Compulsively repeating an activity is generally harmless, compulsively spending money is not. I shouldn't have to explain that actively harming a consumer base is undesirable for long-term business, especially if it means they have less money to spend on that business' products, and VERY undesirable to that consumer base itself. I suppose you're now going to tell me that compulsion doesn't exist either? That it's "just another religious construct", despite decades of scientific evidence and hundreds of studies... but then who would be using "no logic whatsoever"? And since we're on the topic, let's also take a look at ESRB itself, and their distinctions and ratings for the differences between Gambling and Simulated Gambling. https://www.esrb.org/ratings-guide/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Trise.2865" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > Well I totally disagree with you on everything. I dont see how this is anymore gambling then killing mobs or using the mystic forge for precursors. > > > > The mystic forge and ecto gamble you can use real life money to participate in those as well. Yet the focus is on black lion chests? It's all the exact same thing lol. Yet some are "ok" and others arent and it seems to be at your own personal moral discretion as to where the line should be drawn, with no logic used whatsoever. > > You're right about one thing: It's all potentially destructive, definitively manipulative, operant conditioning. The difference is the conditioned behaviors: one conditions you to do or repeat an activity, the other conditions you to repeat spending money. Compulsively repeating an activity is generally harmless, compulsively spending money is not. I shouldn't have to explain that actively harming a consumer base is undesirable for long-term business, especially if it means they have less money to spend on that business' products, and VERY undesirable to that consumer base itself. > > I suppose you're now going to tell me that compulsion doesn't exist either? That it's "just another religious construct", despite decades of scientific evidence and hundreds of studies... but then who would be using "no logic whatsoever"? This whole argument is religiously based clearly, and you Didnt say anything in that whole statement that has anything to do with anything. I mean what are you saying stuff is addictive? Everything is addictive should we ban everything? So is playing gw2 and it can be destructive what's your point? So is drinking or eating to excess should we ban those? Crossing the street is risky and contains elements of rng, it's also addictive in that people have a desire to get to the other side, repeatedly. Through mental conditioning people are lulled into a false sense of security for an activity that can be dangerous. Crossing the street has clearly become compulsive as people feel compelled to reach the other side and yet they engage in risky street crossing behavior despite the scientifically proven detrimental outcomes of this activity. Pretty much the same statement and argument you said. I mean what you're the sole decider of what type of rng is ok and not ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > @"Doctor.5068" said: > > If ecto gambling OR better yet BUYING KEYS to open the fractal encryption boxes from fractals are ok, then the BLTC chests should be ok too. the only difference between the fractal chests and BLTC chest is the loot in them and that the key for one is gotten with gems. > > Money is a _big_ difference. If you think the fact that RL cash is (or can be in GW2) involved in the transaction is not a factor in the anti-loot-box movement, then you need to think again. Sure, there is talk about gambling being addictive, and about how it affects minors, but that is only part of the problem. Where gambling is allowed, it's regulated and taxed. Governments like tax, and take a dim view of attempts to avoid taxes. Also, parents being hit with credit bills because Junior bought 500 keys are upset about the money. Wars are fought over economics. Money is a big deal. So, no, it's not just about "the children." > > > But the argument can be made that what if we took the BL key out of the gemshop and just added an ingame vendor that sells keys for 95g or whatever the current price of gem-gold conversion is. Is it now ok since ur doing the exact same thing for the fractal box? > > This is a hypothetical situation that _will not happen_. That said, the answer is going to depend on whether someone's objection to loot boxes is due to the psychological effect or the economic effect of the box/key thing. So, some will say it's the same, others won't. > > Me? I think we consumers are better off when we can see exactly how much something costs so we can make an informed decision as to whether we buy it or not. Sure, I can avoid buying keys with gold or gems, and I do. However, the fact that ANet chooses to obfuscate the price of items in the chests makes me think less of them as a business. > > I would also rather that government not be involved in regulating business. However, the unpleasant reality in life is that people and businesses are going to take advantage of other people, and one way for that to be curbed is for government to step in. Now, businesses could police themselves. Nice thought, but fat chance that is going to happen. Even a company like ANet, whose chests are arguably more benign than some, isn't going to if the big players _will not_ self-regulate. Aren't you contradicting yourself here? Isn't the fact that chests are more benign a form of self-regulation. Not necessarily how much we want/need. But self-regulating non the less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kratan.4619 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Aurelian Omenkind.2470" said: > Just curious since I honestly haven’t heard... is Magic the Gathering sold in the UK or Belgium? Seems blind packs like those fit the same bill as loot boxes. If that were the case, all those trading card companies would have to comply with any of these changes, as I trade legal tender in the hopes of getting that rookie card I am looking for and with my "addictive" personality would continue to spend inordinate amounts of money to get the one card I really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"yann.1946" said: > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > @"Doctor.5068" said: > > > If ecto gambling OR better yet BUYING KEYS to open the fractal encryption boxes from fractals are ok, then the BLTC chests should be ok too. the only difference between the fractal chests and BLTC chest is the loot in them and that the key for one is gotten with gems. > > > > Money is a _big_ difference. If you think the fact that RL cash is (or can be in GW2) involved in the transaction is not a factor in the anti-loot-box movement, then you need to think again. Sure, there is talk about gambling being addictive, and about how it affects minors, but that is only part of the problem. Where gambling is allowed, it's regulated and taxed. Governments like tax, and take a dim view of attempts to avoid taxes. Also, parents being hit with credit bills because Junior bought 500 keys are upset about the money. Wars are fought over economics. Money is a big deal. So, no, it's not just about "the children." > > > > > But the argument can be made that what if we took the BL key out of the gemshop and just added an ingame vendor that sells keys for 95g or whatever the current price of gem-gold conversion is. Is it now ok since ur doing the exact same thing for the fractal box? > > > > This is a hypothetical situation that _will not happen_. That said, the answer is going to depend on whether someone's objection to loot boxes is due to the psychological effect or the economic effect of the box/key thing. So, some will say it's the same, others won't. > > > > Me? I think we consumers are better off when we can see exactly how much something costs so we can make an informed decision as to whether we buy it or not. Sure, I can avoid buying keys with gold or gems, and I do. However, the fact that ANet chooses to obfuscate the price of items in the chests makes me think less of them as a business. > > > > I would also rather that government not be involved in regulating business. However, the unpleasant reality in life is that people and businesses are going to take advantage of other people, and one way for that to be curbed is for government to step in. Now, businesses could police themselves. Nice thought, but fat chance that is going to happen. Even a company like ANet, whose chests are arguably more benign than some, isn't going to if the big players _will not_ self-regulate. > > Aren't you contradicting yourself here? > Isn't the fact that chests are more benign a form of self-regulation. > > Not necessarily how much we want/need. > But self-regulating non the less I don't see a contradiction, though perhaps some clarification would make that more evident. ANet self-regulates by avoiding pay-to-win in the chests. They also provide Statuettes which does establish a worst-case price for some items. That's what I mean by "arguably more consumer friendly" than their absence would be. However, GW2 loot boxes are still predatory by the relevant definition of the word, which is, "seeking to exploit or oppress others ." The relevant word in that definition is "exploit," and its definition of, "Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)." The "resource" is consumers Since the chest s are designed to get people to pay more for stuff than they would if the items were given a set price, some consumers are clearly being "made full use of." If you look at ANet's two concessions, they primarily serve to make BLC's less unattractive. Pay-to-win is a clear way to attract tons of negative attention from western gamers. Remember the EA/Star Wars debacle a year or so ago? Fixed Statuette prices worst case price is actually an incentive to gamble to get the wanted item for less. As one example, it takes 50 Statuettes for a Weapon Claim Ticket. Assuming that a consumer wants a weapon skin that "only" requires one ticket. That's fifty keys, worst case. Two purchases of 25 keys would take 4200 gems, or more than $50 US. Weapons that take 3 tickets, well, you can do the math. Sure, the chances of getting extra Statuettes is there, or at least it was. However, that's also another incentive to "gamble." Finally, remember that a different way to say "more benign" is "less malign." Self-regulation in terms of not squeezing consumers is what I would want. At the moment, neither more benign ANet nor more malign EA are going to go for that. And no, I don't expect government to regulate the chests beyond requirements for more accurate labeling, age-restrictions on games which offer "surprise _purchase_ mechanics," and taxing such mechanics' "gambling" revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexxxDelta.1806 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > Crossing the street is risky and contains elements of rng, it's also addictive in that people have a desire to get to the other side, repeatedly. Through mental conditioning people are lulled into a false sense of security for an activity that can be dangerous. Crossing the street has clearly become compulsive as people feel compelled to reach the other side and yet they engage in risky street crossing behavior despite the scientifically proven detrimental outcomes of this activity. Pretty much the same statement and argument you said. Nuclear submarines move in seawater. I can move in seawater. Therefore I am a nuclear submarine. I suggest you read a bit on logical fallacies and how to avoid them for a proper debate. It would surely help to construct a proper argument instead of whatever this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yann.1946 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > > @"IndigoSundown.5419" said: > > > > @"Doctor.5068" said: > > > > If ecto gambling OR better yet BUYING KEYS to open the fractal encryption boxes from fractals are ok, then the BLTC chests should be ok too. the only difference between the fractal chests and BLTC chest is the loot in them and that the key for one is gotten with gems. > > > > > > Money is a _big_ difference. If you think the fact that RL cash is (or can be in GW2) involved in the transaction is not a factor in the anti-loot-box movement, then you need to think again. Sure, there is talk about gambling being addictive, and about how it affects minors, but that is only part of the problem. Where gambling is allowed, it's regulated and taxed. Governments like tax, and take a dim view of attempts to avoid taxes. Also, parents being hit with credit bills because Junior bought 500 keys are upset about the money. Wars are fought over economics. Money is a big deal. So, no, it's not just about "the children." > > > > > > > But the argument can be made that what if we took the BL key out of the gemshop and just added an ingame vendor that sells keys for 95g or whatever the current price of gem-gold conversion is. Is it now ok since ur doing the exact same thing for the fractal box? > > > > > > This is a hypothetical situation that _will not happen_. That said, the answer is going to depend on whether someone's objection to loot boxes is due to the psychological effect or the economic effect of the box/key thing. So, some will say it's the same, others won't. > > > > > > Me? I think we consumers are better off when we can see exactly how much something costs so we can make an informed decision as to whether we buy it or not. Sure, I can avoid buying keys with gold or gems, and I do. However, the fact that ANet chooses to obfuscate the price of items in the chests makes me think less of them as a business. > > > > > > I would also rather that government not be involved in regulating business. However, the unpleasant reality in life is that people and businesses are going to take advantage of other people, and one way for that to be curbed is for government to step in. Now, businesses could police themselves. Nice thought, but fat chance that is going to happen. Even a company like ANet, whose chests are arguably more benign than some, isn't going to if the big players _will not_ self-regulate. > > > > Aren't you contradicting yourself here? > > Isn't the fact that chests are more benign a form of self-regulation. > > > > Not necessarily how much we want/need. > > But self-regulating non the less > > I don't see a contradiction, though perhaps some clarification would make that more evident. > > ANet self-regulates by avoiding pay-to-win in the chests. They also provide Statuettes which does establish a worst-case price for some items. That's what I mean by "arguably more consumer friendly" than their absence would be. However, GW2 loot boxes are still predatory by the relevant definition of the word, which is, "seeking to exploit or oppress others ." The relevant word in that definition is "exploit," and its definition of, "Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)." The "resource" is consumers Since the chest s are designed to get people to pay more for stuff than they would if the items were given a set price, some consumers are clearly being "made full use of." > > If you look at ANet's two concessions, they primarily serve to make BLC's less unattractive. Pay-to-win is a clear way to attract tons of negative attention from western gamers. Remember the EA/Star Wars debacle a year or so ago? Fixed Statuette prices worst case price is actually an incentive to gamble to get the wanted item for less. As one example, it takes 50 Statuettes for a Weapon Claim Ticket. Assuming that a consumer wants a weapon skin that "only" requires one ticket. That's fifty keys, worst case. Two purchases of 25 keys would take 4200 gems, or more than $50 US. Weapons that take 3 tickets, well, you can do the math. Sure, the chances of getting extra Statuettes is there, or at least it was. However, that's also another incentive to "gamble." > > Finally, remember that a different way to say "more benign" is "less malign." Self-regulation in terms of not squeezing consumers is what I would want. At the moment, neither more benign ANet nor more malign EA are going to go for that. And no, I don't expect government to regulate the chests beyond requirements for more accurate labeling, age-restrictions on games which offer "surprise _purchase_ mechanics," and taxing such mechanics' "gambling" revenue. The contradiction i'm speaking of is the fact that people say companies don't self regulate while giving an example of a company who self regulates. On a side note under that definition of predatory sales also fall under that category as they are ment to make people buy things they normally wouldn't. A nice example of this is steam sales where people buy so many games they will never play. (This is merely to point out that the definition maybe needs some work not disagreeing with what people consider bad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaramSin.2693 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Well strictly speaking it's not "gambling" they are not even "random" all the BL stuff are pseudo-random in the best case, completely under the control of ANet in the worst case, Just watch some streamer opening 10000 chest and never (never) getting a single infusion, so the RNG distribution it's not even exponential. So talking about gambling seems really strange... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"yann.1946" said: > The contradiction i'm speaking of is the fact that people say companies don't self regulate while giving an example of a company who self regulates. Of course they self-regulate. And all those self-regulations are a result of outside interference. Notice, how statuettes were brought in at the time where there was a huge backlash and bad press against lootboxes, and there was some possibility that there might even be some regulations introduced (which actually slowly starts to happen, even if it took a long time). If everything was all quiet on the western front, no such self-regulations would have happened. Also, "self-regulations" are not a binary state. It's not something that either is or isn't. You need to consider self-regulation levels - and the ones most developers currently use now are quite minimal. They are nothing more than a fig leaf meant to cover what developers don't want us to notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metasynaptic.1093 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 One problem I have with black lion boxes: rare in the loot box isn't the same as rare elsewhere in the game. 'rare' unidentified gear isn't that rare. 'rare' and 'super rare' in the loot box require a lot of keys and aren't guaranteed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ok I Did It.2854 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 This very topic came up on reddit about a week ago, and someone said they will just ban the UK from getting keys, i cant see this happening, as that would be 2 countries now that deem this as a gambling problem, if the UK does go the same path as Belgium, its only a matter of time until other EU countries follow suit, is Anets approach to this going to be just BAN all of the EU from Black Lion Keys, they should be taking a serious look at what is going on with this and work out a way now to fix it, instead of having to ban part of your playerbase. % chance at getting something from each section would be a start, because atm its clear the super rare is around 0.0001% or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electra.7530 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 It takes real money to develop, build, improve and upgrade games. I don't like the "earn by playing" philosophy. That doesn't pay the bills. I get the whole gambling notion with loot boxes because "you pays ya money and takes ya chances." Without the "chance" aspect of a loot box, people are just buying what they want as opposed to paying for the chance to get something they want. I think everyone knows what that means, less sales. So, if we go that route, I think the game will have to lock up a lot of desirable items players might want as for sale only as a means to raise money that will be lost by the gambling losses of the loot boxes. But I get it, players hate paying money on loot boxes and not knowing what value they'll get with it. That's totally understandable. And having played these games for a long time, I have to say that I've noticed the loot boxes have improved a lot from the old days when you would pay money and get jack-shizz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndigoSundown.5419 Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 > @"Astralporing.1957" said: > > @"yann.1946" said: > > The contradiction i'm speaking of is the fact that people say companies don't self regulate while giving an example of a company who self regulates. > Of course they self-regulate. And all those self-regulations are a result of outside interference. Notice, how statuettes were brought in at the time where there was a huge backlash and bad press against lootboxes, and there was some possibility that there might even be some regulations introduced (which actually slowly starts to happen, even if it took a long time). > If everything was all quiet on the western front, no such self-regulations would have happened. > > Also, "self-regulations" are not a binary state. It's not something that either is or isn't. You need to consider self-regulation levels - and the ones most developers currently use now are quite minimal. They are nothing more than a fig leaf meant to cover what developers don't want us to notice. To add to Astral's response, I don't think of: steering away from blatant pay-to-win in a western market; and establishing a fixed cost for some items (though usually _not_ the hot new gewgaw draw) to be self-regulation. Why? Because these are sideshow issues, Astral's fig leaf. Both are also in ANet's interest, as I stated above. What would be self-regulation? One option would be that if ANet wants to sell random boxes, label the game as containing gambling, and voluntarily adopt the age restrictions that accompany gambling. Another would be to decide to stop obfuscating the true price of items in order to get consumers to pay more money for an item than that item would command at a price the market would bear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante.1508 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > Crossing the street is risky and contains elements of rng, it's also addictive in that people have a desire to get to the other side, repeatedly. Through mental conditioning people are lulled into a false sense of security for an activity that can be dangerous. Crossing the street has clearly become compulsive as people feel compelled to reach the other side and yet they engage in risky street crossing behavior despite the scientifically proven detrimental outcomes of this activity. Pretty much the same statement and argument you said. > > > > > > Nuclear submarines move in seawater. > > I can move in seawater. > > Therefore I am a nuclear submarine. > > > > I suggest you read a bit on logical fallacies and how to avoid them for a proper debate. It would surely help to construct a proper argument instead of whatever this is. > > No it's a direct comparison and I like how everyone ignored what I posted before this post. > > According to you, logic = > > Spending hours of time on everything in the game that has rng even though (time= money) = ok > Spending money on boosters that increase magic find = ok > Spending money on ecto gamble = ok > Spending money on mystic forge = ok > Spending money on dye packs = ok > Spending money on mount licences = ok > Spending money black lion chests = not ok > > Lol..... None of those are ok..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ugrakarma.9416 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 who cares about UK officials or some shit like that says? This can be easily circumvented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 > @"ugrakarma.9416" said: > who cares about UK officials or some kitten like that says? This can be easily circumvented. Like it got easily circumvented in Belgium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Lumpix.6108 Posted September 18, 2019 Share Posted September 18, 2019 > @"Dante.1508" said: > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > @"AlexxxDelta.1806" said: > > > > @"Jumpin Lumpix.6108" said: > > > > > > > Crossing the street is risky and contains elements of rng, it's also addictive in that people have a desire to get to the other side, repeatedly. Through mental conditioning people are lulled into a false sense of security for an activity that can be dangerous. Crossing the street has clearly become compulsive as people feel compelled to reach the other side and yet they engage in risky street crossing behavior despite the scientifically proven detrimental outcomes of this activity. Pretty much the same statement and argument you said. > > > > > > > > > Nuclear submarines move in seawater. > > > I can move in seawater. > > > Therefore I am a nuclear submarine. > > > > > > I suggest you read a bit on logical fallacies and how to avoid them for a proper debate. It would surely help to construct a proper argument instead of whatever this is. > > > > No it's a direct comparison and I like how everyone ignored what I posted before this post. > > > > According to you, logic = > > > > Spending hours of time on everything in the game that has rng even though (time= money) = ok > > Spending money on boosters that increase magic find = ok > > Spending money on ecto gamble = ok > > Spending money on mystic forge = ok > > Spending money on dye packs = ok > > Spending money on mount licences = ok > > Spending money black lion chests = not ok > > > > Lol..... > > None of those are ok..... Lmao so we should eliminate rng drops from the game? Why do you even play this game if you feel this way? This really makes me question who I'm talking too. Theres 0 logic and Its like saying I play gw2 which is an mmorpg but I really hate the rpg element of it. Take it out and it will be perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts