There are grants provided to Australians to make Australian media, and it may not look good if the government is financing an exploitative game through that process.
Probably wouldn't result in anything other than the grant being cut from that developer and additional scrutiny of or conditions on applicants.
There are grants provided to Australians to make Australian media, and it may not look good if the government is financing an exploitative game through that process.
Probably wouldn't result in anything other than the grant being cut from that developer and additional scrutiny of or conditions on applicants.
With the Liberals - the tory party in power - and the X-factor of the tabloids... well, it might get worse.
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
There are grants provided to Australians to make Australian media, and it may not look good if the government is financing an exploitative game through that process.
Probably wouldn't result in anything other than the grant being cut from that developer and additional scrutiny of or conditions on applicants.
With the Liberals - the tory party in power - and the X-factor of the tabloids... well, it might get worse.
I doubt it?
If it's federal money, they'd certainly seize in the excuse to cut the digital arts funding entirely.
But I'm pretty sure most of it would be Victorian State funding, and aren't Victorians under Labor at the moment?
Pretty sure Vic Film & Media would just tell the federal government to shove it.
There are grants provided to Australians to make Australian media, and it may not look good if the government is financing an exploitative game through that process.
Probably wouldn't result in anything other than the grant being cut from that developer and additional scrutiny of or conditions on applicants.
With the Liberals - the tory party in power - and the X-factor of the tabloids... well, it might get worse.
I doubt it?
If it's federal money, they'd certainly seize in the excuse to cut the digital arts funding entirely.
But I'm pretty sure most of it would be Victorian State funding, and aren't Victorians under Labor at the moment?
Pretty sure Vic Film & Media would just tell the federal government to shove it.
It's not just art, it's exploitative art. If liberals and conservatives in Australia are anything like liberals and conservatives elsewhere, there's going to be some very mixed feelings from both sides on whether to support it.
There are grants provided to Australians to make Australian media, and it may not look good if the government is financing an exploitative game through that process.
Probably wouldn't result in anything other than the grant being cut from that developer and additional scrutiny of or conditions on applicants.
With the Liberals - the tory party in power - and the X-factor of the tabloids... well, it might get worse.
I doubt it?
If it's federal money, they'd certainly seize in the excuse to cut the digital arts funding entirely.
But I'm pretty sure most of it would be Victorian State funding, and aren't Victorians under Labor at the moment?
Pretty sure Vic Film & Media would just tell the federal government to shove it.
It's not just art, it's exploitative art. If liberals and conservatives in Australia are anything like liberals and conservatives elsewhere, there's going to be some very mixed feelings from both sides on whether to support it.
Yeah, which is why the grant process would likely see stricter controls on it to prevent this type of exploitation being funded again.
The liberals may just cut all funding to all games though, using this case as an excuse to do so.
But that requires them to have control over the grant program in question, and I don't think they have that.
There are grants provided to Australians to make Australian media, and it may not look good if the government is financing an exploitative game through that process.
Probably wouldn't result in anything other than the grant being cut from that developer and additional scrutiny of or conditions on applicants.
With the Liberals - the tory party in power - and the X-factor of the tabloids... well, it might get worse.
I doubt it?
If it's federal money, they'd certainly seize in the excuse to cut the digital arts funding entirely.
But I'm pretty sure most of it would be Victorian State funding, and aren't Victorians under Labor at the moment?
Pretty sure Vic Film & Media would just tell the federal government to shove it.
It's not just art, it's exploitative art. If liberals and conservatives in Australia are anything like liberals and conservatives elsewhere, there's going to be some very mixed feelings from both sides on whether to support it.
Yeah, which is why the grant process would likely see stricter controls on it to prevent this type of exploitation being funded again.
The liberals may just cut all funding to all games though, using this case as an excuse to do so.
But that requires them to have control over the grant program in question, and I don't think they have that.
Though if they wanted to pull some fuckery to try and centralize it to cut it, that would be an useful bloody shirt to wave...
I would rather be accused of intransigence than tolerating genocide for the sake of everyone getting along. - @Metzger Meister
There are grants provided to Australians to make Australian media, and it may not look good if the government is financing an exploitative game through that process.
Probably wouldn't result in anything other than the grant being cut from that developer and additional scrutiny of or conditions on applicants.
With the Liberals - the tory party in power - and the X-factor of the tabloids... well, it might get worse.
I doubt it?
If it's federal money, they'd certainly seize in the excuse to cut the digital arts funding entirely.
But I'm pretty sure most of it would be Victorian State funding, and aren't Victorians under Labor at the moment?
Pretty sure Vic Film & Media would just tell the federal government to shove it.
It's not just art, it's exploitative art. If liberals and conservatives in Australia are anything like liberals and conservatives elsewhere, there's going to be some very mixed feelings from both sides on whether to support it.
Yeah, which is why the grant process would likely see stricter controls on it to prevent this type of exploitation being funded again.
The liberals may just cut all funding to all games though, using this case as an excuse to do so.
But that requires them to have control over the grant program in question, and I don't think they have that.
Though if they wanted to pull some fuckery to try and centralize it to cut it, that would be an useful bloody shirt to wave...
I don't see how they could.
You would need to take responsibility for that art funding away from the states.
And usually that division of responsibility is set down in the Constitution (or whatever it is), and would require all the states to agree to divulge responsibility back to the federal government to get the change.
Like the Murray-Darling 'plan'.
I don't think Vic would agree to the loss of digital art funding control, just to see it scuppered.
Grants having stricter controls on who gets them means people won't get them even if they need them, because the hurdles become too much to be worth the effort.
Someone accepting grant money and then fucking up is just screwing over people who actually need those grants.
Grants ensuring that you can't build a digital casino even if you can't build it yourself is not a hurdle too far, I think.
My point is that if you accept grant money, and then build a digital casino partly with that grant, you are not just generally a dick, you are specifically screwing over every other developer when they tighten the control process.
If all that happens is that there is an added line in the grant stating "no lootboxes" or something, awesome.
But the worry is that when someone starts to tighten the requirements, it will involve work on behalf of the developers seeking the grant, which will almost certainly make people who genuinely should get one, not getting it.
And my point is, it is trivially true that additional scrutiny increases workload on the other devs, even if it's just ticking a tick box saying 'I will not build a digital casino with this money'.
But that does not imply the additional scrutiny is not worthwhile, nor that the burden is too onerous on indie developers who actually should receive funding.
It would depend on what the actual scrutiny is, if and when it is applied in this case.
In the meantime, I choose to think that any additional scrutiny will only screw over other devs who are looking to get additional funding through microtransactions.
And my point is, it is trivially true that additional scrutiny increases workload on the other devs, even if it's just ticking a tick box saying 'I will not build a digital casino with this money'.
But that does not imply the additional scrutiny is not worthwhile, nor that the burden is too onerous on indie developers who actually should receive funding.
It would depend on what the actual scrutiny is, if and when it is applied in this case.
In the meantime, I choose to think that any additional scrutiny will only screw over other devs who are looking to get additional funding through microtransactions.
And that is your right.
I choose to be pissed that someone took a bucket of water from the public well and then took a dump in it afterwards because fuck anyone else, and now there is going to be a lock in the well.
To make a piss poor analogy.
Maybe there needs to be further scrutiny, and maybe it will be fine, but just adding "no lootboxes" checkbox is not going to stop the next asshole from doing something else shitty.
I'm generally cagey about restrictions on cultural grants, because the ones who need them most are likely to be the ones least able to navigate any red tape involved.
0
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
What if you played a casino where you could never get your money back? Is that gambling?!
So are they trying to take down the entire industry with them? Salt the earth so that no lootboxes can grow after this? Or are they just completely tone deaf?
What if you played a casino where you could never get your money back? Is that gambling?!
So are they trying to take down the entire industry with them? Salt the earth so that no lootboxes can grow after this? Or are they just completely tone deaf?
The latter.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The writing's on the wall, and they're pretty sure they're going to be forced to stop soon, but since they don't have to stop yet.
This is like in some wars, when a ceasefire is negotiated, and both sides tell their forces that hostilities will end at X time on Y date. The idea is that sides orderly evacuate conflict zones, nobody is immediately in violation of the cease fire simply by having a communication delay. The reality is that one or both sides usually take the deadline as a blank check to go apeshit and do as much damage as they can before the bell.
What if you played a casino where you could never get your money back? Is that gambling?!
I mean, I don't think it's actually as bad as it sounds. It's basically the same as every other kind of "Buy Ingame Currency" thing.
Most games though don't have a way to turn ingame currency into more ingame currency, at least not this directly via ingame mechanics.
It is a step further along the path, and the fact that it's skinned like an actual casino is just icing.
There are plenty of virtual games of chance. Virtual poker games for funbux are very common.
All the ones I can think of are either ad supported or very cheap, but I wouldn't be surprised to know of games that require regular buy ins like this gta one.
I would download a car.
+1
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
What if you played a casino where you could never get your money back? Is that gambling?!
I mean, I don't think it's actually as bad as it sounds. It's basically the same as every other kind of "Buy Ingame Currency" thing.
Most games though don't have a way to turn ingame currency into more ingame currency, at least not this directly via ingame mechanics.
It is a step further along the path, and the fact that it's skinned like an actual casino is just icing.
There are plenty of virtual games of chance. Virtual poker games for funbux are very common.
All the ones I can think of are either ad supported or very cheap, but I wouldn't be surprised to know of games that require regular buy ins like this gta one.
Actual casino games like virtual slots/video poker etc. can't take your money or be tied to a service that can take your money related to the casino games.
That's why the free casino games offered by online casinos run off different backend services.
It gets a bit weird with the accounts, like you can clone a real money account to a guest account, but not vice versa. But they're different accounts even if they're linked for easy switching.
Edit: ease of switch from real to play. Other direction should force a login.
But they're super careful to not have the ability to accept cash payments for chips.
What if you played a casino where you could never get your money back? Is that gambling?!
I mean, I don't think it's actually as bad as it sounds. It's basically the same as every other kind of "Buy Ingame Currency" thing.
Most games though don't have a way to turn ingame currency into more ingame currency, at least not this directly via ingame mechanics.
It is a step further along the path, and the fact that it's skinned like an actual casino is just icing.
There are plenty of virtual games of chance. Virtual poker games for funbux are very common.
All the ones I can think of are either ad supported or very cheap, but I wouldn't be surprised to know of games that require regular buy ins like this gta one.
Actual casino games like virtual slots/video poker etc. can't take your money or be tied to a service that can take your money related to the casino games.
That's why the free casino games offered by online casinos run off different backend services.
It gets a bit weird with the accounts, like you can clone a real money account to a guest account, but not vice versa. But they're different accounts even if they're linked for easy switching.
Edit: ease of switch from real to play. Other direction should force a login.
But they're super careful to not have the ability to accept cash payments for chips.
I don't see any reason why they can't legally in the United States. If they aren't offering a way to get the money back out it's not gambling by the legal definition.
I spent a few seconds googling and found two examples of virtual gambling games that allow you to buy chips with micro transactions on steam.
What if you played a casino where you could never get your money back? Is that gambling?!
I mean, I don't think it's actually as bad as it sounds. It's basically the same as every other kind of "Buy Ingame Currency" thing.
Most games though don't have a way to turn ingame currency into more ingame currency, at least not this directly via ingame mechanics.
It is a step further along the path, and the fact that it's skinned like an actual casino is just icing.
There are plenty of virtual games of chance. Virtual poker games for funbux are very common.
All the ones I can think of are either ad supported or very cheap, but I wouldn't be surprised to know of games that require regular buy ins like this gta one.
Actual casino games like virtual slots/video poker etc. can't take your money or be tied to a service that can take your money related to the casino games.
That's why the free casino games offered by online casinos run off different backend services.
It gets a bit weird with the accounts, like you can clone a real money account to a guest account, but not vice versa. But they're different accounts even if they're linked for easy switching.
Edit: ease of switch from real to play. Other direction should force a login.
But they're super careful to not have the ability to accept cash payments for chips.
I remember a story where one site ran afoul of a state's gambling laws (Oregon I think) because the only way to earn funbucks to play other than winning said games was real money, which means that those games were in fact for something of tangible value offered by the site: namely, more chances to play.
Ooh, I just thought of another evil workaround for lootbox laws. How about a system where it rolls a player's next lootbox in advance and just flat out tells them exactly what it contains, and the only way to ever get something different is to purchase what's already there (or rely on some sort of long rotation timer or expensive reroll mechanic)?
Look on your phone's app store and you'll find plenty of casino games that let you buy chips with cash. Microsoft even has a slots game that accepts real cash for in game currency.
Ooh, I just thought of another evil workaround for lootbox laws. How about a system where it rolls a player's next lootbox in advance and just flat out tells them exactly what it contains, and the only way to ever get something different is to purchase what's already there (or rely on some sort of long rotation timer or expensive reroll mechanic)?
One of Fortnite's modes does this. It's basically a daily sale item at that point.
I think that mostly defangs the gambling aspect of lootboxes, so I wouldn't care too much at that point.
Ooh, I just thought of another evil workaround for lootbox laws. How about a system where it rolls a player's next lootbox in advance and just flat out tells them exactly what it contains, and the only way to ever get something different is to purchase what's already there (or rely on some sort of long rotation timer or expensive reroll mechanic)?
One of Fortnite's modes does this. It's basically a daily sale item at that point.
I think that mostly defangs the gambling aspect of lootboxes, so I wouldn't care too much at that point.
Does it reroll a new item afterwards, though, or are you just limited to the one? The way that I'm thinking of it, you could buy multiple in a row and generate just as many random rolls while doing it, you'd just always be delayed by one purchase. It probably would blunt some of the immediacy if you know that your purchase won't instantly give you something unknown, though.
Ooh, I just thought of another evil workaround for lootbox laws. How about a system where it rolls a player's next lootbox in advance and just flat out tells them exactly what it contains, and the only way to ever get something different is to purchase what's already there (or rely on some sort of long rotation timer or expensive reroll mechanic)?
One of Fortnite's modes does this. It's basically a daily sale item at that point.
I think that mostly defangs the gambling aspect of lootboxes, so I wouldn't care too much at that point.
Does it reroll a new item afterwards, though, or are you just limited to the one? The way that I'm thinking of it, you could buy multiple in a row and generate just as many random rolls while doing it, you'd just always be delayed by one purchase. It probably would blunt some of the immediacy if you know that your purchase won't instantly give you something unknown, though.
Yes, it rerolls afterward. It's basically a lootbox, but you can see inside first.
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Ooh, I just thought of another evil workaround for lootbox laws. How about a system where it rolls a player's next lootbox in advance and just flat out tells them exactly what it contains, and the only way to ever get something different is to purchase what's already there (or rely on some sort of long rotation timer or expensive reroll mechanic)?
One of Fortnite's modes does this. It's basically a daily sale item at that point.
I think that mostly defangs the gambling aspect of lootboxes, so I wouldn't care too much at that point.
I don't see how that defangs the gambling. You pay money, there's a RNG element, and items of value (or not) are obtained by the player. The only thing that's different is that spending money gets you the results of the previous RNG roll, not the current RNG roll, it's just a slight reordering of the core gambling steps. Instead of Pay -> Roll -> Get Winnings, it's Pay -> Get Previous Winnings -> Roll. The slight disconnect might make a small difference to some people, but it still has all the crappy elements that make lootboxes both crappy gameplay and dangerous for some people's well being.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Ooh, I just thought of another evil workaround for lootbox laws. How about a system where it rolls a player's next lootbox in advance and just flat out tells them exactly what it contains, and the only way to ever get something different is to purchase what's already there (or rely on some sort of long rotation timer or expensive reroll mechanic)?
One of Fortnite's modes does this. It's basically a daily sale item at that point.
I think that mostly defangs the gambling aspect of lootboxes, so I wouldn't care too much at that point.
I don't see how that defangs the gambling. You pay money, there's a RNG element, and items of value (or not) are obtained by the player. The only thing that's different is that spending money gets you the results of the previous RNG roll, not the current RNG roll, it's just a slight reordering of the core gambling steps. Instead of Pay -> Roll -> Get Winnings, it's Pay -> Get Previous Winnings -> Roll. The slight disconnect might make a small difference to some people, but it still has all the crappy elements that make lootboxes both crappy gameplay and dangerous for some people's well being.
How about also letting players try out the contents of the next loot box in advance, letting them better judge whether the purchase would be worthwhile? That'd totally be something that would empower customers even further, right?
Ooh, I just thought of another evil workaround for lootbox laws. How about a system where it rolls a player's next lootbox in advance and just flat out tells them exactly what it contains, and the only way to ever get something different is to purchase what's already there (or rely on some sort of long rotation timer or expensive reroll mechanic)?
One of Fortnite's modes does this. It's basically a daily sale item at that point.
I think that mostly defangs the gambling aspect of lootboxes, so I wouldn't care too much at that point.
I don't see how that defangs the gambling. You pay money, there's a RNG element, and items of value (or not) are obtained by the player. The only thing that's different is that spending money gets you the results of the previous RNG roll, not the current RNG roll, it's just a slight reordering of the core gambling steps. Instead of Pay -> Roll -> Get Winnings, it's Pay -> Get Previous Winnings -> Roll. The slight disconnect might make a small difference to some people, but it still has all the crappy elements that make lootboxes both crappy gameplay and dangerous for some people's well being.
How about also letting players try out the contents of the next loot box in advance, letting them better judge whether the purchase would be worthwhile? That'd totally be something that would empower customers even further, right?
No, it wouldnt empower the customer at all, at that point its a daily item with an extra layer of predation. Its a horrible idea.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
Ooh, I just thought of another evil workaround for lootbox laws. How about a system where it rolls a player's next lootbox in advance and just flat out tells them exactly what it contains, and the only way to ever get something different is to purchase what's already there (or rely on some sort of long rotation timer or expensive reroll mechanic)?
One of Fortnite's modes does this. It's basically a daily sale item at that point.
I think that mostly defangs the gambling aspect of lootboxes, so I wouldn't care too much at that point.
I don't see how that defangs the gambling. You pay money, there's a RNG element, and items of value (or not) are obtained by the player. The only thing that's different is that spending money gets you the results of the previous RNG roll, not the current RNG roll, it's just a slight reordering of the core gambling steps. Instead of Pay -> Roll -> Get Winnings, it's Pay -> Get Previous Winnings -> Roll. The slight disconnect might make a small difference to some people, but it still has all the crappy elements that make lootboxes both crappy gameplay and dangerous for some people's well being.
How about also letting players try out the contents of the next loot box in advance, letting them better judge whether the purchase would be worthwhile? That'd totally be something that would empower customers even further, right?
No, it wouldnt empower the customer at all, at that point its a daily item with an extra layer of predation. Its a horrible idea.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic, it would shift things exactly back to blind lootboxes except with the first one being free.
In order to head off some regulation, Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are teaming up at least for transparency.
Well, here's the thing. Disclosure of odds doesn't make it not gambling. It just means you know how screwed you're getting with this. It doesn't protect you from any of the impulses that come with shopping or gambling addictions nor does it mitigate the psychological manipulation these schemes employ. It's an empty gesture. A distraction from the actual problems that come with loot boxes and other such things.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
+18
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
I don't disagree. But they're taking notice and if the pressure keeps on this may just be the first step.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited August 2019
Hey so, the FTC discovered that sponsored streamers were having their loot box odds manipulated by developers / publishers. That is astronomically fucked up.
Edit - To get ahead of it, that action does NOT have to be disclosed, legally speaking. A stream being sponsored does, but any manipulation in the streamer's favor does not have to be. That is... wild. It makes me wonder how many streamers have favor being put on them without consenting to it.
I think it's important to draw the distinction between freebies for influencers. Those are frequently misrepresented as something they earned or bought themselves and that's a thing itself.
But manipulating odds is because of a particular kind of video that many streamers that play these games do: where they open up some very large number of boxes and show the cumulative results. I have not watched many, but I've never seen one represented as anything except an expected outcome.
Posts
Probably wouldn't result in anything other than the grant being cut from that developer and additional scrutiny of or conditions on applicants.
With the Liberals - the tory party in power - and the X-factor of the tabloids... well, it might get worse.
I doubt it?
If it's federal money, they'd certainly seize in the excuse to cut the digital arts funding entirely.
But I'm pretty sure most of it would be Victorian State funding, and aren't Victorians under Labor at the moment?
Pretty sure Vic Film & Media would just tell the federal government to shove it.
It's not just art, it's exploitative art. If liberals and conservatives in Australia are anything like liberals and conservatives elsewhere, there's going to be some very mixed feelings from both sides on whether to support it.
Yeah, which is why the grant process would likely see stricter controls on it to prevent this type of exploitation being funded again.
The liberals may just cut all funding to all games though, using this case as an excuse to do so.
But that requires them to have control over the grant program in question, and I don't think they have that.
Though if they wanted to pull some fuckery to try and centralize it to cut it, that would be an useful bloody shirt to wave...
I don't see how they could.
You would need to take responsibility for that art funding away from the states.
And usually that division of responsibility is set down in the Constitution (or whatever it is), and would require all the states to agree to divulge responsibility back to the federal government to get the change.
Like the Murray-Darling 'plan'.
I don't think Vic would agree to the loss of digital art funding control, just to see it scuppered.
Someone accepting grant money and then fucking up is just screwing over people who actually need those grants.
That was my other issue - sure, that's needful, but there might be other obstacles inposed.
If all that happens is that there is an added line in the grant stating "no lootboxes" or something, awesome.
But the worry is that when someone starts to tighten the requirements, it will involve work on behalf of the developers seeking the grant, which will almost certainly make people who genuinely should get one, not getting it.
But that does not imply the additional scrutiny is not worthwhile, nor that the burden is too onerous on indie developers who actually should receive funding.
It would depend on what the actual scrutiny is, if and when it is applied in this case.
In the meantime, I choose to think that any additional scrutiny will only screw over other devs who are looking to get additional funding through microtransactions.
I choose to be pissed that someone took a bucket of water from the public well and then took a dump in it afterwards because fuck anyone else, and now there is going to be a lock in the well.
To make a piss poor analogy.
Maybe there needs to be further scrutiny, and maybe it will be fine, but just adding "no lootboxes" checkbox is not going to stop the next asshole from doing something else shitty.
I'm generally cagey about restrictions on cultural grants, because the ones who need them most are likely to be the ones least able to navigate any red tape involved.
What if you played a casino where you could never get your money back? Is that gambling?!
So are they trying to take down the entire industry with them? Salt the earth so that no lootboxes can grow after this? Or are they just completely tone deaf?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
The latter.
This is like in some wars, when a ceasefire is negotiated, and both sides tell their forces that hostilities will end at X time on Y date. The idea is that sides orderly evacuate conflict zones, nobody is immediately in violation of the cease fire simply by having a communication delay. The reality is that one or both sides usually take the deadline as a blank check to go apeshit and do as much damage as they can before the bell.
I mean, I don't think it's actually as bad as it sounds. It's basically the same as every other kind of "Buy Ingame Currency" thing.
Most games though don't have a way to turn ingame currency into more ingame currency, at least not this directly via ingame mechanics.
It is a step further along the path, and the fact that it's skinned like an actual casino is just icing.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
There are plenty of virtual games of chance. Virtual poker games for funbux are very common.
All the ones I can think of are either ad supported or very cheap, but I wouldn't be surprised to know of games that require regular buy ins like this gta one.
Actual casino games like virtual slots/video poker etc. can't take your money or be tied to a service that can take your money related to the casino games.
That's why the free casino games offered by online casinos run off different backend services.
It gets a bit weird with the accounts, like you can clone a real money account to a guest account, but not vice versa. But they're different accounts even if they're linked for easy switching.
Edit: ease of switch from real to play. Other direction should force a login.
But they're super careful to not have the ability to accept cash payments for chips.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I mean, they do frequently. As long as you can't cash out, it's just spending money on virtual currency.
I don't see any reason why they can't legally in the United States. If they aren't offering a way to get the money back out it's not gambling by the legal definition.
I spent a few seconds googling and found two examples of virtual gambling games that allow you to buy chips with micro transactions on steam.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/322950/Pure_Holdem/
https://store.steampowered.com/app/260430/The_Four_Kings_Casino_and_Slots/
I remember a story where one site ran afoul of a state's gambling laws (Oregon I think) because the only way to earn funbucks to play other than winning said games was real money, which means that those games were in fact for something of tangible value offered by the site: namely, more chances to play.
One of Fortnite's modes does this. It's basically a daily sale item at that point.
I think that mostly defangs the gambling aspect of lootboxes, so I wouldn't care too much at that point.
Does it reroll a new item afterwards, though, or are you just limited to the one? The way that I'm thinking of it, you could buy multiple in a row and generate just as many random rolls while doing it, you'd just always be delayed by one purchase. It probably would blunt some of the immediacy if you know that your purchase won't instantly give you something unknown, though.
Yes, it rerolls afterward. It's basically a lootbox, but you can see inside first.
I don't see how that defangs the gambling. You pay money, there's a RNG element, and items of value (or not) are obtained by the player. The only thing that's different is that spending money gets you the results of the previous RNG roll, not the current RNG roll, it's just a slight reordering of the core gambling steps. Instead of Pay -> Roll -> Get Winnings, it's Pay -> Get Previous Winnings -> Roll. The slight disconnect might make a small difference to some people, but it still has all the crappy elements that make lootboxes both crappy gameplay and dangerous for some people's well being.
How about also letting players try out the contents of the next loot box in advance, letting them better judge whether the purchase would be worthwhile? That'd totally be something that would empower customers even further, right?
No, it wouldnt empower the customer at all, at that point its a daily item with an extra layer of predation. Its a horrible idea.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic, it would shift things exactly back to blind lootboxes except with the first one being free.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Well, here's the thing. Disclosure of odds doesn't make it not gambling. It just means you know how screwed you're getting with this. It doesn't protect you from any of the impulses that come with shopping or gambling addictions nor does it mitigate the psychological manipulation these schemes employ. It's an empty gesture. A distraction from the actual problems that come with loot boxes and other such things.
https://www.polygon.com/2019/8/7/20758974/ftc-loot-box-panel-streamer-publisher-sponsorships
Edit - To get ahead of it, that action does NOT have to be disclosed, legally speaking. A stream being sponsored does, but any manipulation in the streamer's favor does not have to be. That is... wild. It makes me wonder how many streamers have favor being put on them without consenting to it.
they had their chance, they fucked up, ban em.
But manipulating odds is because of a particular kind of video that many streamers that play these games do: where they open up some very large number of boxes and show the cumulative results. I have not watched many, but I've never seen one represented as anything except an expected outcome.