3 ms·
That definition covers collecting model trains or old bottle caps, if the expense is harmful to the collector. And few people would call that gambling.
by robotresearcher 3y ago
That definition covers collecting model trains or old bottle caps, if the expense is harmful to the collector. And few people would call that gambling.
- worrycue 3y agoThere is still a payout in those games - it’s just not money. Sunk cost fallacy still plays a role. Frankly, the addictive part is in the randomness of the payout. What the payout is isn’t particularly important. The fact that games don’t payout money could be seen as worse - you have zero chance of recovering your expenditure.
- robotresearcher 3y agoYeah, I get it. But buying stuff you want but can't afford is not what anyone else means by 'gambling'. Compulsively spending your mortgage payment on model trains, heroin, or hookers is harmful addictive behavior. But it's not gambling.
- c048 3y agoIt's not gambling because there is no randomness directly between an input and output (and subsequential outputs). Unless you want to argue that the lack of clear resolution of an item as chance (be it either due to lack of knowledge or testability). For all intents and purposes it will be considered a direct purchase, and is also why microtransactions are an entirely different 'problem' from online gambling.
- stubish 3y agoYes, I think we first saw this with cigarette cards. And people did feel compelled to buy the cigarettes for a chance at completing a set. With todays understanding of gambling and addiction, I think the only thing stopping us calling it gambling is that it is not a big enough problem to investigate and legislate. Anyone here get in trouble for digging through a box of cereal for the toy at the bottom?