2 ms·
The research seems pretty thorough, though frankly none of it is surprising to me, nor do I think it should be. Gambling by any other name is still gambling.
by _aavaa_ 4y ago
The research seems pretty thorough, though frankly none of it is surprising to me, nor do I think it should be.
Gambling by any other name is still gambling.
Though these game companies have managed to improve on the formula by being able to target children, and by selling in-game currency that don't have a 1:1 correspondence with real money.
That being said, given the recent pushes and introduction of even more legal online betting, I sceptical of the situation changing anytime soon.
This isn't limited to video games though, just look at Magic the Gathering. They're just as aware of the shakiness of the legal ground their on with respect to not being considered gambling. The manufacturer does not, and likely cannot, acknowledge the difference in value between the different cards. They pretend like the piece of cardboard worth 10,000$ is identical to the ones given away for free.
- c22 4y agoThere is some legal precedent around trading cards and the secondary market mostly set in the 80's and 90's if I recall. Magic the Gathering et al might be on a little more solid ground due to this.
- _aavaa_ 4y agoI hadn't heard anything about that, but it would be interesting to look into. If that's true. I wonder how that holds up when applied to their digital "cards"
- c22 4y agoLook up Schwartz v Upper Deck. I just found this[0] though, which offers an interesting perspective related to this discussion. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335227791_Chase_Cards_in_Booster_Packs_Constituted_Illegal_Gambling_Under_US_Law_Implications_of_Schwartz_v_Upper_Deck_Co_for_the_Regulation_of_Loot_Boxes https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335227791_Chase_Car...