3 ms·

Actually, gambling apps are allowed in stores for territories where gambling is legal. In the UK every bookmaker will have an app, and there are plenty of real

Actually, gambling apps are allowed in stores for territories where gambling is legal. In the UK every bookmaker will have an app, and there are plenty of real-money casino and bingo apps available. Of course, the difference here, is that the UK's gambling companies operate in a highly regulated environment. You can put in place deposit limits instantly that then take a week or more to lift, you can self-exclude (ban yourself from the bookmaker), and these are the measures the firms have put in themselves, the regulator is there to basically make sure they're following consistent rules and treating players fairly. Money laundering regulations, appropriate licensing, etc. also all add up. The general view is that people should be free to gamble, but also have a regulatory framework to remove criminal elements and ensure players are treated fairly. It helps that the government gets to tax proceeds as well - an issue causing real headaches as they've become as addicted to the in-store FOBTs income as much as bookmaker shareholders have. I've thought for a while that there was going to come a time when spending caps were likely going to be needed for in-game assets. But then, where do you draw the line? You could easily argue that webcam sites are potentially as addictive, exploitative and potentially have the same game behaviour that is so dangerous here.

emdowling 10y ago
TIL about the gambling restriction being region-specific. I guess my question boils down to this: betting on horses and playing a casino slot machine are recognised as gambling and regulated as such. How, when and should apps like Game of War be considered in the same category?
- dagw 10y ago
  I guess a (somewhat perverse) argument could be made that the defining characteristic of gambling is that you might (just maybe) get back more money than you put in. In Game of War you are absolutely 100% guaranteed to get back exactly 0% of your money every single time, and thus there is no gambling involved.
  - BoorishBears 10y ago
    And to me it's a slippery slope because what separates stuff like Game of War and Farmville from your average AAA game with purchases for packs of things like skins. Usually people don't group those because you're paying money for the former up front, but the mechanics are the same.
    - dagw 10y ago
      what separates stuff like Game of War and Farmville from your average AAA game with purchases for packs of things like skins Personally I see two potential criteria of separation. 1) to what extent does paying money increase my chance of 'winning' 2) To what extent does not paying money make the game less fun. As long as I can have fun with just the base game and have a reasonable chance of 'winning' then I'm not too bothered. But once they start to make the base game more boring or unreasonably hard to 'force' people to upgrade then it starts to become an issue.
      - BoorishBears 10y ago
        It's very difficult to generally come up with rules that work across genres and individual players as to: How much fun needs to be allowed with the base game before it's considered intentionally boring (across different player preferences and genres). What constitutes a "reasonable chance of winning" when you consider the varying skill levels of players
    - chowells 10y ago
      There's no slippery slope. The difference is easy to distinguish. Is real money a substitute for skill at whatever decisions the game asks you to make? If so, you're being scammed. Content expansions in AAA games are obviously not substitutes for skill. Nor are cosmetic customization options like skins or accessories. Cards in virtual card games like Hearthstone get a bit more interesting to analyze. There are better and worse decks, and it takes the right cards to build better decks. Spending money is a much faster way to get the right cards than doing daily quests. But there are two factors that keep Hearthstone out of scam territory. First, someone can get any card they want without spending money, and if they're really good in drafts, they can even do it relatively quickly. So, the more skill you have, the less spending money helps you. Second, there's a maximum that spending money can help you. Once you have the decks you want, whether you win or not comes down to skill (and some luck) in the exact same way as everyone else. You get no advantages over someone who built the deck they want without spending money. So yeah, there's a simple framework to apply to make these decisions. Where's the slippery slope?

emdowling 10y ago

TIL about the gambling restriction being region-specific. I guess my question boils down to this: betting on horses and playing a casino slot machine are recognised as gambling and regulated as such. How, when and should apps like Game of War be considered in the same category?

dagw 10y ago
I guess a (somewhat perverse) argument could be made that the defining characteristic of gambling is that you might (just maybe) get back more money than you put in. In Game of War you are absolutely 100% guaranteed to get back exactly 0% of your money every single time, and thus there is no gambling involved.
- BoorishBears 10y ago
  And to me it's a slippery slope because what separates stuff like Game of War and Farmville from your average AAA game with purchases for packs of things like skins. Usually people don't group those because you're paying money for the former up front, but the mechanics are the same.
  - dagw 10y ago
    what separates stuff like Game of War and Farmville from your average AAA game with purchases for packs of things like skins Personally I see two potential criteria of separation. 1) to what extent does paying money increase my chance of 'winning' 2) To what extent does not paying money make the game less fun. As long as I can have fun with just the base game and have a reasonable chance of 'winning' then I'm not too bothered. But once they start to make the base game more boring or unreasonably hard to 'force' people to upgrade then it starts to become an issue.
    - BoorishBears 10y ago
      It's very difficult to generally come up with rules that work across genres and individual players as to: How much fun needs to be allowed with the base game before it's considered intentionally boring (across different player preferences and genres). What constitutes a "reasonable chance of winning" when you consider the varying skill levels of players
  - chowells 10y ago
    There's no slippery slope. The difference is easy to distinguish. Is real money a substitute for skill at whatever decisions the game asks you to make? If so, you're being scammed. Content expansions in AAA games are obviously not substitutes for skill. Nor are cosmetic customization options like skins or accessories. Cards in virtual card games like Hearthstone get a bit more interesting to analyze. There are better and worse decks, and it takes the right cards to build better decks. Spending money is a much faster way to get the right cards than doing daily quests. But there are two factors that keep Hearthstone out of scam territory. First, someone can get any card they want without spending money, and if they're really good in drafts, they can even do it relatively quickly. So, the more skill you have, the less spending money helps you. Second, there's a maximum that spending money can help you. Once you have the decks you want, whether you win or not comes down to skill (and some luck) in the exact same way as everyone else. You get no advantages over someone who built the deck they want without spending money. So yeah, there's a simple framework to apply to make these decisions. Where's the slippery slope?