6 ms·

Does this affect video game loot boxes, then?

fhood 8y ago
While unsavory, I feel like loot boxes are closer to a raffle than what we typically consider gambling, and to treat them as gambling would open up a serious gray area.
- mrlala 8y ago
  How in the world do you consider it a raffle? A raffle is when more than 1 person pays money ahead of time with some chance of winning a variety of prizes, and the odds are basically known depending on how many people bought the raffle tickets. A loot box is literally "Pay $1 and see what you get!", and there are percentages behind what you can get (unknown to us). It's literally no different than buying a lottery ticket, except you always get something (maybe equivalent to the value of the lottery ticket) with a chance of getting something more valuable. Now maybe they are adjusting lootbox percentages on the back-end so too many people don't get something unique if that's how you are trying to claim it's a raffle.. but I still don't think that makes it anywhere near the definition of a raffle.
- techer 8y ago
  How is a raffle not gambling out of interest?
  - jrockway 8y ago
    How is insurance not gambling?
    - conception 8y ago
      At some point, hedging becomes gambling but of course, it's a grey line.
      - koboll 8y ago
        All of the speculation here hinges on the legal definitions of terms like "money", "credit", "bet", and "wager", which we're using as lay terms here, but which probably have well-defined contours honed by precedent.
    - cdumler 8y ago
      The purpose of insurance is such that individuals share the burden to cover random, life-impacting events. From the consumer side, insurance is the purchase of a service to cover any a future debt falling under the category of the service, ie. an unforeseeable, unintentional act of damage by or to the consumer. I have no intention of burning down my house. I pay so that if it were to happen, I am not stuck paying off a house I'll never own. From the servicer side, it is the sale of a product whereby consumers get covered for unexpected events, yet the company gets a profit for provider the service. Assuming a correct amortization, the company gets a profit.
      - shkkmo 8y ago
        So how is that different from hedging your bets? Insurance is gambling. The servicer is the house and always wins (unless they screw up). That is not to say that gambling can't serve purposes other than entertainment, because it can. That doesn't make it not gambling.
        tkxxx7 8y ago
        > So how is that different from hedging your bets? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the difference is, no one is betting that you actually do have an unforeseen incident, so there is no bet to hedge against.
        shkkmo 8y ago
        > I think the difference is, no one is betting that you actually do have an unforeseen incident, You are. When you buy insurance, you are betting that you will have an unforeseen incident and will utilize your insurance. The fact that you are doing so to offset some financial risk doesn't change the fact that you are gambling. I don't see why source of a risk matters here. I believe the position I am arguing against is that that motivation of hedging against risk makes gambling-like behavior not gambling. As far as I can tell your position is: Gambling-like behavior is not gambling if it is done to offset non-gambling related risk.
    - pessimizer 8y ago
      Of course it is. Especially when it's taken out by people who don't even own the asset being insured. For people that do, it's ideally like taking an opposing bet to the bet that you've implicitly taken by owning something that has the possibility of failure. I guess the line is that if you're on both sides of the bet, it's not gambling. Selling insurance is definitely gambling, but it's subject to the law of large numbers like everything else - at some point, all of the risk is ironed out by the number of things you insure. At that point, it's a government concession.
    - Ajedi32 8y ago
      Insurance is the precise opposite of gambling; instead of concentrating reward, it distributes risk. When you buy insurance you're not betting that something bad will happen to you, you're hedging your otherwise implicit bet that something bad _won't_ happen to you.
      - paulcole 8y ago
        You're just rephrasing it. How about: I'm betting State Farm $12 a month my apartment will burn down before I die or move out.
        Ajedi32 8y ago
        Think of it this way: if your apartment burns down and you don't have insurance, you lose your apartment and everything in it. If your apartment burns down and you do have insurance, you still lose your apartment, but that loss is completely (at least in an ideal world) offset by money provided by the insurance company. Which scenario is the bigger gamble?
        paulcole 8y ago
        If I don't bet on the Patriots when I'm a Chiefs fan and the Patriots win my heart is broken. If the Patriots win and I bet on them, then my heart is still broken but that loss is offset by money provided by my bookie. I remain unconvinced that insurance is anything but a legal gamble.
        Ajedi32 8y ago
        If everyone treated sports bets that way, maybe it wouldn't be considered gambling. Though I kinda doubt a subscription service offering payouts whenever your favorite sports team loses would be a very successful business, as you'd have to be a pretty hardcore fan for emotional damage due to a loss to be something so significant that you can't take the hit without monetary compensation to console you.
        jstarfish 8y ago
tanilama 8y ago
My question as well. Could the gamers make a case and start a class action against the developers if they go too far?
- Shivetya 8y ago
  depends on how they are structured. a few companies have moved to where loot boxes guarantee to return goods of the same value as the cost. Now of course they set these values by offering similar goods on their stores for direct purchase. that being said, those values being up the developers could be depicted as misleading. my take away is this, as long as we allow states to market lotteries then the idea that private companies should be held to differing rules is wrong. either all play on a level playing field or none play. considering the misery many state lotteries are said to bring I don't see how they can stand there smug except the fact they have the courts and police power to get away with it.

While unsavory, I feel like loot boxes are closer to a raffle than what we typically consider gambling, and to treat them as gambling would open up a serious gray area.

mrlala 8y ago
How in the world do you consider it a raffle? A raffle is when more than 1 person pays money ahead of time with some chance of winning a variety of prizes, and the odds are basically known depending on how many people bought the raffle tickets. A loot box is literally "Pay $1 and see what you get!", and there are percentages behind what you can get (unknown to us). It's literally no different than buying a lottery ticket, except you always get something (maybe equivalent to the value of the lottery ticket) with a chance of getting something more valuable. Now maybe they are adjusting lootbox percentages on the back-end so too many people don't get something unique if that's how you are trying to claim it's a raffle.. but I still don't think that makes it anywhere near the definition of a raffle.
techer 8y ago
How is a raffle not gambling out of interest?
- jrockway 8y ago
  How is insurance not gambling?
  - conception 8y ago
    At some point, hedging becomes gambling but of course, it's a grey line.
    - koboll 8y ago
      All of the speculation here hinges on the legal definitions of terms like "money", "credit", "bet", and "wager", which we're using as lay terms here, but which probably have well-defined contours honed by precedent.
  - cdumler 8y ago
    The purpose of insurance is such that individuals share the burden to cover random, life-impacting events. From the consumer side, insurance is the purchase of a service to cover any a future debt falling under the category of the service, ie. an unforeseeable, unintentional act of damage by or to the consumer. I have no intention of burning down my house. I pay so that if it were to happen, I am not stuck paying off a house I'll never own. From the servicer side, it is the sale of a product whereby consumers get covered for unexpected events, yet the company gets a profit for provider the service. Assuming a correct amortization, the company gets a profit.
    - shkkmo 8y ago
      So how is that different from hedging your bets? Insurance is gambling. The servicer is the house and always wins (unless they screw up). That is not to say that gambling can't serve purposes other than entertainment, because it can. That doesn't make it not gambling.
      - tkxxx7 8y ago
        > So how is that different from hedging your bets? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the difference is, no one is betting that you actually do have an unforeseen incident, so there is no bet to hedge against.
        shkkmo 8y ago
        > I think the difference is, no one is betting that you actually do have an unforeseen incident, You are. When you buy insurance, you are betting that you will have an unforeseen incident and will utilize your insurance. The fact that you are doing so to offset some financial risk doesn't change the fact that you are gambling. I don't see why source of a risk matters here. I believe the position I am arguing against is that that motivation of hedging against risk makes gambling-like behavior not gambling. As far as I can tell your position is: Gambling-like behavior is not gambling if it is done to offset non-gambling related risk.
  - pessimizer 8y ago
    Of course it is. Especially when it's taken out by people who don't even own the asset being insured. For people that do, it's ideally like taking an opposing bet to the bet that you've implicitly taken by owning something that has the possibility of failure. I guess the line is that if you're on both sides of the bet, it's not gambling. Selling insurance is definitely gambling, but it's subject to the law of large numbers like everything else - at some point, all of the risk is ironed out by the number of things you insure. At that point, it's a government concession.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    Insurance is the precise opposite of gambling; instead of concentrating reward, it distributes risk. When you buy insurance you're not betting that something bad will happen to you, you're hedging your otherwise implicit bet that something bad _won't_ happen to you.
    - paulcole 8y ago
      You're just rephrasing it. How about: I'm betting State Farm $12 a month my apartment will burn down before I die or move out.
      - Ajedi32 8y ago
        Think of it this way: if your apartment burns down and you don't have insurance, you lose your apartment and everything in it. If your apartment burns down and you do have insurance, you still lose your apartment, but that loss is completely (at least in an ideal world) offset by money provided by the insurance company. Which scenario is the bigger gamble?
        paulcole 8y ago
        If I don't bet on the Patriots when I'm a Chiefs fan and the Patriots win my heart is broken. If the Patriots win and I bet on them, then my heart is still broken but that loss is offset by money provided by my bookie. I remain unconvinced that insurance is anything but a legal gamble.
        Ajedi32 8y ago
        If everyone treated sports bets that way, maybe it wouldn't be considered gambling. Though I kinda doubt a subscription service offering payouts whenever your favorite sports team loses would be a very successful business, as you'd have to be a pretty hardcore fan for emotional damage due to a loss to be something so significant that you can't take the hit without monetary compensation to console you.
      - jstarfish 8y ago

tanilama 8y ago

My question as well. Could the gamers make a case and start a class action against the developers if they go too far?

Shivetya 8y ago
depends on how they are structured. a few companies have moved to where loot boxes guarantee to return goods of the same value as the cost. Now of course they set these values by offering similar goods on their stores for direct purchase. that being said, those values being up the developers could be depicted as misleading. my take away is this, as long as we allow states to market lotteries then the idea that private companies should be held to differing rules is wrong. either all play on a level playing field or none play. considering the misery many state lotteries are said to bring I don't see how they can stand there smug except the fact they have the courts and police power to get away with it.