Didn't think the heritage crate change through did you?

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by globeadue, Apr 20, 2023.

  1. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh


    Here's what I WILL do.

    I will abide by whatever Nennius Attorney friends say. I trust Nennius. If his friends say I'm wrong, I'll immediately apologize and admit I'm wrong. Which I always do, as I know both of you are familiar with me. And that's how I have always rolled on FQ.

    So go ahead and ask these Attorneys:
    Stipulate:
    -Knowing that this is a pedantic argument over the semantics of the word "Gambling" as a label applied to "Loot Crates (in online games available across multiple countries)" specifically.

    -Knowing that said online games were required to change their 'Loot crates', with the change being disclosure of the possible contents of the 'Loot crate'. For example Fortnite was required to change "Loot Llamas" into "Xray Llamas", get it? You can see inside. But they even kept it within the game world vernacular.

    IS IT MORE ACCURATE TO SAY?
    1. Even though games with international purchases were required to disclose possible contents, these 'Loot crates' are still considered 'Gambling' after a forced change to a company?

    2. These games were adjudicated under the 'Gambling Laws' to bring it into Compliance with NOT Gambling. After these forced changes, 'Loot crates' are no different than a Gumball Machine, and NOT Gambling by any reasonable definition of the word.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See how easy? Waring's document mentions 'Gambling Laws' and he thinks that verifies that any country considers them gambling after regulation. 'Loot crate' regulations bring them in compliance with NOT Gambling, WHY?

    Because the United States and xyz country, would BOTH rather regulate and allow money to be made, than have a bunch of law suits over 'gambling' on a gumball machine.
  2. Wyre Wintermute I'm just a butterly dreaming I'm a man

    So I'm just going to post some stuff here and drop out of the whole thing.

    ("some" being an government entity able to pass and enforce legislation. City, state, county, country, etc..)

    Loot boxes are defined legally as gambling according to some.
    Loot boxes are not legally defined under gambling laws by some. (therefore not illegal gambling)
    Loot boxes are both defined legally and NOT defined legally as gambling (meets all criteria in some instances and not in others).


    Legislation in the U.S. has not been successful, as of yet and is allowing the industry to first adapt.

    For the EU:
    https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=315f057f-7ad3-442f-9a7e-5ffecf051f76
    Regulation of Loot Boxes in the EU
    As mentioned above, aside from EU consumer protection laws, loot boxes are not subject to any specific EU harmonized legislation (as is the case for gambling activities). This means that the EU legal market on loot boxes is currently fragmented as all EU Member States may adopt their own requirements and laws to regulate loot boxes.
    There are various positions towards loot boxes:
    • Some Member States adopt a strict stance on loot boxes. For example, Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands have qualified loot boxes purchasable with real money (as opposed to obtained by playing) as either illegal gambling or gambling subject to a gambling operator license.
    • Other Member States allow or are considering allowing loot boxes under conditions similar to those that apply to gambling activities. This is the case in Germany, Italy, and will likely be the case in Spain in the near future (a legislative proposal was submitted in July 2022).
    • In France, the Regulator of the Online Gambling Market (“ARJEL”) has considered that loot boxes were not subject to the rules on games of chance, unless the content of the boxes could be traded for real money afterwards. As this is usually not the case, most of the loot boxes are lawful in France provided that they comply with the general rules on consumer protection.
    Japan and China:
    https://screenrant.com/lootbox-gambling-microtransactions-illegal-japan-china-belgium-netherlands/

    JAPAN
    Japan was the first country to take regulatory action against loot boxes. In 2012, Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency declared complete gacha to be illegal. In their ruling, via Venturebeat, the agency said that complete gacha violated laws against “unjustifiable premiums and misleading representation.” Complete gacha, a monetization mechanic, is basically a loot box variant in which individuals pay to get some random reward. The contrast, and what makes it especially predatory, is that in order to progress in the game a set of rewards must be obtained, meaning players must continue to buy boxes, or whatever the package of rewards is called, until they acquire the proper set. Japan still allows for other types of microtransactions, but this particular model, once very popular in social games, has been outlawed.

    CHINA
    In 2016, China passed a law that changed how loot boxes could operate when used in games played in the country. According to the law, games with loot boxes have to reveal not just the name of all possible rewards but the probability of receiving said rewards. The intent of the law was to make loot boxes more fair and transparent. Since then, China has added further restrictions and intensified the older ones. Now companies must give an exact drop rate for loot boxes items, giving players an idea of the maxim number of boxes they would need to be buy in order to ensure they get a certain item. Also, China has introduced caps on the number of loot boxes that can be bought in a certain day.

    The UK
    (more detailed info here: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/loot-boxes-in-computer-games-are-they-a-form-of-gambling/)
    The House of Lords Gambling Committee, a committee within the U.K.'s lower house of parliament, issued a statement in July 2020 calling for legislative action against the sale of loot boxes in video games. The committee concluded that microtransactions akin to loot boxes constitute gambling and fall under the legislative body's jurisdiction. As of yet, no laws have been made but given the committee's recent recommendation, it is probably only a matter of time.



    NPR dialog:
    https://www.npr.org/2019/10/10/7690...ucrative-game-of-chance-but-are-they-gambling



    Magnus can't cite a source stating that loot crates are not gambling, because there is none.

    That doesn't, by default, mean that they are gambling. It doesn't by default, mean that they are gambling because some have passed laws specifically for these games of chance.


    Because you can actually RMT loot crate items obtained in EQ, technically, it could be covered by the current UK or French gambling laws and be prosecuted.

    This has been an ongoing issue for over a decade. It has picked up momentum over the past 3-4 years, and prior to that attention was brought to it as the mobile smartphone became more of a household item.

    Legislation is rarely quick. In the U.S., there are several "computer crimes" still covered (vaguely) by the telecomm Act and wire fraud Act that predate what we know as being the internet. As more interest, more lawsuits, more research comes out, that's what ultimately pushes legislation forward.

    So please, stop the anecdotal/metaphorical smoke screens. This is a real issue. It has been an ongoing thing for years. Not everyone agrees or disagrees on it for the same merits. Even then, there's the possibility of loot boxes being classified as "other than gambling" and still fall under similar laws, as not to impose on existing gambling laws (which were written and designed for more traditional, non-electronic forms of gambling).


    Fin.
  3. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh

    Excellent and well said Wyre.

    And there you have it.

    All I'm saying is. We who play this specific game, know better than legislators in another country, what this specific mechanic is doing and if it is a 'gamble' or not.

    You are shown a price, you are shown possible outcomes.

    How can anyone here credibly argue this is anything other than a gumball machine with those plastic balls that had different items inside? All cost the vendor the same, they all have the same value. You may want the sticky hand more than the flower keychain.

    But in a court of law no objective person is going to call that gambling. It's no different than being filled with gumballs of different colors. The vendor just dumped them in there and profits the same on each one. There is no scheme, risk, or chance of failure to get a reward.

    I also have fully acknowledged this is preying upon people's behaviors. It's just constructed as a Gumball Machine so it isn't Gambling and can thereby continue to be sold, as a purchase not a bet.
  4. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    All you are being asked to do is provide your source for your claims. And when it came to FTE all I was saying is wait for the official word instead of guessing on how you think it would work.

    Yes, as I have been asking time and time again in this thread please provide your sources for your claims.
  5. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    Now you are arguing that you know better then the people who make the laws and have declared loot boxes gambling? Once they have made laws regarding loot boxes being gambling it doesn't matter what you think because that is what it has been declared.


    Why do you keep going back to a machine that only gives out gumballs and try to compare it to a digital item that gives a wide variety of items?
  6. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh


    My source is self evident fact. My statements stand on their own without need of support from a third party.

    You posting a 'source' link, does not strengthen your case, it weakens it.

    There is no requirement to post a source, never has been. Trying to insist on a non-existent standard belies your argument's weakness.

    If you're itching to read something with your coffee (like I am), read the links Wyre posted. Read his whole post. Kinda proves everything I'm saying right?

    A purchase not involving risk is not Gambling. Period.

    Loot crates in EQ (specifically) are not Gambling. You know the price certain, you know the possible outcomes. There is no risk, you always get one reward worth what you paid.

    Your fallacy comes from thinking 'uncertainty of WHICH reward=Gambling'. That is wrong.

    Just like buying a jar of jelly beans and you can't know how many of each flavor you will get, or even how many you will get (sold by weight), is not gambling.

    Just like buying a package of 6 party prizes on amazon that come in 'Assorted Colors', you can't know what colors you will get, only the price and the number of units you will get. That is not gambling.

    The fact that legislation hasn't caught up proves the same thing we're seeing here. Legislators don't even understand digital goods, and get confused like a small number of people are here.

    'Assorted Colors','Random Flavors','One of these options': NONE ARE GAMBLING PERIOD.

    You know a price certain, you know all possible outcomes, you take no risk, it is not gambling. Any reasonable person will agree.

    I don't know better than legislators. Legislators agree with me. That's why they craft regulations to bring the company in compliance with not gambling. So money can be made legitimately, not a new form of nonsensical court battles that benefit nobody.
  7. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    All you are being asked to do is provide a source of your supposedly easy to find information. As you are now making claims that you know more than the lawmakers who have made laws regulating loot crates as gambling I think it is safe to take it that you have no real evidence and are just going off what you think it should be.

    The fact is legislation has been made after loot boxes have been introduced declaring them as gambling shows how it is treated around the world. The fact that they are gambling doesn't mean that they are bad.
  8. MyShadower All-natural Intelligence

    At least in the United States, until they are required to show me how to get help for problem gambling when selling these things, I think the gambling label is not being applied by any authority. I would not listen to me though, I am not a lawyer or a priest and I have no friends that are.

    Take their money DPG! Sell multiple versions so all purchasers can be content with their prize possibilities.
    MasterMagnus likes this.
  9. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh


    You keep repeating yourself like that will change the outcome this time.

    I will not being quoting any sources. I'm not required to.

    The fact that regulations were passed to CHANGE them, under the umbrella term 'Gambling Law' , proves they were considered gambling before. After regulation they have been brought into compliance with legitimate trade practices, for purchases not gambling. They 'fixed it' so it's not gambling.

    Maybe now you are confusing Predatory=Gambling?

    It IS a predatory practice, and SHOULD be regulated. It is NOT gambling, and it is not reasonable to call it gambling.

    When legislators crack open the 'loot crate' they know nothing about, they find (in the specific case of the specific way EQ crates work), this is nothing more than 'Assorted Colors' purchase. Not gambling.
  10. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    I keep repeating myself? You are making the same claims over and over again about how it isn't gambling even when presented with evidence showing lawmakers declaring is gambling and it should be regulated like gambling.

    What is your objection to providing sources and evidence that it isn't gambling?
    Corwyhn Lionheart likes this.
  11. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh


    You keep asking for a source. I keep saying I won't be quoting a source.

    I have no objection to anyone posting sources if they like. I enjoyed Wyre's post and links greatly.

    I've already provided evidence it is not gambling.

    Any reasonable person will agree, in the specific case of the way EQ loot crates work, you are given a price certain, and possible outcomes, there is no risk, this is not gambling.

    Any reasonable person will agree this is not gambling.

    You are not being reasonable. Your insistence you need proof beyond the SELF EVIDENT facts, is not being reasonable.

    When I was about 7 years old, I saw a gumball machine. I knew immediately from SELF EVIDENT facts:
    -It was not certain which I would get, but I would always get one.
    -They always, all cost the same (the slot only takes one quarter.)
    -The vendor bought a bag of gumballs and poured them in. They are all the same value. They are all the same, because they cost the same, and they are sold for the same.

    These are self evident facts to a child. These are different possible outcomes, but all are the same, and that is not gambling, gambling involves risk. You get what you pay for and where informed of from the start. That's a purchase not a bet.

    Words have meaning. What I just said is all the proof I need.
  12. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    Others and myself have provided sources and evidence that show loot crates are gambling and lawmakers have ruled it as such. You just make repeated claims that it isn't and try to compare it to gumball machines.

    The only reason I can think of that you refuse to provide any sources is because you don't have any and would have to admit you are wrong.
  13. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh


    I'm sorry you're wrong.

    The source you provided says exactly what I told you. U.S. companies where forced to change their loot crates to bring them in compliance with not gambling.

    As Wyre's links point out, there is no consensus around the world that 'loot crates' = gambling.

    Different country's legislators may disagree, being from different countries, having different concerns, regarding many games that have something that fits under the umbrella term 'loot crate', they can't reach a consensus because they are talking about many things all brought into one generic term.

    WE can come to a consensus. Because we are talking about one specific game, one specific mechanic not covered specifically in any of the linked documents.

    The majority will say this is not gambling. A minority will say, it is gambling.

    And if we could get a dev to post here? Do you think they will tell you their game has gambling in it? Or will they tell you their loot crates are in full compliance with NOT GAMBLING?

    Those are rhetorical questions, I already know the answer.
  14. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    Please show how that source shows that? People have provided evidence that loot boxes are gambling and countries are regulating it like that. All you are doing is making claims that things show that it isn't gambling while refusing to actually show what that evidence is. If the source you are talking about really proved that it isn't gambling you would be quoting it and showing it in order to prove me wrong.

    The fact is you seem to be avoiding showing any sources/evidence because it doesn't back up your claims.
    Corwyhn Lionheart likes this.
  15. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh


    Fortnite still sells 'Loot Crates'. At first you couldn't know what the range of possible contents were.

    Fortnite was forced to change that.

    Fortnite sells "X-ray Llamas" instead of "Loot Llamas" now. To bring them in compliance with not gambling.

    They sell as many as they want now, under the full sanction of these laws. And are not taxed on that as 'Gambling' income. It is currently, legally, income of the game as a whole and not gambling.

    Same for EQ.

    Because you can buy a loot crate with game currency from your subscription, does that mean your subscription is gambling?
  16. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    Chang the name and listing the possible rewards doesn't change the fact that it is gambling it just lets users know what the possible rewards are.
  17. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh


    You say it's Gambling. I say it's not.

    How about this.

    I failed to prove you wrong. Somehow I can't prove to you: one price, known outcomes, not gambling.

    You failed to prove me wrong. EQ Loot Crates are not considered gambling. You've presented no proof that they are.

    Simple as that. I don't need to go on, but I can if you want.
  18. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    I am asking you to provide your sources for how it is not gambling. Others and myself have provided evidence showing that loot crates have been regulated as gambling and as illegal gambling. It has also been shown the the term gambling doesn't depend on the possible outcomes of the action.

    The simple request has been for you to show your evidence that it is not gambling which you have refused to do.
  19. MasterMagnus The Oracle of AllHigh


    Outcomes are certain. Nothing is ever lost, nothing is ever risked.

    EQ Loot Crates are easily and demonstrably not gambling. Period.
  20. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    The item you get from them are random, you can get items you can't use, and you can get duplicates of them. Nothing you have said changes the fact that loot chests are gambling and the repeated refusal to provide sources/evidence even though you claim it is such common sense doesn't help you at all.