Lootboxes are not gambling - There is literally nothing wrong with Lootboxes

[Secret Asshole]

I already proved that lootboxes are not a game as you cannot win or lose. You pay an amount and win random stuff. You always win when you buy a lootbox. Furthermore, if you always win when you buy a lootbox, then lootboxes aren't a game at all since it involved neither, skill, strength, or luck.

Motherfucker, are you seriously now trying to argue with me as to what a game of chance is? Alright, I'll play your game. Since I already proved your proof was a logical fallacy, no going back to that. Shits gone. Dust in the wind.

I will now prove you wrong. Again. Multiple times. In multiple fucking ways.

Luck. Luck is chance. Luck is odds. Luck is gambling. Henceforth, lootboxes are a game of chance. So, you're already wrong in your assumption.

That was one. Here's two.

I'll use your binary rules you love so much. If I spend $50 on a box and I get a $1 pair of mittens, no matter if I feel like I have won, it is gambling. You have functionally lost. It doesn't matter if this is digital or not. It doesn't matter if it is for ANYTHING.

If I play $1, I'm gambling for the lowest odds, 0.0001, because that's the rarest shit. And worth the most. If I get a .95, which is a common, I lost. Because the value of my money is less than the odds I won through the game of chance. Hence it is a game of luck.

I'll prove you wrong with your own example:

Let's take League of Legends for examples since I'm unfamiliar with how other games do their lootboxes. If I win a skin or character that I already have, I can disenchant either for Essence. I can use this essence to purchase other characters or skins.

You spend $1 and get a common character which is worth .95. You convert that to essence, which the in game economy states is worth .85. You have lost. You have LOST MONEY. It is an illusion they use to make you think you're getting something. THATS THEIR ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.

You just lost, now you're re-investing to lose more. It is the very definition of the gambler's fallacy.

EDIT:
It might be your opinion they're not gambling. You might disagree with regulating gambling. That's fine. But they're very, VERY clearly, gambling.

EDIT 2:
And as I mentioned, its worse than gambling, because the odds are artificial. They dictate how much money you will spend to get what you want. Which, 90% of the time, is the rarest item.

EDIT 3:
Sorry, I have to add this. There's nothing inherently wrong about using lootboxes to support a game that is free as long as it is not exploitative. I'm not saying LoL is exploitative, I am saying that it is designed to be gambling. Fuck, I pay for DotA 2 lootboxes and I'm well aware of how terrible they are.

 

[YourUnclesDad]

I'd say it's much worse than gambling

 

[Colonel J]

I'm going to break up the response so it's easier for readers to follow along:

Luck. Luck is chance. Luck is odds. Luck is gambling. Henceforth, lootboxes are a game of chance. So, you're already wrong in your assumption.

Let's clear up the definition. A gamble is a game of luck for money. Not just a game of luck. However, a game is something you can win or lose and you cannot lose with lootboxes. You always win something.

If I spend $50 on a box and I get a $1 pair of mittens, no matter if I feel like I have won, it is gambling.

I have 2 rebuttals to this.
1.) I wouldn't necessarily say this is gambling. You won something, and will always win something, so it isn't gambling because you cannot lose unless there was a chance you get nothing at all. I'd call it a scam, but not a gamble. And I agree that lootboxes are scams for peoples money, but I feel that people should be free to be scammed. If you want to ban lootboxes for being scams, I feel this is a more appropriate and correct position to take, but I feel people should be free to be scammed of their money.

2.) The contents of the lootbox in video games, aside from CS:GO, have no value in the outside world. When you purchase a skin, you do not actually own the skin. You own the right to use it in the game. Your example, I feel, is improper since in games you won nothing but the right to use something.

Because the value of my money is less than the odds I won through the game of chance. Hence it is a game of luck.

Games of luck for money are gambling, correct, but lootboxes are not gambling because you always win something.

You spend $1 and get a common character which is worth .95. You convert that to essence, which the in game economy states is worth .85. You have lost. You have LOST MONEY. It is an illusion they use to make you think you're getting something. THATS THEIR ENTIRE FUCKING POINT.

It is not an illusion. I did gain something from the exchange. If you want to define gambling as “not getting your money's worth in return” you'd be wrong as this is simply a made up definition.

So in the end, we agree lootboxes are scams. We just don't agree it's gambling.

 

[Medicated]

Let's clear up the definition. A gamble is a game of luck for money. Not just a game of luck.

In your own post it said the second definition of the verb was doing a risky action for a desired result. You are risking money for a desired skin.

 

[Secret Asshole]

I'm going to break up the response so it's easier for readers to follow along:

Let's clear up the definition. A gamble is a game of luck for money. Not just a game of luck. However, a game is something you can win or lose and you cannot lose with lootboxes. You always win something.

I have 2 rebuttals to this.
1.) I wouldn't necessarily say this is gambling. You won something, and will always win something, so it isn't gambling because you cannot lose unless there was a chance you get nothing at all. I'd call it a scam, but not a gamble. And I agree that lootboxes are scams for peoples money, but I feel that people should be free to be scammed. If you want to ban lootboxes for being scams, I feel this is a more appropriate and correct position to take, but I feel people should be free to be scammed of their money.

2.) The contents of the lootbox in video games, aside from CS:GO, have no value in the outside world. When you purchase a skin, you do not actually own the skin. You own the right to use it in the game. Your example, I feel, is improper since in games you won nothing but the right to use something.

Games of luck for money are gambling, correct, but lootboxes are not gambling because you always win something.

It is not an illusion. I did gain something from the exchange. If you want to define gambling as “not getting your money's worth in return” you'd be wrong as this is simply a made up definition.

So in the end, we agree lootboxes are scams. We just don't agree it's gambling.

Yeah, I'm done with this. You're just making up your own definitions and criteria as well as strawmanning me. If I bet $50 and win $25, I've lost and certainly not gotten my money's worth. This is getting idiotic as you are shifting left and right to avoid your own definitions and just making shit up at this point. I've already disproved your proof that in order to be gambling it has to be for money or something of value, yet you keep going back to it. You have no rebuttal you are arguing from a false dichotomy, except 'Nuh uh!'

"Oh, because you win something its not gambling."

That's not the definition of gambling. I put a dollar in a slot machine and win fifty cents. This would not fall under your definition of gambling because I 'won something', even though I've lost money, just like I've shown in the above examples. I've already proven that there is a win-loss condition for loot boxes and disproved your proof. Again, you are using logical fallacies to base your argument. You are not arguing in good faith and haven't rebutted a single point. I've already proven that your proof is wrong, that there is a win and lose condition for loot boxes, that you don't win in the exchange, you're actually losing.

Again, under your own definitions, winning less money in a slot machine isn't gambling because you 'won something'. And don't give me that shit, 'well, you won money'. That point was already disproved and you don't have a response that you are using fallacies to back up your argument. You are also using personal feelings, 'Well, I gained something'. According to you, you did. But you didn't. You actually lost, your personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant, ESPECIALLY since you're trying to argue from a point of logic. You can't argue from emotion in a fucking logical argument.

I'm done here. You're constantly using logical fallacies to back up your arguments and using personal feelings in place of logic in a supposedly logical argument. You're the perfect sucker for this shit because you've deluded yourself that you aren't gambling because you aren't playing for money. Or you are just fucking with me at this point.

In your own post it said the second definition of the verb was doing a risky action for a desired result. You are risking money for a desired skin.

Yeah, pretty much. That's why I'm done. There's no point in doing this any further.

 

[The Last Stand]

1.) I wouldn't necessarily say this is gambling. You won something, and will always win something, so it isn't gambling because you cannot lose unless there was a chance you get nothing at all. I'd call it a scam, but not a gamble.

Okay. So you'd put down REAL money for something of artificial value, something that the developer may have just made up because of how rare the chances of getting said item? Why can't I just unlock it? That is gambling. You don't know what you're getting and you're putting up time and/or money for the CHANCE to get something.

A free to play game, that's acceptable. But a game you already paid an upfront cost to access? That's greedy.

 

[Fuzhou]

But a game you already paid an upfront cost to access? That's greedy.

I mean, some devs use it to try to recoup money from the budget because honestly, games have ballooned up with massive budgets over the last two gens, but games have stayed $60. Far less than games used to be (most N64 games launched at around $100 in 1995, around $165 after inflation) and it's making some companies come to these to recoup losses.

I don't hate lootboxes if it's so easy to earn then ingame. Halo 5 is a good example. You can buy them, sure, but if you just play one match, you get at least 2 per match, and then you get enough ingame credits in one hour that you can buy a gold pack.
Also, it's only ever skins and stuff for Warzone.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

I argued with both personal definition and real definitions. See my proof below that involve actual definitions:

Proof 1 and 2 are dependent on how we read the definition of gamble. "Play games of chance for money."

This can mean:
1) playing game a of chance for the purpose of money (Proof 2)
or
2) playing a game of chance at the cost of money (Proof 1)

Wow you're fucking dumb. In this very thing you posted, definition 2 of gamble is "Take risky action in the hope of a desired result"

Just because you personally didn't bold that definition doesn't make it cease to exist.

Are scratch tickets not gambling? After all, you always win something, even if it's just a shitty piece of cardboard.
Learn to troll better... or if you're not trolling... learn to not be a fucking moron.

 

[Colonel J]

Wow you're fucking dumb. In this very thing you posted, definition 2 of gamble is "Take risky action in the hope of a desired result".

In your own post it said the second definition of the verb was doing a risky action for a desired result. You are risking money for a desired skin.

I said in this thread that applies to maneuvers in sports and videogames. Would you ban them because they fit the definition of gamble? No. This is why we are disregarding that definition. We aren't going to ban taking half-court shots in basketball during the last second or two of the game in hopes we tie or win the game even though that is a gamble by the definition you are trying to use.

This and gambling is not a game. You are offered random things at a price. You always win something and we ourselves do not determine if we win or lose just because we don't like what we got.

Okay. So you'd put down REAL money for something of artificial value, something that the developer may have just made up because of how rare the chances of getting said item? Why can't I just unlock it? That is gambling. You don't know what you're getting and you're putting up time and/or money for the CHANCE to get something.

A free to play game, that's acceptable. But a game you already paid an upfront cost to access? That's greedy.

It's not gambling. I've said before a gamble is a game. Lootboxes are not a game.

Greedy? Yes. Gambling? No. People who want lotboxes banned for being "gambling" should not care if the game is free2play or not.

 

[Colonel J]

Yeah, I'm done with this. You're just making up your own definitions and criteria as well as strawmanning me.

I do not make up my own definitions and if I strawmanned you I apologize, but I'd like to see where I have done so.

If I bet $50 and win $25, I've lost and certainly not gotten my money's worth. This is getting idiotic as you are shifting left and right to avoid your own definitions and just making shit up at this point. I've already disproved your proof that in order to be gambling it has to be for money or something of value, yet you keep going back to it. You have no rebuttal you are arguing from a false dichotomy, except 'Nuh uh!'

If you bet $50 and it's possible for you to not win anything at all back, then it's gambling. If you bet $50 it's impossible to lose, even if you win something as dumb as a pencil, it's not gambling. You want to change the definition of gambling to not getting your money's worth from a transaction. You want the transaction to be of equal or greater value.

Here is a hypothetical:
Let's say you always got the rarest skins from a lootbox. Would you want them banned as well? You should. "It's playing a game of chance for money."

However, you clearly make this an issue about normally needing to pay X amount of dollars to get what you want through random lootboxes, but that, in itself, does not make it gambling as I've shown.

"Oh, because you win something its not gambling." That's not the definition of gambling. I put a dollar in a slot machine and win fifty cents. This would not fall under your definition of gambling because I 'won something', even though I've lost money, just like I've shown in the above examples. I've already proven that there is a win-loss condition for loot boxes and disproved your proof. Again, you are using logical fallacies to base your argument. You are not arguing in good faith and haven't rebutted a single point. I've already proven that your proof is wrong, that there is a win and lose condition for loot boxes, that you don't win in the exchange, you're actually losing.

See the above reply.

Again, under your own definitions, winning less money in a slot machine isn't gambling because you 'won something'.

Correct. I agree that this isn't gambling. See the above reply.

And don't give me that shit, 'well, you won money'. That point was already disproved and you don't have a response that you are using fallacies to back up your argument. You are also using personal feelings, 'Well, I gained something'. According to you, you did. But you didn't. You actually lost, your personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant, ESPECIALLY since you're trying to argue from a point of logic. You can't argue from emotion in a fucking logical argument.

I do not feel that using the definitions of words is me using my personal feelings. Just because you won something you did not want doesn't mean it is a win.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[That Chris Guy]

I can't tell if OP is a baiting faggot or if OP is an autistic faggot.

Funny how what was once a joke decades ago that was laughed off with, "Nobody is that stupid" is now a valid 50/50 question on OP's intelligence:

 

[Phallacies]

Isn't the important distinction whether or not the loot box requires actual money? If the box can only be bought in game with a currency you can't purchase, then it doesn't matter if it's gambling or not. As long as there is a separation between the use of real money and in-game points. It's the same thing as running a high level Diablo rift over and over hoping to farm items, you can argue that it's gambling, but the only thing you lose in exchange is time. Not cash.

 

[Colonel J]

Isn't the important distinction whether or not the loot box requires actual money? If the box can only be bought in game with a currency you can't purchase, then it doesn't matter if it's gambling or not. As long as there is a separation between the use of real money and in-game points. It's the same thing as running a high level Diablo rift over and over hoping to farm items, you can argue that it's gambling, but the only thing you lose in exchange is time. Not cash.

I think the more important distinction is the define what "winning" means.

People who disagree with my proof say that winning must mean you get your money's worth or more from the exchange, "if I don't get what I want from the lootbox I lose", where as I say you could even get a pencil and still win because there was no chance of getting nothing at all like what occurs in actual gambling like Poker. I think we will find the the definition of win agrees with my usage.

win (verb)
1. be successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict).
2. acquire or secure as a result of a contest, conflict, bet, or other endeavor.

 

[Safir]

If you get less than you pay for playing, you lose. By definition. And if you wouldn't have played if you'd have known what you'd get, it means you got less than you paid. Also by definition.

This (((thread))) is exceptional, islamic, and probably homeschooled, and I'm disappointed threads like this are created by people who don't yet have one of their own. "Ten multiplied by nothing is ten! If you win nothing, you still win! If you win a negative amount, you still win! If you bet $1000 to maybe win an all-expenses-paid non-transferrable lease of a private island, it's not gambling! It's not interest, it's a banking fee! It's not a bribe, it's an exchange of gifts! You don't turn on the lights if you toggle a switch which the chandelier queries at random intervals!"

 

[Zero0]

I think the more important distinction is the define what "winning" means.

People who disagree with my proof say that winning must mean you get your money's worth or more from the exchange, "if I don't get what I want from the lootbox I lose", where as I say you could even get a pencil and still win because there was no chance of getting nothing at all like what occurs in actual gambling like Poker. I think we will find the the definition of win agrees with my usage.

If you bet 50$ and you win 25$ you din't win you retard.
You're arguing that it's only gambling if it's possible to have no reward, by your stupid definition I can open a casino where you always win at least a penny and by your definition my casino would have no gambling.

 

[Colonel J]

You're arguing that it's only gambling if it's possible to have no reward, by your stupid definition I can open a casino where you always win at least a penny and by your definition my casino would have no gambling.

Depends on the game, but correct. By the definitions of gamble and winning it's wouldn't be gambling.

Poker has clear win and loss conditions unlike lootboxes.

 

[Zero0]

Depends on the game, but correct. By the definitions of gamble and winning it's wouldn't be gambling.

Poker has clear win and loss conditions unlike lootboxes.

You're retarded.

What does that matter.

 

[Mammal Pod]

Jesus Christ.
If you spent $100 to enter a raffle to win a $100.000 dollar car, and all you got was a fucking $3 sticker, you have gambled and lost.
If you got the $100.000 car, you gambled and won.
You are paying money to get a chance at winning a certain reward.

Every single one of these can be used to describe lootboxes.

 

[Coolio55]

I find it very strange that we're still having this argument since it was already decided IN THE DS ERA. Well, at least the EU did.

Fucking pokemon had to take out the slot machine minigame in the european versions (and later worldwide), a minigame where you paid ingame money in and received tokens upon winning which could be exchanged for items (in standard RPG minigame style) because PEGI threatened a higher rating.

Why does a system where you pay REAL MONEY in not get questioned? Why does PEGI allow it in any game rated 3+?

Hint. It's because there's shekels to be made