Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Loot boxes are obviously gambling

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 171 posts

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#151

Post by usrusr »

d0lph wrote: post #150
usrusr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would we know that they are truly random? I have vague memories of reading about this kind of dark pattern when I first heard about loot boxes, but I failed to google any references now so maybe my memories are diluted with imagination. But why wouldn't it happen? How would the public find out? Tipping the scales just a little bit, at the right times, for the right victims, could be very effective at "increasing…

How do we know casinos and such are truly random?

Massive regulation and outright bans, and yet we still don't truly know.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#152

Post by mmt »

d0lph wrote: post #150
usrusr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would we know that they are truly random? I have vague memories of reading about this kind of dark pattern when I first heard about loot boxes, but I failed to google any references now so maybe my memories are diluted with imagination. But why wouldn't it happen? How would the public find out? Tipping the scales just a little bit, at the right times, for the right victims, could be very effective at "increasing…

How do we know casinos and such are truly random?

At least for jurisdictions like Nevada, heavy regulation and verification.

I'd expect that's part of the point of regulating something that appears to be gambling as gambling, to ensure that it is, at least, fair (for some definition of that word).

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#153

Post by mmt »

pfisch wrote: post #123
called_it wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. > the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes

What is that websters? That is not the legal definition of gambling, and all court decisions on the subject clearly indicate that gambling requires real cash value to the prizes and not just entertainment that has no actual value. Loot boxes do not have the 3rd element of gambling, which is the recognized legal definition in virtually every jurisdiction. https://www.truthfinder.com/glossary/gambling-definition/ "In o…

> Loot boxes do not have the 3rd element of gambling

Huh? I thought it was well established that there is value and that, in some cases, it could even be "legitimately" (even according to the rules of the game provider) traded for real-world money.

This may not apply to all constructs that could be considered "loot boxes", but I'm confident it's not the case that the vast majority lack the feature of of transferability of the "loot" that would give credence to the argument that any value is purely that of entermainment to the individual user.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#154

Post by Karunamon »

PeterisP wrote: post #58
itake wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this is related to whether or not CCGs or loot boxes are gambling. - "heavily advertised" is not necessarily a feature of gambling - Being able to easily resell reminds me of poker chips. - The longevity of the prize is not a requirement for gambling. - CCG could be instant gratification too. Time delay is not a feature of gambling.

Think of it as a "boiling the frog" situation. The fact that this is close to CCGs, and CCGs haven't been banned, doesn't necessarily mean that it's just fine - it's a slow, gradual increase in "water temperature for the frog" that's has over time become unacceptable. So it's going to be equated to gambling and regulated - obviously, there needs to be a line somewhere through that fuzzy, gradual, unclear border, but…

I'm not sure I'm ready to sacrifice CCGs on the altar of "think of the children!" just because it might knock game companies down a peg.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#155

Post by pfisch »

mmt wrote: post #153
pfisch wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is that websters? That is not the legal definition of gambling, and all court decisions on the subject clearly indicate that gambling requires real cash value to the prizes and not just entertainment that has no actual value. Loot boxes do not have the 3rd element of gambling, which is the recognized legal definition in virtually every jurisdiction. https://www.truthfinder.com/glossary/gambling-definition/ "In o…

> Loot boxes do not have the 3rd element of gambling Huh? I thought it was well established that there is value and that, in some cases, it could even be "legitimately" (even according to the rules of the game provider) traded for real-world money. This may not apply to all constructs that could be considered "loot boxes", but I'm confident it's not the case that the vast majority lack the feature of of transferabili…

> I thought it was well established that there is value and that, in some cases, it could even be "legitimately" (even according to the rules of the game provider) traded for real-world money.

I have never heard of any game provider doing that. I don't really believe you because they would have no legal protection if they did that.

All of their arguments are that the digital goods in the lootbox have no real cash value and are only meant for entertainment purposes.

Steam is the one who really rides the rails with these arguments when they let you turn digital goods into steam dollars. But you can't trade the steam dollars and you can't cash them out. They also actively pursue websites that do let you cash out the value of steam digital goods and try to shut them down and make it difficult for them to operate.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#156

Post by bryanrasmussen »

usrusr wrote: post #146
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you prove operators were doing it by running a large number of accounts, checking the distribution of inventory and figuring out what the likelihood of distributions?

How many non-free transactions would you be willing to pay for? Ps: Also, a manipulative pretend-random drop function could easily be made to adhere to defined overall droprates without sacrificing any individual manipulation. Detecting "bad luck" that only strikes when the system detects willingness to keep rolling the dice until some local goal is achieved would not be easy even with a complete dataset.

I agree the non-free transactions thing is a problem, however some organizations might be willing to do it as part of an investigation?

However for the second point, given what I know about programming as a discipline, I'm not sure that the probable bad actors have gone through a lot of effort to hide their gaming of the system, or that if they have made the effort to make said function that it actually works as envisioned and does not leave its own telltale traces.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#157

Post by ayrx »

SmallDeadGuy wrote: post #76
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would easily argue Blizzard has the most generous/least exploitative loot box models. Cosmetic only with a fairly regular/healthy rate of freebies, not to mention the currency you get that lets you acquire the ones you actually want without relentlessly "rolling". Heroes of the Storm steps it up even further with a reroll mechanic you can use for disappointing boxes. Compared to the others in the industry, Blizzard…

HotS and Overwatch really aren't exploitative sure, but Hearthstone is incredibly exploitative. Unless you are so good you can go "infinite" in arena (always make your gold entry fee back and then some, on average), you have to buy packs for every expansion that comes out. Or you have to play with lower-tier cards, which some people do successfully, but to get the most out of the game or be "competitive" they will ne…

That's actually untrue for Hearthstone.

You can be perfectly competitive without playing arena or buying packs. I haven't paid a cent for the past 2 years and can play all the competitive decks I want in every meta. Blizzard has been very good with bumping up the rewards you get from playing normally.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#158

Post by seanhunter »

amelius wrote: post #113
seanhunter wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the definition of a "lottery" under the uk gambling act "(2)An arrangement is a simple lottery if— (a)persons are required to pay in order to participate in the arrangement, (b)in the course of the arrangement one or more prizes are allocated to one or more members of a class, and (c)the prizes are allocated by a process which relies wholly on chance." There is also a complex lottery where the process begins w…

> and (c)the prizes are allocated by a process which relies wholly on chance." This part sounds leaky to me. Game producers might assign prizes which are based e.g. 99% on chance and 1% on skill.

Wagers on things which are part-skill and part-chance are covered by the definition of "gaming", which is one of the other forms of gambling in this law and seems like it was originally designed for games like roulette, poker etc. If the loot-box is designated gaming then the restrictions are no less severe and certain exemptions around lotteries wouldn't apply (so probably more severe).

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#159

Post by PeterisP »

Karunamon wrote: post #154
PeterisP wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it as a "boiling the frog" situation. The fact that this is close to CCGs, and CCGs haven't been banned, doesn't necessarily mean that it's just fine - it's a slow, gradual increase in "water temperature for the frog" that's has over time become unacceptable. So it's going to be equated to gambling and regulated - obviously, there needs to be a line somewhere through that fuzzy, gradual, unclear border, but…

I'm not sure I'm ready to sacrifice CCGs on the altar of "think of the children!" just because it might knock game companies down a peg.

Well, it's not like anyone asked horse racing or poker enthusiasts if they're ready to sacrifice anything before their games were regulated.

Re: Loot boxes are obviously gambling

#160

Post by SmallDeadGuy »

ayrx wrote: post #157
SmallDeadGuy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HotS and Overwatch really aren't exploitative sure, but Hearthstone is incredibly exploitative. Unless you are so good you can go "infinite" in arena (always make your gold entry fee back and then some, on average), you have to buy packs for every expansion that comes out. Or you have to play with lower-tier cards, which some people do successfully, but to get the most out of the game or be "competitive" they will ne…

That's actually untrue for Hearthstone. You can be perfectly competitive without playing arena or buying packs. I haven't paid a cent for the past 2 years and can play all the competitive decks I want in every meta. Blizzard has been very good with bumping up the rewards you get from playing normally.

I stopped playing 2 years ago so that's likely it, for the first 2 years of hearthstone from closed beta to when I stopped the rewards were lacking. When I had time to play a lot in early student years, I could play some expansions without paying a thing but getting busier in later student years I fell behind too quickly.
Post reply on HN