3 ms·

As far as I understand "loot boxes" I don't think they qualify as gambling. At least not any more than buying a pack of Pokemon cards in the 90s.

retsibsi 6y ago
I would say those cards were a kind of gambling too, but the current version is much more refined and dangerous. They've had years to perfect the psychology, and it's a lot easier to lose control when you can instantly give in to the compulsion by clicking a mouse, rather than having to leave the house, go to a store, look a cashier in the eye, etc.
apocolyps6 6y ago
The main reason Pokemon cards (and the like) aren't legally gambling is because the company can claim to not be officially aware of the price of the cards on the secondary market. If those same cards were sold individually by the company they would no longer have even this flimsy defense.
- WorldMaker 6y ago
  Which is why Valve taking a cut of Marketplace fees is so dangerously flirting with gambling laws.
takeda 6y ago
Who said buying pack of Pokemon cards wasn't gambling? The redeeming thing with Pokemon was that when you spent money back then you knew exactly how much you spent and you couldn't spend more than your allowance. Another redeeming thing was that with Pokemon you actually had a physical object that you could also trade with your friends. By any means I'm not trying to defend Pokemon, but wanted to show that this is much worse.
- bE9a3S5So8igd3 6y ago
  > Who said buying pack of Pokemon cards wasn't gambling? Me. A pack of Pokemon cards is a tangible investment. As are, as far as I understand them, "loot boxes." The trading value may be probabilistic, but it's not quite the same as making a financial bet as in the stock market, lottery, traditional casino "gambling" It used to be that you'd get toys with McDonald's happy meals. I believe the toy you'd end up with was also a matter of probability. There was also a candy phenomenon in the late 90s/early 00s called the "Wonder Ball." The commercials, imploring you to consider "What's in the Wonder Ball?" Also probabilistic. I wouldn't say either of these examples is gambling. At this point it seems appropriate to mention that it actually doesn't matter whether something qualifies is "gambling" or not. It matters only to the extent that in 2020 people are fixated on labeling things, as if the word we've crafted to describe something is itself meaningful. These words tend to be trendy and suitable for e-propagation on Twitter words like "incel" or "autistic." Or "That's gambling! #gambling-bad" There are lots of dumb things people can invest in. And investing in dumb things has gotten easier. That doesn't mean every purchase with a probabilistic value on the market is gambling, or that "gambling bad" and "not-gambling good." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Meal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Meal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Ball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Ball
nigerian1981 6y ago
They are in Belgium https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/technology-43906306 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/techno...
- worble 6y ago
  deamped: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43906306 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43906306

retsibsi 6y ago

I would say those cards were a kind of gambling too, but the current version is much more refined and dangerous. They've had years to perfect the psychology, and it's a lot easier to lose control when you can instantly give in to the compulsion by clicking a mouse, rather than having to leave the house, go to a store, look a cashier in the eye, etc.

apocolyps6 6y ago

The main reason Pokemon cards (and the like) aren't legally gambling is because the company can claim to not be officially aware of the price of the cards on the secondary market. If those same cards were sold individually by the company they would no longer have even this flimsy defense.

WorldMaker 6y ago
Which is why Valve taking a cut of Marketplace fees is so dangerously flirting with gambling laws.

takeda 6y ago

Who said buying pack of Pokemon cards wasn't gambling? The redeeming thing with Pokemon was that when you spent money back then you knew exactly how much you spent and you couldn't spend more than your allowance. Another redeeming thing was that with Pokemon you actually had a physical object that you could also trade with your friends. By any means I'm not trying to defend Pokemon, but wanted to show that this is much worse.

bE9a3S5So8igd3 6y ago
> Who said buying pack of Pokemon cards wasn't gambling? Me. A pack of Pokemon cards is a tangible investment. As are, as far as I understand them, "loot boxes." The trading value may be probabilistic, but it's not quite the same as making a financial bet as in the stock market, lottery, traditional casino "gambling" It used to be that you'd get toys with McDonald's happy meals. I believe the toy you'd end up with was also a matter of probability. There was also a candy phenomenon in the late 90s/early 00s called the "Wonder Ball." The commercials, imploring you to consider "What's in the Wonder Ball?" Also probabilistic. I wouldn't say either of these examples is gambling. At this point it seems appropriate to mention that it actually doesn't matter whether something qualifies is "gambling" or not. It matters only to the extent that in 2020 people are fixated on labeling things, as if the word we've crafted to describe something is itself meaningful. These words tend to be trendy and suitable for e-propagation on Twitter words like "incel" or "autistic." Or "That's gambling! #gambling-bad" There are lots of dumb things people can invest in. And investing in dumb things has gotten easier. That doesn't mean every purchase with a probabilistic value on the market is gambling, or that "gambling bad" and "not-gambling good." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Meal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Meal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Ball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Ball

nigerian1981 6y ago

They are in Belgium https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/technology-43906306 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/techno...

worble 6y ago
deamped: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43906306 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43906306