7 ms·

> not actually simulating gambling Nit picking I guess, but... looks like a slot machine simulator... and slot machines are synonymous with gambling IMO.

skyyler 2y ago
It's not simulating gambling any more than Peggle is simulating gambling. It takes the aesthetic of a slot machine but there's no wagers. There's no gambling mechanic. Are we really that blind to what gambling is that there are people that think playing poker without wagers is a form of gambling?
- jsheard 2y ago
  Balatro is similar, it leans heavily on Poker aesthetics but mechanically the only thing it has in common with Poker is that it starts with a standard 52 card deck and the hands you can play are (mostly) the ones used in Poker. You could play it for a hundred hours and still have absolutely no idea how to play Hold'em.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >You could play it for a hundred hours and still have absolutely no idea how to play Hold'em. On the flip side, it's super similar to those video poker machines in bars and restaurants. If you allowed the option to increase the bet and got rid of the special joker abilities, it's basically the same thing. People claiming otherwise are being willfully ignorant. I love Balatro, but it's definitely gambling adjacent and depending on how rules/laws around children gambling are defined, it probably should be age gated, or those rules/laws should be updated to reflect reality, you can't have it both ways. But also, I'd say the same about all of those games with gacha and lootbox mechanics.
    - skyyler 2y ago
      >option to increase the bet There was no bet in the first place, that's the point. It's not gambling because there's no wager.
    - aidenn0 2y ago
      IIRC even the author of Balatro has said he would be fine with any state in which his game gets rated the same as games with actual gambling, instead of those games getting a 3+ rating.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      > If you allowed the option to increase the bet and got rid of the special joker abilities, it's basically the same thing Other than the fact that no real money is involved, which is really the core problem that reasonable people have with predatory gambling apps
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      Now based on this thread, I’m very confused as to what Google is trying to ban or what the law (are they trying to comply with some law?) actually says. Balatro is not gambling, it has a gambling aesthetic but no actual money changes hands. Lootbox games are gambling, at least if we accept the idea that the things in the loot boxes have value; money goes in, and then you get something out with a random component to the value. But they don’t have a gambling aesthetic, they are usually wrapped up as something related to the game, right? I could see Google wanting to comply with some directive not to “glorify gambling” or something along those lines. This would be independent of whether or not the games actually are gambling. Anyway, I don’t think people are being willfully ignorant. I think they are just assuming Google is trying to regulate actual gambling. Not gambling aesthetic for non-gambling. But I have no idea what Google actually is trying to do. I will note that it is pretty suspicious that the one type of gambling they managed to regulate is the one that doesn’t make them any money other than the first purchase…
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - deadbunny 2y ago
      > On the flip side, it's super similar to those video poker machines in bars and restaurants. Other than playing cards being shown on screen, it's not. > If you allowed the option to increase the bet There is no betting in Balatro. > and got rid of the special joker abilities, it's basically the same thing. So completely change how the game works completely then it's "basically the same" as video poker? Do you hear yourself? > People claiming otherwise are being willfully ignorant. People claiming otherwise can tell the difference between 2 games using playing cards. > I love Balatro, but it's definitely gambling adjacent Again, there is no gambling in Balatro. > and depending on how rules/laws around children gambling are defined, it probably should be age gated, or those rules/laws should be updated to reflect reality, you can't have it both ways. Gonna ignore this because you haven't explained in any way how Balatro is in anyway "gambling adjacent" other than your made up situation where if you completely change the way the game works it becomes gambling, which of course is nonsense.
    - smelendez 2y ago
      Ironically, the reason some states allow “video poker” gambling machines and not slot machines that look like slot machines is that poker is at least partially a game of skill. Even though video poker as it’s typically implemented and played is essentially indistinguishable from a slot machine — if there is user choice of what cards to swap in a hand, the machine will indicate and default to the option with highest expected value, so user skill is irrelevant.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    > it starts with a standard 52 card deck Well, most of the time :)
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  If you grew up in certain communities or religious groups, standard playing cards were forbidden items because of their association with gambling. In many of these communities, obvious replacements like Rook decks [0] are somehow perfectly fine. Even though you can easily emulate a standard deck using this deck that consists of about the same number of ranked cards divided into 4 suits. Two things that are practically identical, but one is "evil" and one is not purely by association of how some people use one of the things. As a species, we draw some pretty weird dividing lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_(card_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_(card_game)
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > If you grew up in certain communities or religious groups, standard playing cards were forbidden items because of their association with gambling. Yes, and this is extremely stupid.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Is it? If you go to any casino you'll see playing cards plastered on every wall and suit themed decor. Even games without cards use red/black. Media depictions of gambling are usually cards. People who go to Vegas take home a souvenir deck of cards. Casinos A deck of cards which you can use to play non-gambling card games but that doesn't use the same "branding" I'm sure works really well. It's hard to feel "cool" when you're playing with a Fisher-Price deck.
      - wink 2y ago
        Yes it is, potentially. Where I live (and grew up) the only game played with these type of cards is Poker, and we didn't exactly play Poker growing up - so all our local games use a different deck of card. And in other not-too-distant regions they use yet another deck or two. This might be the "worldwide standard" but that doesn't mean anything.
        Spivak 2y ago
- SkeuomorphicBee 2y ago
  It is like chocolate cigarettes, they are not real cigarettes, they don't have nicotine nor smoke, and yet they serve to present and normalize real cigarettes to kids, so there is an argument for banning them. Where you draw the line is a difficult ask (a chocolate with packaging and wrapping copying exactly a cigarette pack seems like a clear case, but what about cylindrical chocolates that vaguely resemble? Probably not). I think it is fair to argue where to draw the line, but I think some "looks like gambling but without gambling" do in fact deserve more scrutiny just because of the resemblance. (On the other end of the spectrum we as a society should really crack down on the "doesn't look like gambling but is gambling" epidemic.)
  - skyyler 2y ago
    To extend your analogy, banning Luck Be a Landlord while allowing lootboxes and the like is kind of like banning chocolate cigarettes while allowing kids to have nicorette gum. One of them has the aesthetic, one of them has the actual negative thing. The aesthetic being banned is supposed to be in support of reducing the impact of the actual negative thing, but the actual negative thing is being PROMOTED instead of banned. It all feels very pants-on-head kind of up-is-down logic.
  - jhbadger 2y ago
    This is the sort of hysteria that got comic books censored in the the 1950s and "violent" video games in the 1990s. The argument that fictional depictions of undesired behavior cause real cases of it just isn't supported by evidence, but only assumed.
pie_flavor 2y ago
Gambling is not when a lot of colors flash by on the screen, no matter what kind of pattern they flash by in. Gambling is when you bet real money on a game of chance. If simulated gambling includes simulating any game commonly gambled on even when the actual gambling part is removed, does it include dice?
floydnoel 2y ago
do you happen to work for google, perhaps in the app review department?
wodenokoto 2y ago
Spending money to win is synonymous with gambling. virtual money that gets renewed when you start a new game is as much gambling as shooting hellspawn in Doom is murder.
drdrey 2y ago
this is purely based on aesthetics. Even Mario games use the slot machine “skin” to represent RNG

skyyler 2y ago

It's not simulating gambling any more than Peggle is simulating gambling. It takes the aesthetic of a slot machine but there's no wagers. There's no gambling mechanic. Are we really that blind to what gambling is that there are people that think playing poker without wagers is a form of gambling?

jsheard 2y ago
Balatro is similar, it leans heavily on Poker aesthetics but mechanically the only thing it has in common with Poker is that it starts with a standard 52 card deck and the hands you can play are (mostly) the ones used in Poker. You could play it for a hundred hours and still have absolutely no idea how to play Hold'em.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >You could play it for a hundred hours and still have absolutely no idea how to play Hold'em. On the flip side, it's super similar to those video poker machines in bars and restaurants. If you allowed the option to increase the bet and got rid of the special joker abilities, it's basically the same thing. People claiming otherwise are being willfully ignorant. I love Balatro, but it's definitely gambling adjacent and depending on how rules/laws around children gambling are defined, it probably should be age gated, or those rules/laws should be updated to reflect reality, you can't have it both ways. But also, I'd say the same about all of those games with gacha and lootbox mechanics.
  - skyyler 2y ago
    >option to increase the bet There was no bet in the first place, that's the point. It's not gambling because there's no wager.
  - aidenn0 2y ago
    IIRC even the author of Balatro has said he would be fine with any state in which his game gets rated the same as games with actual gambling, instead of those games getting a 3+ rating.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    > If you allowed the option to increase the bet and got rid of the special joker abilities, it's basically the same thing Other than the fact that no real money is involved, which is really the core problem that reasonable people have with predatory gambling apps
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Now based on this thread, I’m very confused as to what Google is trying to ban or what the law (are they trying to comply with some law?) actually says. Balatro is not gambling, it has a gambling aesthetic but no actual money changes hands. Lootbox games are gambling, at least if we accept the idea that the things in the loot boxes have value; money goes in, and then you get something out with a random component to the value. But they don’t have a gambling aesthetic, they are usually wrapped up as something related to the game, right? I could see Google wanting to comply with some directive not to “glorify gambling” or something along those lines. This would be independent of whether or not the games actually are gambling. Anyway, I don’t think people are being willfully ignorant. I think they are just assuming Google is trying to regulate actual gambling. Not gambling aesthetic for non-gambling. But I have no idea what Google actually is trying to do. I will note that it is pretty suspicious that the one type of gambling they managed to regulate is the one that doesn’t make them any money other than the first purchase…
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deadbunny 2y ago
    > On the flip side, it's super similar to those video poker machines in bars and restaurants. Other than playing cards being shown on screen, it's not. > If you allowed the option to increase the bet There is no betting in Balatro. > and got rid of the special joker abilities, it's basically the same thing. So completely change how the game works completely then it's "basically the same" as video poker? Do you hear yourself? > People claiming otherwise are being willfully ignorant. People claiming otherwise can tell the difference between 2 games using playing cards. > I love Balatro, but it's definitely gambling adjacent Again, there is no gambling in Balatro. > and depending on how rules/laws around children gambling are defined, it probably should be age gated, or those rules/laws should be updated to reflect reality, you can't have it both ways. Gonna ignore this because you haven't explained in any way how Balatro is in anyway "gambling adjacent" other than your made up situation where if you completely change the way the game works it becomes gambling, which of course is nonsense.
  - smelendez 2y ago
    Ironically, the reason some states allow “video poker” gambling machines and not slot machines that look like slot machines is that poker is at least partially a game of skill. Even though video poker as it’s typically implemented and played is essentially indistinguishable from a slot machine — if there is user choice of what cards to swap in a hand, the machine will indicate and default to the option with highest expected value, so user skill is irrelevant.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  > it starts with a standard 52 card deck Well, most of the time :)
sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
If you grew up in certain communities or religious groups, standard playing cards were forbidden items because of their association with gambling. In many of these communities, obvious replacements like Rook decks [0] are somehow perfectly fine. Even though you can easily emulate a standard deck using this deck that consists of about the same number of ranked cards divided into 4 suits. Two things that are practically identical, but one is "evil" and one is not purely by association of how some people use one of the things. As a species, we draw some pretty weird dividing lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_(card_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_(card_game)
- pjc50 2y ago
  > If you grew up in certain communities or religious groups, standard playing cards were forbidden items because of their association with gambling. Yes, and this is extremely stupid.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    Is it? If you go to any casino you'll see playing cards plastered on every wall and suit themed decor. Even games without cards use red/black. Media depictions of gambling are usually cards. People who go to Vegas take home a souvenir deck of cards. Casinos A deck of cards which you can use to play non-gambling card games but that doesn't use the same "branding" I'm sure works really well. It's hard to feel "cool" when you're playing with a Fisher-Price deck.
    - wink 2y ago
      Yes it is, potentially. Where I live (and grew up) the only game played with these type of cards is Poker, and we didn't exactly play Poker growing up - so all our local games use a different deck of card. And in other not-too-distant regions they use yet another deck or two. This might be the "worldwide standard" but that doesn't mean anything.
      - Spivak 2y ago
SkeuomorphicBee 2y ago
It is like chocolate cigarettes, they are not real cigarettes, they don't have nicotine nor smoke, and yet they serve to present and normalize real cigarettes to kids, so there is an argument for banning them. Where you draw the line is a difficult ask (a chocolate with packaging and wrapping copying exactly a cigarette pack seems like a clear case, but what about cylindrical chocolates that vaguely resemble? Probably not). I think it is fair to argue where to draw the line, but I think some "looks like gambling but without gambling" do in fact deserve more scrutiny just because of the resemblance. (On the other end of the spectrum we as a society should really crack down on the "doesn't look like gambling but is gambling" epidemic.)
- skyyler 2y ago
  To extend your analogy, banning Luck Be a Landlord while allowing lootboxes and the like is kind of like banning chocolate cigarettes while allowing kids to have nicorette gum. One of them has the aesthetic, one of them has the actual negative thing. The aesthetic being banned is supposed to be in support of reducing the impact of the actual negative thing, but the actual negative thing is being PROMOTED instead of banned. It all feels very pants-on-head kind of up-is-down logic.
- jhbadger 2y ago
  This is the sort of hysteria that got comic books censored in the the 1950s and "violent" video games in the 1990s. The argument that fictional depictions of undesired behavior cause real cases of it just isn't supported by evidence, but only assumed.

pie_flavor 2y ago

Gambling is not when a lot of colors flash by on the screen, no matter what kind of pattern they flash by in. Gambling is when you bet real money on a game of chance. If simulated gambling includes simulating any game commonly gambled on even when the actual gambling part is removed, does it include dice?

floydnoel 2y ago

do you happen to work for google, perhaps in the app review department?

wodenokoto 2y ago

Spending money to win is synonymous with gambling. virtual money that gets renewed when you start a new game is as much gambling as shooting hellspawn in Doom is murder.

drdrey 2y ago

this is purely based on aesthetics. Even Mario games use the slot machine “skin” to represent RNG