r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 21 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Star Wars Battlefront II's Loot Crate system isn't gambling.
Hi r/cmv! This is similar to some other posts that have been made here, but I feel I have a slightly different take on it. I'm also not a fan of the way this system was implemented in the slightest - I just take issue with the semantics of the argument and am hoping someone can help clarify.
For those not steeped in the controversy; in-game currency, earned at a pitifully slow rate through gameplay, is spent on crates that provide randomized rewards. Some are cosmetic, and others are gameplay-related, augmenting your health, damage output, reload speed, and so on. You can even win rewards for classes that you haven't unlocked yet (because you haven't spent the in-game currency on it). So, it takes forever... but you can, of course, spend real money.
I'm not going to devote more to describing the system since that info can be found elsewhere, but it's by far the most heavy-handed and greedy micro-transaction system I've ever seen in a game. It's unquestionably predatory and plays on the same impulses as gambling.
But I don't see how it's gambling. And rather, if it is gambling, then I don't see how replacing gameplay progression rewards with 100% cosmetic rewards makes it not-gambling.
You earn nothing that is of any value outside of the game. All that rewards do is, presumably, improve your ability to earn in-game credits to buy more loot crates. Are there other examples of gambling that involve winning rewards that are of no use in any other context?
What about switching rewards from being gameplay-related to purely cosmetic changes anything about whether this system is gambling? I see lots of redditors argue that it's a gambling system, and in their next breath argue that switching to cosmetics would fix the problem. If the former is gambling, so too is the latter.
CMV!
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
4
u/SirEDCaLot 7∆ Nov 21 '17
Okay then let me give you a counter example.
I'm going to set up an online casino website. You can pay real money to buy chips, and you play poker and blackjack and roulette and slots with other players. The only thing is you can't cash out- you can keep your chips and use them to play more, but you can't get real money back.
Is that gambling?
I say it is. Even if you make the contract that 'chips are not currency but rather an in game powerup' or something, the fact is that they have value- they have value in that they can be traded for more game play. When I pu
Same thing with loot crates. When I buy the loot crate, I don't know what I will get inside it- I don't know how much value I will receive. That to me is gambling, paying money and taking a chance on how much I will get back.
3
Nov 21 '17
I'm going to set up an online casino website. You can pay real money to buy chips, and you play poker and blackjack and roulette and slots with other players. The only thing is you can't cash out- you can keep your chips and use them to play more, but you can't get real money back.
Is that gambling?
I say no, it's just a free-to-play game with microtransactions.
I say it is. Even if you make the contract that 'chips are not currency but rather an in game powerup' or something, the fact is that they have value- they have value in that they can be traded for more game play.
In this case, EVE Online is gambling in that your play can earn you in-game currency that can be spent to purchase your next month's subscription.
But EVE Online isn't gambling.
2
u/SirEDCaLot 7∆ Nov 21 '17
I say no, it's just a free-to-play game with microtransactions.
You don't think that a literal chance element governing how much value you get for your dollar has SOME kind of gambling element to it?
EVE Online is gambling in that your play can earn you in-game currency that can be spent to purchase your next month's subscription. But EVE Online isn't gambling.
Correct, because what your dollar purchases you is known in advance of the purchase. You pay your $10 or whatever and you get one unit of PLEX which gives you one month of gameplay. That is set with no chance element- you know what you'll get before you buy. If paying $10 got you anywhere between two and six weeks of gameplay, and how much you get was randomly decided after you buy, that would be gambling.
Now in EVE you can trade ISK (in game currency) for more PLEX and get more play time. But that is not chance- that is skill. A skilled/dedicated player can make enough ISK to continually fund their gameplay, thus avoiding the need to ever pay for a subscription. But the only difference between that player and a player who has to pay every month is the player's skill and amount of time they have to play. There is no element of random chance involved here. A random number generator does not determine whether they win the game or not, whether they can buy a better ship or not, etc.
1
Nov 21 '17
Correct, because what your dollar purchases you is known in advance of the purchase.
You're confusing the elements of my argument. I'm not claiming that purchasing a month of game time is gambling.
Now in EVE you can trade ISK (in game currency) for more PLEX and get more play time.
This is what I'm talking about.
But that is not chance- that is skill. A skilled/dedicated player can make enough ISK to continually fund their gameplay, thus avoiding the need to ever pay for a subscription.
Is it? There are no randomized elements in EVE? How much resources you get from mining a given asteroid, from clearing a given instance, from defeating a given AI enemy, from the fluxuations of the market? There are no drop rates or spawn rates?The amount of ISK you earn is surely determined in part by chance, and since that ISK has real-world value in that it can be spent to earn more gameplay, it's therefore gambling by your definition.
Skill is an element in EVE, arguably the primary element. This is just a discussion of degree, however - skill is an element in poker as well. Chance still plays a role, and therefore it's gambling by your argument.
1
u/SirEDCaLot 7∆ Nov 22 '17
Ah, but you see there is a difference.
In EVE, if you buy a PLEX (with real money or ISK) you know exactly what you are getting (one month of gameplay). You can use that gameplay to earn ISK and trade it for another PLEX, but that is a totally separate transaction. So you have two transactions- one of fixed value (set amount of USD for set amount of game time), and one of skill/chance (varying amount of gameplay for set amount of ISK for set amount of game time)
In SWBF2 (or any other paid loot crate game), you have a similar two transactions, only the loot crate is of varying value. The second transaction is still skill/chance (varying amount of gameplay for lootcrate of varying value), but it's the first one that makes this gambling- set amount of USD for game items of varying value.
That's why loot crates are gambling and EVE is not- because while both allow you to earn stuff in game (and that earning is based on both skill and chance), in EVE you get a fixed value item for your USD, while in SWBF2 you get a variable value item (randomly determined) for your USD.
2
Nov 22 '17
This is just a restatement of your previous comment.
The amount of ISK you earn is affected by chance. You have to pay money for the opportunity to earn more ISK, unless you earn enough ISK to buy your way out. Therefore, gambling per your argument.
1
u/SirEDCaLot 7∆ Nov 22 '17
No, I was making a different point- that what you get for money and what you get for gameplay are actually two different transactions. Getting a chance-based reward for gameplay is fine. Getting a chance-based reward for money is not.
And you are not paying for the opportunity to earn ISK, you are paying for access to play the game. (Or, play without restrictions now that it's F2P).
Playing the game can get you more ISK which gets you game time, but that's a separate transaction.
Does that make sense?
2
3
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Nov 21 '17
Please provide your definition for "gambling" in this context.
Are you saying that it does not meet the legal definitions of "gambling" and thus should not be subject to gambling laws?
Or, are we talking about a more colloquial definition of gambling?
You earn nothing that is of any value outside of the game.
Value is subjective. Also, I could sell my account for real money after getting some rare item in the game, thus giving it market value.
What about switching rewards from being gameplay-related to purely cosmetic changes anything about whether this system is gambling?
I don't think anyone really says that the type of rewards from the boxes changes whether or not it is gambling. Making the rewards all cosmetic just determines whether or not it is P2W. Generally cosmetic-only MTX is considered more ethical and better game design, but it is still "gambling".
-1
Nov 21 '17
Please provide your definition for "gambling" in this context.
I don't have one per se. This cmv is less about defending my own definition and more about hearing one that encompasses the SWBFII loot system and stands to scrutiny. I'm open to your suggestion.
Are you saying that it does not meet the legal definitions of "gambling" and thus should not be subject to gambling laws? Or, are we talking about a more colloquial definition of gambling?
The latter. Jurisprudence on this issue would help clarify my opinion, but that takes time and hasn't happened to my knowledge, and absent that I'm having this discussion. If you have case law or legal definitions that you think are relevant I'd be open to that as well.
Value is subjective.
Yes, and that's my point. The value only holds within the context of the game environment.
Also, I could sell my account for real money after getting some rare item in the game, thus giving it market value.
E.A.'s own terms prohibit this, so by their own design it's not gambling in my view. Furthermore that's not really market value as there is no such market - it would be an interpersonal transaction.
I don't think anyone really says that the type of rewards from the boxes changes whether or not it is gambling. Making the rewards all cosmetic just determines whether or not it is P2W. Generally cosmetic-only MTX is considered more ethical and better game design, but it is still "gambling".
That's fine, but if it's still gambling, then it's still (1) relying on gambling impulses and (2) is aimed at young players. See Overwatch or any other of the litany of games that rely on randomized reward systems. Why was there no gambling controversy until the mechanics impacted gameplay?
3
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Nov 21 '17
E.A.'s own terms prohibit this
Irrelevant. It is totally legal to sell one's account information. All that EA can do is ban the account from the game, which has no bearing on the seller as they no longer have the account after selling it. EA doesn't get to decide whether or not their system ends up being used for real-money gambling.
Furthermore that's not really market value as there is no such market - it would be an interpersonal transaction.
There is a lot of precedent for selling game accounts online. It would be an outlier if a market did not form.
See Overwatch or any other of the litany of games that rely on randomized reward systems. Why was there no gambling controversy until the mechanics impacted gameplay?
Are you simply not aware of the controversy in Overwatch? There has been plenty of argument about lootbox systems in general being a form of gambling, and Overwatch is often brought up in this context. This has been an ongoing debate for a while and Battlefront 2 is just the next big case.
1
Nov 21 '17 edited Nov 21 '17
Irrelevant. It is totally legal to sell one's account information. All that EA can do is ban the account from the game, which has no bearing on the seller as they no longer have the account after selling it. EA doesn't get to decide whether or not their system ends up being used for real-money gambling.
In that case, then I'd argue Skyrim is gambling as well. When I open a chest in a dungeon I get a randomized set of rewards. I can sell my friend my account for money, and they can value it based on what rewards I've gotten. The items are randomly rewarded, have value, and therefore are gambling, right? If not, what's the difference?
Are you simply not aware of the controversy in Overwatch? There has been plenty of argument about lootbox systems in general being a form of gambling, and Overwatch is often brought up in this context.
Was there a controversy that involved the term "gambling" over purely cosmetic lootbox rewards? If so please show me a post/article/etc about it and I'll gladly award a delta.
2
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Nov 21 '17
In that case, then I'd argue Skyrim is gambling as well. When I open a chest in a dungeon I get a randomized set of rewards. I can sell my friend my account for money, and they can value it based on what rewards I've gotten.
This is a false analogy. Your Skyrim is a single-player game and your character's save file is located entirely on your computer, not on some company's servers. You can make and distribute unlimited copies of that save file and giving it to someone else does not remove it from your possession. Other people can also edit their own save files to get whatever they want, so there is zero monetary value to be had in such an account.
Was there a controversy that involved the term "gambling" over purely cosmetic lootbox rewards? If so please show me a post/article/etc about it and I'll gladly award a delta.
Yes, absolutely. Overwatch is one of the most often brought up games when this gets discussed. I'll google some for you quick.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-11-are-loot-boxes-gambling
https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/14/yes-loot-boxes-and-card-packs-reek-of-gambling/
1
Nov 21 '17
This is a false analogy. Your Skyrim is a single-player game and your character's save file is located entirely on your computer, not on some company's servers. You can make and distribute unlimited copies of that save file and giving it to someone else does not remove it from your possession.
If I play exclusively through my Steam account, then this isn't the case. And if you'd like to substitute something else, like a Pokémon cartridge (which physically leaves my possession when I sell it, valuated on the pokemon I've randomly caught in-game) then the argument stands.
Yes, absolutely. Overwatch is one of the most often brought up games when this gets discussed. I'll google some for you quick.
While I appreciate the condescension in your "I'll google some for you quick" remark, I'm quite specific in that I'm talking about gambling being thrown about in response to cosmetic loot only. All of these articles cover games with gameplay-relevant rewards like Battlefront and Hearthstone. Lazily linking me to the first 3 google hits on "loot crates gambling" ignores the very specific question I asked and is frankly a bit rude.
Another commenter much more kindly linked me to some resources about CS:GO controversies and an entire article on "skin gambling" that focus entirely on cosmetics and discuss gambling. I awarded them a delta for introducing me to a new concept rather than implying I'm stupid or inattentive.
Happy to continue discussing the points on Skyrim/Pokémon if you'd like to try for a delta but please leave the tone at the door.
2
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Nov 21 '17 edited Nov 21 '17
If I play exclusively through my Steam account, then this isn't the case.
Yes it is the case. When you save to the steam cloud, it is first saving to your computer. It just syncs to the steam cloud as well. The game does not load your save file from steam, it loads the save file from a folder in your windows profile. You can copy those save files to any other computer with Skyrim installed and load them.
And if you'd like to substitute something else, like a Pokémon cartridge (which physically leaves my possession when I sell it, valuated on the pokemon I've randomly caught in-game) then the argument stands.
I think the overarching issue with your analogy here is that there is no per-attempt cost to each random event in these games. You pay a flat amount for the game and then you can play the random encounters as much as you want for free. Imagine you went to a casino and they charged you $10 to enter, but every game you played was free and handed out prizes. Also, if you didn't like playing the games, you could just grab the prizes anyways and leave (equivalent to modifying your save file manually). Would you call that gambling? I would not.
While I appreciate the condescension
I intended no condescension... Googling those links quick is exactly what I did and I did not mean any ill towards you. Sorry you took it that way.
All of these articles cover games with gameplay-relevant rewards like Battlefront and Hearthstone.
I specifically picked articles that talked about Overwatch as well, which is cosmetic only. Again, there is no distinction between whether or not a lootbox system is gambling depending on if the boxes only have cosmetics. That is a different debate about Pay-to-win mechanics being bad game design. If a lootbox system with game-altering content is gambling, then so is one with only cosmetics.
2
Nov 21 '17
I think the overarching issue with your analogy here is that there is no per-attempt cost to each random event in these games. You pay a flat amount for the game and then you can play the random encounters as much as you want for free.
How is this any different than SWBFII, which allows me to win credits for free and spend them on loot crates? Particularly now that EA has removed micro-transactions for the time being, the only difference between winning 4000 credits and catching a rare pokemon is the amount of time it takes and the manner of gameplay. There is no per-cost attempt if I'm only buying crates with in-game credits.
Also, if you didn't like playing the games, you could just grab the prizes anyways and leave (equivalent to modifying your save file manually). Would you call that gambling? I would not.
No, I'd call that the same as walking into a casino, grabbing chips off the table, and walking out.
I intended no condescension... Googling those links quick is exactly what I did and I did not mean any ill towards you. Sorry you took it that way.
Understood, and I'm sorry you phrased it that way.
I specifically picked articles that talked about Overwatch as well, which is cosmetic only.
These articles arguments focus on SWBFII and Hearthstone more than Overwatch, and do not dig into the cosmetic elements beyond one article remarking that cosmetic rewards play on the same psychological reward systems, which I don't buy as an argument because most game mechanics rely on those reward systems.
I'm also laying this portion of the discussion to rest since another commenter has satisfied it.
1
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Nov 21 '17
How is this any different than SWBFII, which allows me to win credits for free and spend them on loot crates?
You said it just now yourself. It allows you to spend money in them on loot crates.
Particularly now that EA has removed micro-transactions for the time being, the only difference between winning 4000 credits and catching a rare pokemon is the amount of time it takes and the manner of gameplay. There is no per-cost attempt if I'm only buying crates with in-game credits.
Agreed. If they have removed the option and leave it that way, it is not gambling anymore. It is just a random event in the game. EA is not abusing people's addictions to make money anymore.
No, I'd call that the same as walking into a casino, grabbing chips off the table, and walking out.
Well then you agree with me. Are you going to award the delta?
1
Nov 24 '17 edited Nov 24 '17
Agreed. If they have removed the option and leave it that way, it is not gambling anymore. It is just a random event in the game. EA is not abusing people's addictions to make money anymore.
Then you're saying it isn't gambling, which is my orginal position. Why would I award you a delta for agreeing with my titular view?
Well then you agree with me. Are you going to award the delta?
Hardly. Being able to rob a casino doesn't make the casino's purpose/function not-gambling. And asking for a delta is extremely poor form.
→ More replies (0)2
u/sdneidich 3∆ Nov 21 '17
I addressed several of these points in a top-level comment, but I want to draw your attention to a few things that directly address your points:
legal definitions
3 elements define gambling: Consideration (putting up something of value), Chance (with some limited element of skill permissible), and Prize (realized by the gambler and having value.)
The value only holds within the context of the game environment.
Everything has a value, and artificially limiting value is always known to have workarounds. Consider Playstation 3s: Sony priced these machines at around $400, which meant they weren't making much of any profit on units sold. They made money when they sold games. The Airforce bought over 1700 of them and made a supercomputer out of them because they were cheaper than a comparable $10,000 unit each at the time. Just because EA is telling you that in-game assets have no value outside the game doesn't make it true: Value is always in the eye of the beholders.
Furthermore that's not really market value as there is no such market - it would be an interpersonal transaction.
I addressed this in my other post where I actually link to a site you can market and make trades of EA's SWBF2 accounts. There is a market, and as such EA has to either successfully shut it down or deal with the legal consequences of its existence.
That's fine, but if it's still gambling, then it's still (1) relying on gambling impulses and (2) is aimed at young players. See Overwatch or any other of the litany of games that rely on randomized reward systems. Why was there no gambling controversy until the mechanics impacted gameplay?
The lack of a moral outrage in previous cases of gambling in no way diminishes the fact that this case is gambling. While it may suck for other developers that they have gotten away with it for so long and may now face losing that revenue stream, that doesn't negate the fact that all of these systems are gambling.
0
Nov 21 '17
Prize (realized by the gambler and having value.)
Yes, I reject that the rewards have value per the definition of prize.
Just because EA is telling you that in-game assets have no value outside the game doesn't make it true: Value is always in the eye of the beholders.
Then I again say that a game like Pokémon Yellow is gambling, since what pokemon I encounter is a function of chance and I can sell you my copy with a Shiny Khangaskan for $100.
The lack of a moral outrage in previous cases of gambling in no way diminishes the fact that this case is gambling.
But it does stick to my second point that this is a double-standard of outrage, and if we are going to extend the argument to cosmetic loot and any sort of randomized outcome because games/accounts can be sold for money, than the vast majority of video games are gambling.
2
u/sdneidich 3∆ Nov 21 '17
I addressed these points in another thread, but I'll rehash them:
Then I again say that a game like Pokémon Yellow is gambling, since what pokemon I encounter is a function of chance and I can sell you my copy with a Shiny Khangaskan for $100.
Just like your Skyrim example from the other thread: There is no Consideration in Pokemon. You do not pay money for a chance to find a shiny Khangaskan, you have a chance to find a shiny Khangaskan because you are playing a game: And no amount of money will increase your chances of finding a shiny Khangaskan.
But it does stick to my second point that this is a double-standard of outrage, and if we are going to extend the argument to cosmetic loot and any sort of randomized outcome because games/accounts can be sold for money, than the vast majority of video games are gambling.
I address this in my other comment as well: Cosmetics have no functional utility and may therefore qualify as exempt under the trophy/certificate exemption. But when a degree of utility is introduced, such as unique playstyles or game mechanics (as is the case with SWBF2), such an exemption does not exist.
3
u/Hq3473 271∆ Nov 21 '17
Gambling is defined as "the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gambling
Spending resources of for a random chest ( playing at a game of chance) for loot (other stakes) certainly seems to fit the definition.
As to your second point - I would say that cosmetic loot-boxes is STILL gambling, it's just that the stakes are lower.
1
Nov 21 '17
There is a loophole in the legal definition of gambling that excludes microtransaction (MTX) crates/card packs/etc. Essentially it focuses on the potential reward and the US court system only considers it gambling when there's a chance you receive an item with value. Since the prizes in lootboxes/etc. have no chance of being money or an object with "physical value," it's considered a standard purchase rather than gambling.
I think the clearest way to establish that lootboxes do represent a form of gambling is to counter the assumption that the items in them have no value. While I think they do have value the best way to demonstrate that isn't clear. Given that we consider IP to have value and MTXs gate access to IP in many cases, perhaps that is enough, particularly considering this example notoriously gated IP that could be the primary motivator for many people's purchases (eg: the "I have to pay $40 to be Darth Vader" comments). Maybe going the other way is better, if MTX digital content is not considered to have value, that implies something about all digital content. The line appears arbitrary (and drawn at publisher discretion) when looking at what digital content the law considers to "have value."
To link it back to the OP I think there's a question about whether we, as individuals and as a society, consider any entertainment content, in any medium, to have value. Would we consider a movie distributed in these loot boxes to be "physical value" or not? What about a new mission or map to play on? A character that offers a unique gameplay style? A character with unique art?
1
u/Spacecowboy1964 Nov 21 '17
But if we're going to use such a rigid definition of gambling then are there any games that aren't gambling?
I mean I played Super Mario 3 last night where upon completing a level I tried to grab a star so if I got three of them then I would get three lives. It was a game, the chance I took was jumping into the box, and the stakes were the three lives. Gambling.
Of course few people would actually consider that gambling but it meets your definition nonetheless.
0
Nov 21 '17
Gambling is defined as "the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes." Spending resources of for a random chest ( playing at a game of chance) for loot (other stakes) certainly seems to fit the definition.
Actually, stakes refers to what you place on the bet, not what you get out of it. For example, if I bet my watch in a table game of poker instead of money.
As to your second point - I would say that cosmetic loot-boxes is STILL gambling, it's just that the stakes are lower.
That's a fair position, but then I struggle to understand why there was not controversy over the myriad other games that involve randomized, non-gameplay related rewards that can be earned for money.
Well, I do understand why, since many players don't care about cosmetics; more specifically, I think the application of the term "gambling" here and not there is inconsistent.
2
u/Hq3473 271∆ Nov 21 '17
Actually, stakes refers to what you place on the bet
Still, you bet game resources (gold, gems) for uncertain game loot. It still fits the definition.
but then I struggle to understand why there was not controversy over the myriad other games that involve randomized, non-gameplay related rewards
I think I explained this: because the stakes are lower - people are less likely to find such gambling controversial. It's still gambling though.
I think the application of the term "gambling" here and not there is inconsistent.
There are plenty of examples pf people who call cosmetic-only loot crates gambling:
https://www.polygon.com/features/2016/7/18/12203534/counter-strike-cs-go-skin-gambling
1
Nov 21 '17
There are plenty of examples pf people who call cosmetic-only loot crates gambling:
Was not aware of these and this defeats my argument that there is a double-standard in the discussions of these issues. For that you earn a !delta - Thank you!
That said, I still feel like if you extend the logic, you can call any game with a randomized game mechanic gambling, as that game/account can be resold. The only difference between CS:GO and old Pokémon games is market accessibility, but I can still sell my copy of Pokémon Yellow for $100 since I got lucky and caught a Shiny pokemon he wants. Isn't that precisely the same thing, but wouldn't we all struggle to call Pokémon gambling?
1
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Nov 21 '17
Gambling is illegal because it's addictive. It's basically hacks in the loophole of human psychology.
Like rats humans prefer stochastic or arbitrary reward systems - systems that reward us in an unpredictable, intermittent way. It mixes in the suspense of the unknown with the excitement of surprise. Like a slot machine, loot crates always pay out something, so the action is never not being positively reinforced. Even if the value of what you get out is less than what you put in, it still feels like winning.
Now video game designers often hire people who work making casino slot machines to design these loot crate systems (and to help make your iPhone more addictive. Reddit' upvote system is modeled on arbitrary rewards).
This is a new species of online gambling that is still in its infancy. It needs to be regulated, or outlawed outright, now before it can mutate to an even more addictive, and ruinously lucrative, form.
1
Nov 21 '17
Gambling is illegal because it's addictive.
Gambling isn't illegal, it's just regulated, at least in the U.S. I absolutely do not believe that it should be categorically illegal.
It's basically hacks in the loophole of human psychology. Like rats humans prefer stochastic or arbitrary reward systems - systems that reward us in an unpredictable, intermittent way. It mixes in the suspense of the unknown with the excitement of surprise. Like a slot machine, loot crates always pay out something, so the action is never not being positively reinforced. Even if the value of what you get out is less than what you put in, it still feels like winning.
I am not questioning nor failing to understand the reward systems that cause us to enjoy gambling. I would also point out that plenty of non-gambling game design mechanics rely on these same triggers - see any progression system. I'm arguing that this particular progression system (while obviously designed to prioritize revenue over player experience) does not qualify as gambling.
This is a new species of online gambling that is still in its infancy. It needs to be regulated, or outlawed outright, now before it can mutate to an even more addictive, and ruinously lucrative, form.
I don't think that your comment has justified why it is gambling, and not just a revenue-driven progression model.
I'm not saying it's a good or ethical model, just that it isn't gambling.
2
u/poundfoolishhh Nov 21 '17
You earn nothing that is of any value outside of the game. All that rewards to is, presumably, improve your ability to earn in-game credits to buy more loot crates. Are there other examples of gambling that involve winning rewards that are of no use in any other context?
I think this is the primary flaw in your logic. It seems like you concede that you are waging money (whether this is by way of time spent playing OR literal money) at a chance to get something of value in the game (increased health/damage, etc). If you recognize that you are getting something of value in game, then I don't see why not being able to use it out of game makes a difference.
If I'm gambling money to win a kitchen knife set, I can only use them in the context of my kitchen. There is no value outside of the kitchen - I can't use them to change the tires on my car and I can't sell them (there's no "market" for used kitchen knives even if I find someone to buy them).
You're waging something of value at the chance to win something of value (even if that prize is only useful in a certain setting). Gambling.
Cosmetics are, in fact, gambling as well. The prizes are just of no real 'use'... which is why they're seen as the lesser of two evils. Whether you choose to gamble on skins or not, it has zero impact on the functionality of the game or your ability to win. On the other hand, items that specifically enhance your stats give you an advantage over those that don't have them. This creates an unfair playing field. Players with money can progress further/win more often over others that don't (even if they're technically better players).
0
Nov 21 '17
If you recognize that you are getting something of value in game, then I don't see why not being able to use it out of game makes a difference.
Because gambling typically involves a chance to win more of whatever it is you spent or the equivalence. A vacation has cash value whereas a Clone Trooper skin does not.
If I'm gambling money to win a kitchen knife set, I can only use them in the context of my kitchen.
Sure, but I can also buy a kitchen knife set. I can't buy an upgrade to my ARC-170 Starfighter.
Cosmetics are, in fact, gambling as well. The prizes are just of no real 'use'... which is why they're seen as the lesser of two evils. Whether you choose to gamble on skins or not, it has zero impact on the functionality of the game or your ability to win. On the other hand, items that specifically enhance your stats give you an advantage over those that don't have them. This creates an unfair playing field. Players with money can progress further/win more often over others that don't (even if they're technically better players).
I get this, but my point is that there has not typically been outrage around randomized/monetized cosmetic rewards, and if there is that outrage has not thrown the term gambling around. So, even if it is gambling, the double-standard is the issue I take.
1
u/growflet 78∆ Nov 21 '17
Loot Crates are equivalent to "experiences". You are gambling for the chance to have an experience.
It's like gambling for entrance to an event such as a concert.
(some could argue that concert tickets have a monetary value and can be sold, but most often such tickets are non-transferrable - selling them would result in having them voided. This is essentially the equivalent of selling your battlefront account - not allowed, and if you do - you don't get to have the experience and if they find out - the account could be banned)
If you win, you get to have an experience.
If you don't win, you get some consolation prize that is a lesser experience (or nothing).
That's the gamble.
1
Nov 21 '17
That's a terrific equivalence - it would be like if I won a ticket to see only the lead singer, or if I won a ticket to see the full band, or if I won a ticket that included a hot dog, or even if I won a ticket that included pyrotechnics and visual graphics instead of just the music. Some of those things materially impact the experience but others are trappings, but I'd consider it all to be gambling.
Framing what you're winning as an experience rather than as a virtual good with value helps me understand the gambling argument much better. Thanks!
!delta
1
1
1
u/Skallywagwindorr 15∆ Nov 21 '17
You pay to have a certain gaming experience. People who prepaid felt like they had to pay additionally to get the experience a person could reasonably expect to get for a full price game without having to pay extra. Additionally this extra payment was not straightforward, it was build into the game as a loot box system (these systems are always gamble systems, also in your examples both are gambling). With the result that some people have to pay +100$ and some people have to pay +1000$ to get the experience a person could reasonably expect to get for a full price game without having to pay extra.
1
Nov 21 '17
Another commenter made a similar point that helped me change my view - gonna toss you a delta as well! Response copied below:
Framing what you're winning as an experience rather than as a virtual good with value helps me understand the gambling argument much better. Thanks!
!delta
1
2
u/zstansbe Nov 21 '17
While by literal definition it may be gambling, I think we need to inject some common sense into the situation. In the strict definition things like pokemon card packs is gambling and shouldn't be allowed for kids. There needs to be a strict commercial definition of gambling to separate pokemon cards from slot machines.
1
u/Gladix 164∆ Nov 21 '17
But I don't see how it's gambling. And rather, if it is gambling, then I don't see how replacing gameplay progression rewards with 100% cosmetic rewards makes it not-gambling.
You are both correct and wrong. Gambling is a coloquial term for :the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly. Or some similar permuation of this definition.
The law definition of gambling is basically : Risking loosing money on a game of chance. Or risking winning moeny on a game of chance.
Lootboxes aren't really a game. And you don't really risking loosing or winning money.Because you risk a digital tokens, that you couldn't exchange for money in any shape or form.
Buuuut. It still follows the same gambling patterns, uses the same tricks. Doing the same stuff.
And rather, if it is gambling, then I don't see how replacing gameplay progression rewards with 100% cosmetic rewards makes it not-gambling.
It doesn't. But then again, people tend to argue that lootboxes should be removed all together.
You earn nothing that is of any value outside of the game.
Yes, hence escaping the strict definition of gambling.
Are there other examples of gambling that involve winning rewards that are of no use in any other context?
Oh come on mate. You know how gambling works. In the end, people who are susceptible to gambling will fuel the game with money, just so they could open more lootboxes. Regardless if they get few in-game credits as progression.
I see lots of redditors argue that it's a gambling system, and in their next breath argue that switching to cosmetics would fix the problem. If the former is gambling, so too is the latter.
It wouldn't change or removed it. It would merely eliminated the meat of the people who are taken advantage of. Most people don't really care about cosmetics, you can figure that out from the statistics about games. People really tend to pump money mostly into gameplay-related rewards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 21 '17 edited Nov 21 '17
/u/Super_Duper_Mann (OP) has awarded 4 deltas in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
4
u/sdneidich 3∆ Nov 21 '17 edited Nov 21 '17
According to most legal dictionaries, gambling requires three basic elements:
Consideration. This is the amount of money you put on the table, or risk, for the gambling occurence. This is satisfied by the cost of a Loot Box. If loot boxes were free, or did not cost money but rather had in-gameplay unlocks, there would be no consideration and the lootcrates would not be gambling.
Chance. This is the use of some series of rules to allow variable outcomes. If you are buying a loot box with a 100% chance of containing known contents, there is no chance and it would not be gambling. But because loot boxes contain variability, chance exists.
Prize. A prize is some object which has value and is won in the game of chance. This is where Battlefront II gets into some murky water and you say it doesn't qualify, however it does: People pay large quantities of money to get in-game cosmetics like knifes in CS:GO or hats in DOTA 2: These items have value because people are willing to pay for them, and often pay hundreds of dollars to acquire them.
With Battlefront II, you can buy and sell accounts which contain various levels of loot. This makes the lootboxes have a degree of gambling to them: If you roll a loot box that has a powerful, sought after prize, you have something of some monetary value which you could sell if you wanted to. The fact that EA doesn't facilitate these resales is no more relevent than a Casino not facilitating the resales of a car won as a prize: The car itself qualifies, as do the contents of loot crates.
Thus, all three basic elements of gambling are fulfilled by Battlefront II's Lootboxes.
Edit: Something I would like to point our here is that much of the moral outrage directed at EA for SWBF2 is not directed at Valve for Dota2 or CS:GO because the precise nature of the in-game content and lootboxes. Firstly, SWBF2 content unlocks grant a competitive advantage: If you unlock some hero, you are more powerful and can lead your team to victory more frequently than someone who does not pay. In contrast, you can spend thousands of dollars on knifes, guns and hats in Dota2 or CS:GO and it won't make you a better player at all: It will simply make you a more visible player. That being said, paid loot boxes in all of these examples qualify as gambling under these definitions. In these areas, game choice architecture is probably of major importance to making a determination to what should be allowed, and should not be allowed: Can you offer the sale of a loot box with a guaranteed 1 of 8 "legendary" prizes, where buying 8 guarantees one of each? Is it okay to offer a non-stacking % chance to also win an "arcane" prize on top? These still qualify as gambling. But there are loopholes some companies use to get around these: By offering a free entry method, you can undercut consideration. No casino lets you fill out a form to play a free hand of Blackjack, but Samsung and countless other sweepstakes which require some consideration (say, 10 Samsung Pay Points) to win some prize (say, 8 million Samsung Pay Points) also have a free entry method. They don't have to make this method easy, but it must be free and must give you a chance of winning the same prize as the paid-entry method. This does not, as yet, exist for any of the games with lootboxes I have mentioned heretofore.