4 ms·

>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 machine

>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.

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.