UK Gambling Commission pronounces loot boxes ‘not gambling’

jainiadral · July 2019

Even if the UK Commission did declare lootboxes gambling, what real impact would it have on the Crown Store? You just wouldn't be able to access portions of it in the UK. *shrug*

Aside from that, nothing would change. We already saw that with Belgium. As long as sales are lucrative enough from one part of the globe, lootboxes will continue to be sold.

Jhalin · July 2019

Skwor wrote: »

Jhalin wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »

I'm a little sick of the "think of the children" argument.

I do not have kids. I do not care about your "special little Jimmy".

I am taking the ultimate effort to never contribute to the gene-pool. Read: You know exactly what this means I refrain from.

I am quite justified in saying that I shouldn't have to worry about the welfare of kids, as I don't have any. Not my problem.

As for loot crates? I use self-control. It seems ZOS is now doing a sale each season on the 15-crate pack for ESO+ members.

I buy one lot during that sale.

Have you ever purchased a scratch card or played the Lotto? It's something I only do very sparingly, but sometimes the game of chance is fun. Dice games have been around for centuries.

As I said above, the "self control" argument is for adults. Society generally restricts the ability of children to buy lottery tickets, as you mentioned.

You have no skin in the game when it comes to children, which may explain why you think its a black and white situation of "Something is bad for children? Ban it for everyone!"

As with gambling and alcohol, we see that more often it's a more measured "Something is bad for children? Regulate it or ban it for children." You know that. You can still buy your lottery tickets, while kids can't.

So in the case of loot boxes, we have seen some efforts to ban or regulate the sale of loot boxes and/or micro transactions to minors.

If those efforts ever succeeded, it would hardly prompt game companies to remove a profitable mechanism from everyone. Just like how adults can still buy alcohol and gamble reliant on their own self-control, gaming conpanies would almost certainly still offer loot boxes and microtransactions to adults if new regulations banned them from selling then to minors.

No one is asking you to sign a petition to support one side or the other, but please, don't act like "think of the children" has to be a black and white movement coming to take your adult loot boxes away.

One can be concerned with the impact of loot boxes on children AND still think that adults like you have the right to throw your money away on loot boxes if that's what you really want to do.

Enough of the "for the children" crap. I have raised 3 very successful ones. It is absolutly the parents responsibilty to not let children play M rated games which is what ESO is.

The last thing anyone should ever want is a nanny start acting as the default parents for anyone's child.

"For the children" in this discussion is the worst kind of false emotional appeal and lands very solidly in the logical fallacy of arguments catagory.

All it does is attempt to make those who do not agree appear to be heartless, there is no reasoning it is purely an emotional attack.

Don't get yourself twisted up arguing over something I didnt say.

I'm arguing that a more nuanced version of that "think of the children" argument is more realistic:

"Games that market themselves to children and sell loot boxes and/or micro-transactions to children should face greater regulation because of the harmful impact that addictive monetization strategies can have on children."

The above is something we're seeing brought up in legislation in the U.S. - though who knows if the bill will go anywhere, Congress being what it is.

To address your specific comments about ESO, this game is M-rated and doesnt exactly market itself to children, so cool your jets. No one sensible is arguing that banning Crown Crates in particular is somehow going to benefit children

But ESO ain't the only game on the market that uses loot boxes.

So if you don't want to hear the "think about the children" argument, you best start pushing the gaming industry to self-regulate how they monetize games marketed to children and to enact better parental controls for those games.

Or don't, if it doesnt bother you. Just be prepared for these pushes for better regulation to continue.

Good luck.

No your still being a sophist, more nuanced still means "think of the children" and avoids any attempt at real reason. ESO is rated M glad you agree with that. No children should be playing, if parents let them it is on the parents and not the responsibility of any government to step in and play oversight for poor parents. PERIOD.

Since you agree ESO is rated M, who cares then on the ESO forum what other games may be doing? Go discuss those games on their forums.

I see no point discussing other games practices and potential gambling issues on an ESO forum, I mean just "think of the children" who may be on these forums reading your posts and possibly tempted to try those other games. Shouldn't we not mention them to avoid tempting "the children?"

I’ll take this time to remind everyone that the M rating is 17+, meaning that it is marketed to minors in the legal sense.

It’s also unusual how vehemently you put down the idea of regulating products designed for, to put it bluntly, scamming consumers.

what is frightening is how quickly yo would use the power of a government to force your personal opinion on others, that is truly ruthless.

By the way those same 17+ “minors” as you call them can join the military in the US at that age, your use of minors is a bit deceptive, but I am sure that was your intent given your apparent desires to force your will upon others via the state.

My only fault in this is the desire to keep as much personal responsibility at the lowest level possible and not thrust my will nor the will of the state upon others.

Once again, I don’t understand the vitriol with which you treat someone who recognizes a danger of gambling mechanics in games that are aimed at minors. ESO is still aimed at a portion of the under 18 population, and many more games that are T or under also market loot boxes and gambling using RMTs.

“Minor” is an accurate title for anyone under 18, they cannot take part in lotteries and so digital gambling should fall under the same general standards of the term. It’s no more “using the government to force an opinion” than the process of restricting alcohol and nicotine sales.

Not to be rude, but you don’t seem to be able to have a discussion without turning into full-on conspiracy theories about The Man reigning on your freedoms. The only ones in “danger” of facing significant negative change is the large corporations that are using the psychology of gambling in video games in order to rake in immense profits with minimal costs, usually at the expense of the game’s performance, design, narrative, and overall quality.

Even without the “for the children argument” you hate so much, it’s still obvious that this monetization model is absolutely awful for the state of the gaming industry.

VaranisArano · July 2019

Jhalin wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

CMDR_Un1k0rn wrote: »

I'm a little sick of the "think of the children" argument.

I do not have kids. I do not care about your "special little Jimmy".

I am taking the ultimate effort to never contribute to the gene-pool. Read: You know exactly what this means I refrain from.

I am quite justified in saying that I shouldn't have to worry about the welfare of kids, as I don't have any. Not my problem.

As for loot crates? I use self-control. It seems ZOS is now doing a sale each season on the 15-crate pack for ESO+ members.

I buy one lot during that sale.

Have you ever purchased a scratch card or played the Lotto? It's something I only do very sparingly, but sometimes the game of chance is fun. Dice games have been around for centuries.

As I said above, the "self control" argument is for adults. Society generally restricts the ability of children to buy lottery tickets, as you mentioned.

You have no skin in the game when it comes to children, which may explain why you think its a black and white situation of "Something is bad for children? Ban it for everyone!"

As with gambling and alcohol, we see that more often it's a more measured "Something is bad for children? Regulate it or ban it for children." You know that. You can still buy your lottery tickets, while kids can't.

So in the case of loot boxes, we have seen some efforts to ban or regulate the sale of loot boxes and/or micro transactions to minors.

If those efforts ever succeeded, it would hardly prompt game companies to remove a profitable mechanism from everyone. Just like how adults can still buy alcohol and gamble reliant on their own self-control, gaming conpanies would almost certainly still offer loot boxes and microtransactions to adults if new regulations banned them from selling then to minors.

No one is asking you to sign a petition to support one side or the other, but please, don't act like "think of the children" has to be a black and white movement coming to take your adult loot boxes away.

One can be concerned with the impact of loot boxes on children AND still think that adults like you have the right to throw your money away on loot boxes if that's what you really want to do.

Enough of the "for the children" crap. I have raised 3 very successful ones. It is absolutly the parents responsibilty to not let children play M rated games which is what ESO is.

The last thing anyone should ever want is a nanny start acting as the default parents for anyone's child.

"For the children" in this discussion is the worst kind of false emotional appeal and lands very solidly in the logical fallacy of arguments catagory.

All it does is attempt to make those who do not agree appear to be heartless, there is no reasoning it is purely an emotional attack.

Don't get yourself twisted up arguing over something I didnt say.

I'm arguing that a more nuanced version of that "think of the children" argument is more realistic:

"Games that market themselves to children and sell loot boxes and/or micro-transactions to children should face greater regulation because of the harmful impact that addictive monetization strategies can have on children."

The above is something we're seeing brought up in legislation in the U.S. - though who knows if the bill will go anywhere, Congress being what it is.

To address your specific comments about ESO, this game is M-rated and doesnt exactly market itself to children, so cool your jets. No one sensible is arguing that banning Crown Crates in particular is somehow going to benefit children

But ESO ain't the only game on the market that uses loot boxes.

So if you don't want to hear the "think about the children" argument, you best start pushing the gaming industry to self-regulate how they monetize games marketed to children and to enact better parental controls for those games.

Or don't, if it doesnt bother you. Just be prepared for these pushes for better regulation to continue.

Good luck.

No your still being a sophist, more nuanced still means "think of the children" and avoids any attempt at real reason. ESO is rated M glad you agree with that. No children should be playing, if parents let them it is on the parents and not the responsibility of any government to step in and play oversight for poor parents. PERIOD.

Since you agree ESO is rated M, who cares then on the ESO forum what other games may be doing? Go discuss those games on their forums.

I see no point discussing other games practices and potential gambling issues on an ESO forum, I mean just "think of the children" who may be on these forums reading your posts and possibly tempted to try those other games. Shouldn't we not mention them to avoid tempting "the children?"

I’ll take this time to remind everyone that the M rating is 17+, meaning that it is marketed to minors in the legal sense.

It’s also unusual how vehemently you put down the idea of regulating products designed for, to put it bluntly, scamming consumers.

I don't think that means exactly what you think it does.

Yes, legally, ESO has some 17-year old minors.

Yes, in the majority of US states I can find, people must be at least 18 to participate in a lottery or other forms of gambling.

But as this ruling just proved, loot boxes do not necessarily meet the legal definition of gambling.

If loot boxes =/= gambling, in terms of the legal definition, then the presence of legal minors in ESO doesn't matter at all.

(Amusingly, I'm finding that at least some states allow lottery tickets to be gifted to minors, so its entirely possible that even if Crown Crates were treated exactly like gambling, Crown Crate gifting could still be legal

)

Fermian · July 2019

DocFrost72 wrote: »

rotaugen454 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

rotaugen454 wrote: »

I guess we should ban alcohol, as people with a weakness in that area can’t handle it. Ban people from buying too much food too. At some point, personal responsibility has to kick in. The United States tried banning alcohol, and it caused an explosion in organized crime.

Personal responsibility comes into play with adults.

When its children, we regulate things like gambling and alcohol.

Its just that this court established that the current laws don't cover gaming loot boxes because of how narrowly "gambling" is defined.

So if enough people are concerned that gaming loot boxes are close enough to gambling, they can work to expand the legal definition to include them, at which point gaming loot boxes can be subject to greater regulation.

And naturally, depending on how that new legal definition is worded, ESO might or might not have to change a thing.

Personally, I suspect that the marketing tactics some online games use on children expanded far in advance of legislation amd we'll be seeing a scramble to catch up as people grapple with the impact.

Children should not have unmonitored access to internet and credit cards. That is on the parents.

Hate to be that guy but ^

Eso is marketed towards and exclusively designed for adults. If your child is playing *you* have waived the right to be upset at what they encounter.

Iirc Fifa is rated E, so much stronger argument there;

Except,

Children (at least to my knowledge of the US) can't get credit cards.

So perhaps the answer is as simple as making any crates mandatory direct card purchase. No crowns, no "fifa bucks", but a direct purchase. If mom and/or dad can't be bothered to pay attention it's not on the company.

Well you can buy stuff without creditcard on xbox and ps.

Androconium · July 2019

Debitcards.

Rake · July 2019

Its always some comedy with UK nowadays

Ri_Khan · July 2019

Nobody likes the UK anyway. Buncha scrubs.

Androconium · July 2019

Skwor wrote: »

<snip>
What is frightening is how quickly you would use the power of a government to force your personal opinion on others, that is truly ruthless.

By the way those same 17+ “minors” as you call them can join the military in the US at that age, your use of minors is a bit deceptive, but I am sure that was your intent given your apparent desires to force your will upon others via the state.

My only fault in this is the desire to keep as much personal responsibility at the lowest level possible and not thrust my will nor the will of the state upon others.

Why do so many want the government to solve their problems when some personal accountability in this area does perfectly fine and as such maintains our freedoms. All you are doing is giving away freedoms.

A democratically elected government IS the will of the people. People want their Government(s) to solve problems for them, because that's why they elected them.

Reistr_the_Unbroken · July 2019

Androconium wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

<snip>
What is frightening is how quickly you would use the power of a government to force your personal opinion on others, that is truly ruthless.

By the way those same 17+ “minors” as you call them can join the military in the US at that age, your use of minors is a bit deceptive, but I am sure that was your intent given your apparent desires to force your will upon others via the state.

My only fault in this is the desire to keep as much personal responsibility at the lowest level possible and not thrust my will nor the will of the state upon others.

Why do so many want the government to solve their problems when some personal accountability in this area does perfectly fine and as such maintains our freedoms. All you are doing is giving away freedoms.

A democratically elected government IS the will of the people. People want their Government(s) to solve problems for them, because that's why they elected them.

Yeah except sometimes some people don’t want to be constantly nannied by the government

Jhalin · July 2019

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

Androconium wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

<snip>
What is frightening is how quickly you would use the power of a government to force your personal opinion on others, that is truly ruthless.

By the way those same 17+ “minors” as you call them can join the military in the US at that age, your use of minors is a bit deceptive, but I am sure that was your intent given your apparent desires to force your will upon others via the state.

My only fault in this is the desire to keep as much personal responsibility at the lowest level possible and not thrust my will nor the will of the state upon others.

Why do so many want the government to solve their problems when some personal accountability in this area does perfectly fine and as such maintains our freedoms. All you are doing is giving away freedoms.

A democratically elected government IS the will of the people. People want their Government(s) to solve problems for them, because that's why they elected them.

Yeah except sometimes some people don’t want to be constantly nannied by the government

Reasonable restrictions on predatory marketing and monetization practices is not “nannying”. We’re trying to have a mature discussion, which is difficult to do if you insist on twisting the issue into something it plainly isn’t.

Requiring common allergens being listed on product labels is not nannying. Restricting alcohol sales to those above age 21 is not nannying. Prohibiting minors from buying cigarettes is not nannying. Requiring drivers be liscenced, or accompanied by a parent or trainer, is not nannying. Measures that prevent employers exploiting their workers is not nannying.

People are trying to have a reasonable conversation. “You’re trying to control me through the government” is neither accurate, on topic, nor mature. You would be completely and utterly unaffected if lootboxes were deemed predatory and thus removed from games. If you would be affected by the removal of lootboxes, either you’re someone making money off them, or it may benifit you to seek out some help for the potential gambling addition you may be suffering from. It’s common to react with aggression when a potential hook is under threat of being removed.

Androconium · July 2019

Crates should be made an ESO+ exclusive item, as part of the subscription. At least that has the veneer of ethical sales.

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

Truth is we all KNOW this is Gambling.

We all also know that Governments are happy to turn a blind-eye to the wrong-doing of Big Business if they think there is Tax Revenue to be gained from doing so.

Finally, having seen the UK Minister who essentially made / green-lit this decision it is clear she had absolutely no understanding at all on what she was making a decision - luckily she has since resigned.

All The Best

Grianasteri · July 2019

ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »

UK Gambling Commission pronounces loot boxes ‘not gambling’

Jim Sterling reaction via youtube

A set back for those who despise loot boxes.

From Green Man Gaming (source link above):

Loot boxes have again received some extra scrutiny, this time from the UK Gambling Commission, the UK governmental body that regulates gambling.

In November of 2018, the UK Gambling Commission reported that 30 percent of the 2,865 children surveyed had opened a loot box, but held back from drawing a line between loot boxes and gambling.

UK Gambling Commission chief executive Neil McArthur, speaking to the BBC, has reiterated that position stating that loot boxes and Fifa packs do not constitute gambling, at least not in the UK. Neil McArthur does go on to express ‘significant concerns’ about children playing games that offer loot boxes, loot boxes and Fifa packs do not qualify as gambling under current UK legislation. As there is no official way to monetize loot box rewards, they do not count as gambling. Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.

“There are other examples of things that look and feel like gambling that legislation tells you are not – [such as] some prize competitions but because they have free play or free entry they are not gambling… but they are a lot like a lottery,” McArthur said.

Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.

This all comes hot on the heels of companies such as Blizzard and Psyonix removing paid loot boxes from their games in some territories after legislation brought in via countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands.

For now, it seems that unless legislation changes, the UK will not be joining those countries in determining loot boxes as gambling. This news has not gone down well in all quarters, with internet commentators such as Jim Sterling expressing their dismay over the ruling.

For now, we’ll continue to have the latest news on this ever-evolving tussle between game publishers and gambling laws right here on Green Man Gaming’s Newsroom.

In some ways this is unsurprising as the gambling industry and big business in general in the UK often gets away with entirely unacceptable practice. Lobby groups are king when we have politicians lacking so severely in principle and integrity.

This matter is about as black and white as its possible to be. You pay real money (or in game currency which can be purchased with real money), this is used to purchase a loot box mechanic which provides a random reward(s), with the marketing and mechanics surrounding this all geared towards promoting repetition. This is gambling. Its literally as simple as that.

A disgraceful decision.

Skwor · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Truth is we all KNOW this is Gambling.

We all also know that Governments are happy to turn a blind-eye to the wrong-doing of Big Business if they think there is Tax Revenue to be gained from doing so.

Finally, having seen the UK Minister who essentially made / green-lit this decision it is clear she had absolutely no understanding at all on what she was making a decision - luckily she has since resigned.

All The Best

No it is not an apodictic certainty. It is far from a truth. Game of chance yes, gambling no.

Would you call buying a box of Cracker Jacks or baseball bubble gum cards gambling? They would easily fall under your "truth." The box has a surprise in it, it has some value and you are buying it with a random chance for the surprise. For baseball cards I can easily argue a monerization via third parties even.

How are those any different than an ESO loot crate?

Obviously we need to regulate those industries for gambling immediately!

After all it is for the children and those products are marketed specifically to children!

Skwor · July 2019

Grianasteri wrote: »

ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »

UK Gambling Commission pronounces loot boxes ‘not gambling’

Jim Sterling reaction via youtube

A set back for those who despise loot boxes.

From Green Man Gaming (source link above):

Loot boxes have again received some extra scrutiny, this time from the UK Gambling Commission, the UK governmental body that regulates gambling.

In November of 2018, the UK Gambling Commission reported that 30 percent of the 2,865 children surveyed had opened a loot box, but held back from drawing a line between loot boxes and gambling.

UK Gambling Commission chief executive Neil McArthur, speaking to the BBC, has reiterated that position stating that loot boxes and Fifa packs do not constitute gambling, at least not in the UK. Neil McArthur does go on to express ‘significant concerns’ about children playing games that offer loot boxes, loot boxes and Fifa packs do not qualify as gambling under current UK legislation. As there is no official way to monetize loot box rewards, they do not count as gambling. Under UK law, to be considered gambling, prizes have to be either money or have a monetary value.

“There are other examples of things that look and feel like gambling that legislation tells you are not – [such as] some prize competitions but because they have free play or free entry they are not gambling… but they are a lot like a lottery,” McArthur said.

Though secondary markets do exist which do monetise loot boxes or Fifa cards, as they are unofficial they don’t count towards the gambling definition. Gambling Commission program director Brad Enright admitted that companies such as games publisher EA faced “a constant battle” against unauthorised secondary markets.

This all comes hot on the heels of companies such as Blizzard and Psyonix removing paid loot boxes from their games in some territories after legislation brought in via countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands.

For now, it seems that unless legislation changes, the UK will not be joining those countries in determining loot boxes as gambling. This news has not gone down well in all quarters, with internet commentators such as Jim Sterling expressing their dismay over the ruling.

For now, we’ll continue to have the latest news on this ever-evolving tussle between game publishers and gambling laws right here on Green Man Gaming’s Newsroom.

In some ways this is unsurprising as the gambling industry and big business in general in the UK often gets away with entirely unacceptable practice. Lobby groups are king when we have politicians lacking so severely in principle and integrity.

This matter is about as black and white as its possible to be. You pay real money (or in game currency which can be purchased with real money), this is used to purchase a loot box mechanic which provides a random reward(s), with the marketing and mechanics surrounding this all geared towards promoting repetition. This is gambling. Its literally as simple as that.

A disgraceful decision.

Bubblegum baseball cards do exactly what you describe above. Please explain why they are not gambling or if they are what legal measures should be taken next.

Legal definitions should never be treated casually or generically for such as things like this.

Alucardo · July 2019

VaranisArano wrote: »

TLDR: if UK folks think loot boxes are gambling, you gotta pass a law that has a bigger definition of gambling.

As an American, I'm now curious as to where our laws fall on this.

All they need to do is change the wording for the reward from "monetary" to "desired result", as most definitions claim gambling to be.
According to the UK, it's only gambling if you receive money, but loot boxes give you nothing back. The digital items in those boxes do not even legally belong to you. So in essence, loot boxes are worse than actual gambling, because at least I have the chance to make my life a lot better by winning a jackpot. If I spend the same amount on loot boxes I'll having nothing to show for it 100% of the time.

mague · July 2019

ANGEL_BtVS wrote: »

UK Gambling Commission chief executive Neil McArthur, speaking to the BBC, has reiterated that position stating that loot boxes and Fifa packs do not constitute gambling, at least not in the UK. Neil McArthur does go on to express ‘significant concerns’ about children playing games that offer loot boxes, loot boxes and Fifa packs do not qualify as gambling under current UK legislation.

I think that covers it globally. It is not gambling. Gambling is putting in 10 and getting 20 or nothing. But there is and should be ‘significant concerns’ .

Nintendo does this better by selling real figurines with a build in chip to get ingame items unlocked.

Reverb · July 2019

VaranisArano wrote: »

TLDR: if UK folks think loot boxes are gambling, you gotta pass a law that has a bigger definition of gambling.

As an American, I'm now curious as to where our laws fall on this.

Our laws fall on the side of corporate profit, as per usual. And the expectation that people are responsible for their decisions (good or bad).

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

Skwor wrote: »

Bubblegum baseball cards do exactly what you describe above.

No, they don't, that is a total misrepresentation.

When you buy bubblegum you are technically buying bubblegum, to eat, that it also has cards is a bonus.

That is you get something tangible and fixed in value EVERY time, and there are baseball cards that may have varying value.

Gambling Crates have no "fixed item every time" of a "fixed value".
Everything is a gamble.
Moreover, unlike other forms of gambling, the odds of getting X or Y are not known.

All The Best

JamilaRaj · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Moreover, unlike other forms of gambling, the odds of getting X or Y are not known.

And that alone is what makes the whole scheme a scam, because even though they hide behind proxy of virtual currencies, they are effectively selling products without saying what the product is. It is like selling lemons for $5 without saying whether it is per piece, per package, per kilo (or some yankee unit of mass, given we are using dollars here) or indeed whether there is actual lemon inside of lemon crate.

Skwor · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Bubblegum baseball cards do exactly what you describe above.

No, they don't, that is a total misrepresentation.

When you buy bubblegum you are technically buying bubblegum, to eat, that it also has cards is a bonus.

That is you get something tangible and fixed in value EVERY time, and there are baseball cards that may have varying value.

Gambling Crates have no "fixed item every time" of a "fixed value".
Everything is a gamble.
Moreover, unlike other forms of gambling, the odds of getting X or Y are not known.

All The Best

Nope, me and ALL my friends bought those bubble gum cards specifically for the cards alone. Hell often I threw the gum away, it sucked. All you are doing now is telling me what my intent is, how exactly do you know that?

Most people buy those card exactly for the cards not the gum. Do you really think you are going to convince others people buy those packs for the gum?!

Besides if you want to hang your hat on that argument I could then say technically your buying ESO loot crates for the gems you get in the end. They guarentee you get whatever item you wanted, it is just a matter of time to acrue them.

The gems make it very much a fixed item, anyone can buy any crate item with enough gems. It all boils down to time then.

randomkeyhits · July 2019

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

Your generalization is incorrect, because you have generalized. Law uses precision language - the mumbo-jumbo legalese we all sneer at - because imprecision can have deleterious unintended consequences.

The three elements of gambling are Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Consideration has a precise legal definition that is just as important as Prize and Chance. Under your generalization, a vast amount of innocuous activity would become unlawful.

I'm with Jeremy on this, a gamble is taking a risk, nothing more. Risk is inherent in many things in many different degrees so the law systems come up with a definition of licensable gambling as it is impossible to legislate for all forms of gambling nor is it appropriate.

Its this arguing over its gambling, its not gambling which is frustrating as the actual argument is whether something is, or should be, a licensable form of gambling with all the regulations and controls that ensue.

I'm also agreeing with you too in saying that and there are things which you know, maybe should be considered unlawful, especially if they can be shown to be predatory, ie having a just reason to be considered for regulation.

Skwor · July 2019

randomkeyhits wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

Your generalization is incorrect, because you have generalized. Law uses precision language - the mumbo-jumbo legalese we all sneer at - because imprecision can have deleterious unintended consequences.

The three elements of gambling are Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Consideration has a precise legal definition that is just as important as Prize and Chance. Under your generalization, a vast amount of innocuous activity would become unlawful.

I'm with Jeremy on this, a gamble is taking a risk, nothing more. Risk is inherent in many things in many different degrees so the law systems come up with a definition of licensable gambling as it is impossible to legislate for all forms of gambling nor is it appropriate.

Its this arguing over its gambling, its not gambling which is frustrating as the actual argument is whether something is, or should be, a licensable form of gambling with all the regulations and controls that ensue.

I'm also agreeing with you too in saying that and there are things which you know, maybe should be considered unlawful, especially if they can be shown to be predatory, ie having a just reason to be considered for regulation.

Using you definition as a legal one would mean switching jobs, having children, driving a car all qualify as gambling becuase they all involve taking a risk. Therefore they would all need to be oversighted by the state gambling regulators. It is not just semantics, with the law words matter, alot!

randomkeyhits · July 2019

Skwor wrote: »

randomkeyhits wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

Your generalization is incorrect, because you have generalized. Law uses precision language - the mumbo-jumbo legalese we all sneer at - because imprecision can have deleterious unintended consequences.

The three elements of gambling are Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Consideration has a precise legal definition that is just as important as Prize and Chance. Under your generalization, a vast amount of innocuous activity would become unlawful.

I'm with Jeremy on this, a gamble is taking a risk, nothing more. Risk is inherent in many things in many different degrees so the law systems come up with a definition of licensable gambling as it is impossible to legislate for all forms of gambling nor is it appropriate.

Its this arguing over its gambling, its not gambling which is frustrating as the actual argument is whether something is, or should be, a licensable form of gambling with all the regulations and controls that ensue.

I'm also agreeing with you too in saying that and there are things which you know, maybe should be considered unlawful, especially if they can be shown to be predatory, ie having a just reason to be considered for regulation.

Using you definition as a legal one would mean switching jobs, having children, driving a car all qualify as gambling becuase they all involve taking a risk. Therefore they would all need to be oversighted by the state gambling regulators. It is not just semantics, with the law words matter, alot!

Ermmm did you read the first paragraph? I state that licensable gambling is only a subset of the generic act of gambling and has a specific definition of what falls within its remit. When referring to what the law covers you should never just call it gambling because that is an unjustifiable generalisation.It should always be referred to as licensable gambling which often doesn't happen and we get all the stupid arguments because people have different terms of reference.

And no, having children, switching jobs, driving a car do not qualify as licensable gambling which is what I said in the first place.

Skwor · July 2019

randomkeyhits wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

randomkeyhits wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

Your generalization is incorrect, because you have generalized. Law uses precision language - the mumbo-jumbo legalese we all sneer at - because imprecision can have deleterious unintended consequences.

The three elements of gambling are Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Consideration has a precise legal definition that is just as important as Prize and Chance. Under your generalization, a vast amount of innocuous activity would become unlawful.

I'm with Jeremy on this, a gamble is taking a risk, nothing more. Risk is inherent in many things in many different degrees so the law systems come up with a definition of licensable gambling as it is impossible to legislate for all forms of gambling nor is it appropriate.

Its this arguing over its gambling, its not gambling which is frustrating as the actual argument is whether something is, or should be, a licensable form of gambling with all the regulations and controls that ensue.

I'm also agreeing with you too in saying that and there are things which you know, maybe should be considered unlawful, especially if they can be shown to be predatory, ie having a just reason to be considered for regulation.

Using you definition as a legal one would mean switching jobs, having children, driving a car all qualify as gambling becuase they all involve taking a risk. Therefore they would all need to be oversighted by the state gambling regulators. It is not just semantics, with the law words matter, alot!

Ermmm did you read the first paragraph? I state that licensable gambling is only a subset of the generic act of gambling and has a specific definition of what falls within its remit. When referring to what the law covers you should never just call it gambling because that is an unjustifiable generalisation.It should always be referred to as licensable gambling which often doesn't happen and we get all the stupid arguments because people have different terms of reference.

And no, having children, switching jobs, driving a car do not qualify as licensable gambling which is what I said in the first place.

I am not the most conversant with liscensing but I cannot find anything specfic that indicates there are two types of gambling within the law. From what I can find it either is legally considered gambling and therefor may require a license or it may not and then it is detetmined by a regulatory framework, not a legal framework on the license requirements. There is a difference.

I am not seeing a legal carve out for "non licencseable" gambling. Please do enlighten me.

Basically please point me to legislation that defines licensed gambling verses just gambling, mind you a legal statute not a regulatory requirement.

randomkeyhits · July 2019

Skwor wrote: »

randomkeyhits wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

randomkeyhits wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Seems like gambling to me. You play at a game of chance in the hopes of obtaining prizes. That's essentially what gambling is.

Your generalization is incorrect, because you have generalized. Law uses precision language - the mumbo-jumbo legalese we all sneer at - because imprecision can have deleterious unintended consequences.

The three elements of gambling are Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Consideration has a precise legal definition that is just as important as Prize and Chance. Under your generalization, a vast amount of innocuous activity would become unlawful.

I'm with Jeremy on this, a gamble is taking a risk, nothing more. Risk is inherent in many things in many different degrees so the law systems come up with a definition of licensable gambling as it is impossible to legislate for all forms of gambling nor is it appropriate.

Its this arguing over its gambling, its not gambling which is frustrating as the actual argument is whether something is, or should be, a licensable form of gambling with all the regulations and controls that ensue.

I'm also agreeing with you too in saying that and there are things which you know, maybe should be considered unlawful, especially if they can be shown to be predatory, ie having a just reason to be considered for regulation.

Using you definition as a legal one would mean switching jobs, having children, driving a car all qualify as gambling becuase they all involve taking a risk. Therefore they would all need to be oversighted by the state gambling regulators. It is not just semantics, with the law words matter, alot!

Ermmm did you read the first paragraph? I state that licensable gambling is only a subset of the generic act of gambling and has a specific definition of what falls within its remit. When referring to what the law covers you should never just call it gambling because that is an unjustifiable generalisation.It should always be referred to as licensable gambling which often doesn't happen and we get all the stupid arguments because people have different terms of reference.

And no, having children, switching jobs, driving a car do not qualify as licensable gambling which is what I said in the first place.

I am not the most conversant with liscensing but I cannot find anything specfic that indicates there are two types of gambling within the law. From what I can find it either is legally considered gambling and therefor may require a license or it is not as detetmined by a regulatory framework, not a legal framework. There is a difference.

I am not seeing a legal carve out for "non licencseable" gambling. Please do enlighten me.

Ugggghhhh

We are talking cross purposes here.

There is one form of gambling within the law which is licensable gambling. This is a subset of the generic term of gambling which means to take a risk. All forms of licensed gambling are such because that form of gambling falls within the definition in law of what licensable gambling is.

Gambling is any form of gambling and includes licensable gambling. Licensable gambling is a local law definition of the forms of gambling that require regulation and control and thus varies from territory to territory.

The generic form of gambling is a dictionary definition, not a legal one.

Hope this clears up where I'm coming from.

Gandrhulf_Harbard · July 2019

Skwor wrote: »

Nope, me and ALL my friends bought those bubble gum cards specifically for the cards alone.

That is irrelevant.

The product was SOLD as Bubblegum, with Baseball Cards as an extra.

All The Best

Taloros · July 2019

One thing for the anti-regulation crowd:

Treating loot boxes as gambling doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be banned. They'd just be subject to regulation, such as having to give some transparency about the chances of winning what item or having "fair" chances to win something worthwhile.

Isn't that something especially those who think they enjoy buying loot boxes would prefer?

---

Ogou wrote:

Some people also claim to be dependent to caffeine. Should we ban it because of that?

I really don't get how some people jump to conclusions without any basis. Advocate some regulation on gambling, and you get accused of wanting to ban caffeine. I mean, seriously, who's supposed to take that seriously?

Reminds me all too much of the problems our politics are facing. Try to regulate firearms in the US, and people think you'll take their knifes and forks away. Accept some migrants, and people start talking about a "white holocaust". Campaign for higher taxes for the upper crust, and people assume that the government will starve the working class to death. Demand a slightly more responsible speed limit on highways, and lobbyist forecast the end of the whole auto industry. These panicked reactions are getting tiring really fast. Please, leave them to the professional populists.

Skwor · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Nope, me and ALL my friends bought those bubble gum cards specifically for the cards alone.

That is irrelevant.

The product was SOLD as Bubblegum, with Baseball Cards as an extra.

All The Best

You really have no idea about the law or legal reasoning do you?

Again let me turn another statement on it's head. ESO could state they sell loot boxes solely for the gems and the crate rewards are just an extra, VIOLA, no longer gambling, according to you it is now irrelevant!

What is irrelevant is how someone markets the activity, what matters is how the law defines the activity. So selling something with a declaration of what it is has no bearing, in the law, as to what the law says it is, what you say it is, is irrelevant. Chew on that a bit

Kiralyn2000 · July 2019

Gandrhulf_Harbard wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

Bubblegum baseball cards do exactly what you describe above.

No, they don't, that is a total misrepresentation.

When you buy bubblegum you are technically buying bubblegum, to eat, that it also has cards is a bonus.

That is you get something tangible and fixed in value EVERY time, and there are baseball cards that may have varying value.

Gambling Crates have no "fixed item every time" of a "fixed value".
Everything is a gamble.
Moreover, unlike other forms of gambling, the odds of getting X or Y are not known.

All The Best

How about when you buy a pack of Magic cards? No bubblegum in there.

(Or, for extra bonus points, how about when you buy a pack of Magic cards from an old mid-90's set. For $3000. Because the rare card in that pack might be one of the ones worth $10k+.)