• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

Shagger

The game industry's obsession with lootboxs has officially gone to far..

41 posts in this topic

I mean, it is gambling by sheer definition. Just because the law doesn't define it as such doesn't mean it isn't. For example, TYT covered a similar situation which applies to this one;

The Law isn't infallible and most laws are seriously out of date and typically left up to interpretation.
This video's topic/debate/conversation is, in my opinion, very relevant here. Because once again, and as Crazycrab has already presented, the actual definition of the term/concept for Gambling does indeed apply to Loot Boxes. Are you always getting something? Yes. But that fact alone doesn't change the meaning of Gambling or the addictive nature associated with it.

There is also the sociological ramifications to take into consideration. I've noticed a rise in awareness and "popularity" for Loot Boxes to be tied to the growing cancer of micro-transactions in the Games Industry. It serves to further encourage and perpetuate an ongoing problem that is gradually conditioning society to accept the practice in literally everything FOR literally anything. And now the most recent victim of this harmful trend is the new Star Wars Battlefront.

At the end of the day, it will always boil down to "Where do we draw the line in the sand?"

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a dude in another group that used to take every definition on dictionary.com to heart and treated it like the bible itself, yes it follows the definition to an extent but try giving that argument to the lawmakers. I'm not the one you have to convince I'm just relaying their thought process and it just happens to be in sync with my own thought process. If they eventually come across a reason to change it great, but as it stands it's not gambling and will not be considered so unless someone at some point creates a loot system that does break actual laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Rain said:

There was a dude in another group that used to take every definition on dictionary.com to heart and treated it like the bible itself, yes it follows the definition to an extent but try giving that argument to the lawmakers. I'm not the one you have to convince I'm just relaying their thought process and it just happens to be in sync with my own thought process. If they eventually come across a reason to change it great, but as it stands it's not gambling and will not be considered so unless someone at some point creates a loot system that does break actual laws.

 

Is that what you think I'm doing?  If it is then your obviously not paying much attention to anything I'm saying.

 

If you actually oppose the use of these systems in games then what exactly do you think should be done about it?  What is going through your head that makes sense a game like Borderlands 2 demands a PEGI warning on the box about gambling yet games like Shadow of War, Battlefront 2 or Overwatch don't?  hell Overwatch doesn't even feature the same "Online" warning that Borderlands 2 does!  How does that make sense!

 

JPEG_20171012_170256.jpg

 

TX81L82.png

Why is "Online" missing for a game that is online only?

 

The PEGI website states that the gambling warning is applied to "Games that encourage or teach gambling" which is exactly what these games do.  These people clearly aren't doing their job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

34 minutes ago, Crazycrab said:

 

Is that what you think I'm doing?  If it is then your obviously not paying much attention to anything I'm saying.

 

If you actually oppose the use of these systems in games then what exactly do you think should be done about it?  What is going through your head that makes sense a game like Borderlands 2 demands a PEGI warning on the box about gambling yet games like Shadow of War, Battlefront 2 or Overwatch don't?  hell Overwatch doesn't even feature the same "Online" warning that Borderlands 2 does!  How does that make sense!

 

The PEGI website states that the gambling warning is applied to "Games that encourage or teach gambling" which is exactly what these games do.  These people clearly aren't doing their job.

 

No I'm not saying that's what you're doing at all, my point was that even though a definition can define an act there's still subtleties that can contradict. There's a gambling tag on Borderlands 2 because there is actual slots, I forget what that girl with the big tits name is. It's simulated gambling but still actual gambling because slots are a staple in the gambling world and kids will understand how they work. The other games you mentioned are all loot crate systems, no where near the same.

 

My opinion to get rid of this practice? We continue to make noise about it is all we can really do. Backlash hits the right people and hopefully those assholes in suits at EA etc listen and work on getting rid of these stupid loot systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Rain said:

 

No I'm not saying that's what you're doing at all, my point was that even though a definition can define an act there's still subtleties that can contradict. There's a gambling tag on Borderlands 2 because there is actual slots, I forget what that girl with the big tits name is. It's simulated gambling but still actual gambling because slots are a staple in the gambling world and kids will understand how they work. The other games you mentioned are all loot crate systems, no where near the same.

 

My opinion to get rid of this practice? We continue to make noise about it is all we can really do. Backlash hits the right people and hopefully those assholes in suits at EA etc listen and work on getting rid of these stupid loot systems.

 

Were never going to see eye to eye because as far as I'm concerned they are exactly the same.  You place your bet, hit the button/pull the lever, you get the colourful ligs and sounds and then the drama of the final reveal.....  and the action you propose we do is something you have literally said will never work "until someone blows dynamite in the ears of lawmakers companies are free to do this crap" which is fine of course because "it's just a ridiculous fad".  It's clear that you and Mr Bain here are not taking this seriously.

 

I'm going leave this conversation because it's obvious at this stage it's going nowhere but I'll say one more thing.  This is NOT a fad and it's not going to go away, It merely will evolve into something even worse like it always does.  First we had DLC, then Pre-Order bonues, Season Passes, Microtransactions and now this.  What's it going to become next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight. You think:

1. Insert money 2. Pull lever 3. Wait to see if preset winning combination displays 4. If yes, collect pre-determined winnings - If no, lose your money

and

1. Pay money 2. Wait for loot box in mail 3. Open box 4. Get a new game

Are the same? How is your brain processing that similarity? Show that comparison to a kid and guaranteed they will be like...ummm no they don't sound the same. Even the in-game loot system:

1. Earn loot box via free, in-game currency, or real currency 2. Open box 3. View all rewards

 

None of those sound like slot machines or like you're losing anything and if you spent real money that's the person's own choice. But that's just me, if that breakdown didn't help you then yes we are definitely not getting anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rain said:

There was a dude in another group that used to take every definition on dictionary.com to heart and treated it like the bible itself, yes it follows the definition to an extent but try giving that argument to the lawmakers. I'm not the one you have to convince I'm just relaying their thought process and it just happens to be in sync with my own thought process. If they eventually come across a reason to change it great, but as it stands it's not gambling and will not be considered so unless someone at some point creates a loot system that does break actual laws.

Bare in mind, definitions exist for a reason. I feel as though you aren't paying enough credence to this fact. You subscribe to the doctrine of logic, correct? There should be very little debate on this particular point then. Logic dictates that if something matches the definition for a word then said term is as such given to it. This is simple truth, I think anyone would be hard pressed to try disputing such.

 

And why are you saying you're not the one who needs to be convinced? If your thought process is of the same vein then wouldn't that make you the ideal subject to try convincing? Personally, I find the response to be more like a cop out. You'll accept it if its codified into law, but if you aren't in agreement with it then how does it then become a law? And further on that point, shouldn't the law be based in logical deduction? Basically you are presenting a no win situation simply because you disagree with the notion that such is gambling even though you technically already agreed that it was. So I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought.

Debates are a method designed to ascertain truth and reach a mutual conclusion by all parties involved. One side is either right or wrong and the process is intended to discover such. But at this point, your argument merely consists of;
-"Who cares about silly definitions~"
-"Until someone breaks the non-existent law it will never be a law."
-"I'll consider it gambling when there's a law that says so because I'm somehow incapable of determining this for myself."

That is essentially what you have presented, which is honestly a rather weak argument. Its somewhere in the same category as "I'm right because I say so" which doesn't actually fly in a real debate.

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Malphisto said:

Bare in mind, definitions exist for a reason. I feel as though you aren't paying enough credence to this fact. You subscribe to the doctrine of logic, correct? There should be very little debate on this particular point then. Logic dictates that if something matches the definition for a word then said term is as such given to it. This is simple truth, I think anyone would be hard pressed to try disputing such.

 

And why are you saying you're not the one who needs to be convinced? If your thought process is of the same vein then wouldn't that make you the ideal subject to try convincing? Personally, I find the response to be more like a cop out. You'll accept it if its codified into law, but if you aren't in agreement with it then how does it then become a law? And further on that point, shouldn't the law be based in logical deduction? Basically you are presenting a no win situation simply because you disagree with the notion that such is gambling even though you technically already agreed that it was. So I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought.

Debates are a method designed to ascertain truth and reach a mutual conclusion by all parties involved. One side is either right or wrong and the process is intended to discover such. But at this point, your argument merely consists of;
-"Who cares about silly definitions~"
-"Until someone breaks the non-existent law it will never be a law."
-"I'll consider it gambling when there's a law that says so because I'm somehow incapable of determining this for myself."

That is essentially what you have presented, which is honestly a rather weak argument. Its somewhere in the same category as "I'm right because I say so" which doesn't actually fly in a real debate.

It's actually quite simple, it's not currently a law because it's not breaking the law. It is a form of gambling but it is not the true definition of gambling otherwise it would be included in the law to begin with right? You are taking the definition far too literally at face value and the law doesn't work that way. I'm no lawyer or lawmaking guru, like you said it's simple logic...laws are not cut and dry they don't go by: this is this and if you break this you break everything associated with this. Call it nuances if you will, convince me it's a law and remotely close to actual gambling and I'll happily say "you are right it is gambling". Until then, your whole debate revolves around what the dictionary says.

 

Edit: And I say don't convince me because even if you did what am I going to do about it? But if you're so confident in your reasoning, all you have to do is take the dictionary to the government and tell them they are wrong and boom, problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Rain said:

It's actually quite simple, it's not currently a law because it's not breaking the law. It is a form of gambling but it is not the true definition of gambling otherwise it would be included in the law to begin with right?

No, for the same reason that the Civil Rights Act doesn't actually extend to the LGBTQ Community. It hasn't actually been codified into law because people have just been extending the interpretation of the pre-existing law from way back when to also include those folks as well. Again, the law isn't infallible and most are super out of date and haven't been keeping up with the ever changing and evolving society. Which is why laws often require either being amended or new laws being made. And we determine this through discussions such as this.

We can both agree that it does fall in line with the definition of gambling. So it makes sense that we should revisit the current existing laws regarding such to likewise include such. Bare in mind, gambling itself isn't a criminal act that isn't allowed in the country, but there are regulations for it which exist for good reasons. But if we can reason that something does match the concept of such then it should likewise be included. The system which governs our society must be kept updated to make sure it is operating properly.

Also...
 

23 minutes ago, Rain said:

Until then, your whole debate revolves around what the dictionary says.

Uhh... Alright... Wait, something isn't quite right about this statement, lol
Again, you're contradicting yourself, you're agreeing its gambling but then turning around and saying it isn't. Which is it? XD
And if myself and Crazycrab are presenting the literal definition of the word to prove the meaning of said word, then shouldn't that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt? Again, you're making light of this as if it isn't as big a deal as it is, or like you are expecting something more beyond the word's own definition to prove its meaning. If you are trying to say we aren't allowed to present the word's literal definition as evidence then what else are you wanting to see? What is your criteria for what stands as a reasonable argument? (Cause it feels like you're just moving the goal post in this case)

Case in point, first it was "prove this is gambling" and now its "prove that this should be a law"... =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a form of gambling because you are indeed taking a chance and I have said this before, but it is not the same gambling that is restricted by laws there is a difference. Just like how I previously stated there are many different forms of gambling in everyday life yet none of those are considered gambling why?. I've said it before it's the subtle differences that set things apart and loot crates just has the closest resemblance compared to everything else but still does not cross that threshold. By your logic everything related to gambling should be in the law, I took a gamble on waking up an hour early oh no I broke the law.

 

The difference between you, Crab and myself is that I see the differences in the meaning of gambling and you simply don't. Now I'm just restating everything I've already said into one post so there's my side of my reasoning lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Rain said:

It is a form of gambling because you are indeed taking a chance and I have said this before, but it is not the same gambling that is restricted by laws there is a difference.

For a moment, can we back track to what you were originally saying?
 

On 10/10/2017 at 2:26 PM, Rain said:

I, for the life of me can't see why this is gambling.

The original debate was whether or not this was gambling. You were the one who then tried to change the subject by looking to make this into a matter concerning laws.
You have already agreed that it is indeed gambling, as such you concede the debate, correct?

I felt it important to reign in the discussion because you were taking it to a whole other place beyond what the original debate was about. Its also why you are seeing an impasse, because I see now that the real issue here is that the previous focus of the argument moved away from what was actually being argued. If you read back through the thread, one can easily see how this happened. Essentially, you presented the notion of it not being dubbed "Gambling" by the law, in order to try and force your point of refusing to acknowledge that it is indeed gambling. It was a straw man argument you were putting forward and that somehow became the central focus of the debate, a debate which was technically already over the instant you contradicted yourself.

The rest is just semantics. You are correct, all those things you listed would be counted as such, which is why one is correct in saying something like "I took a gamble on whether or not that burger was going to give me the runs..." That is literally an act of gambling.

The whole "law" portion of this debate is an entirely OTHER topic.

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to clarify and hopefully end my side of the debate:

The loot crate system by definition is a form gambling which I have agreed with before already...however it is not gambling in the sense everyone thinks it is. It's not that difficult to understand, it's not cut and dry just because it fits the definition. Gambling in the sense you want it to be has a prime example in Borderlands 2 with the slot machine. I've already explained the difference between a slot machine and a loot crate and that is my explanation when I say loot crates are and are not gambling. Gambling has more than one meaning, if you can't comprehend that then there is nothing more for me to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where I caused the confusion, when I agreed it relates to the definition Crab posted...I still say it's not gambling though. It's been a long day I'm tired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch as pay to win goes beyond just loot crates...soon it will be $10 for 50 bullets! Pay for each bullet, grenade, armor, health kit, etc 😵

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rested, not working and fully aware now..that being said: So technically this thread got totally derailed when the move towards in-game loot systems and laws on gambling came into discussion and I am definitely included in that fault so my apologies to Shagger. Back on topic the G2A system with purchasing games via crates I 100% believe is not gambling. It's a simple process that isn't unheard of because plenty of other products have been using this practice for a long time and no one said anything until it hit games...and gamers have big mouths myself included.

 

Derailing one last time, ironically I finished watching the TotalBiscuit video and I'm convinced the in-game loot systems of Shadow of War, Battlefront 2 etc is gambling. I admit I was looking at it the wrong way focusing too much on other gambling processes and how they compare to the loot systems in games. What Biscuit elaborated on is what Crab even mentioned in his first response to me...it draws on the addictive nature in people to spend for that big win. And that big win in these games is Pay to Win items. I saw it only as a horrible Pay to Win system and after realizing my mistake I won't be buying Battlefront unless this system changes because it is ridiculously broken.

Malphisto likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rain said:

I'm rested, not working and fully aware now..that being said: So technically this thread got totally derailed when the move towards in-game loot systems and laws on gambling came into discussion and I am definitely included in that fault so my apologies to Shagger. Back on topic the G2A system with purchasing games via crates I 100% believe is not gambling. It's a simple process that isn't unheard of because plenty of other products have been using this practice for a long time and no one said anything until it hit games...and gamers have big mouths myself included.

 

Derailing one last time, ironically I finished watching the TotalBiscuit video and I'm convinced the in-game loot systems of Shadow of War, Battlefront 2 etc is gambling. I admit I was looking at it the wrong way focusing too much on other gambling processes and how they compare to the loot systems in games. What Biscuit elaborated on is what Crab even mentioned in his first response to me...it draws on the addictive nature in people to spend for that big win. And that big win in these games is Pay to Win items. I saw it only as a horrible Pay to Win system and after realizing my mistake I won't be buying Battlefront unless this system changes because it is ridiculously broken.

 

I don't actully consider this a derailment, more riding on a parallel track, so its fine. The G2A thing was the srawthat broke my camels back, but it's just one part of a much larger problem, so dicussing this in the industry as a whoal is still on topic as far as I'm concerned.

Rain likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now