So Bioware is not backing down from the "Grab Bags"

[GnatB]

EDIT: Just for clarification, I agree with CelCawdro that grab bags aren't legally gambling. But I also agree that they are gambling, in a moral sense.

 

I'm not sure I agree. As I understand it, if you *always* got X common items, Y rare, and Z super rare, then it wouldn't legally be gambling. (which, also as I understand it, is how CCG/trading cards get away with it)

 

The fact that you don't, but only have a *chance* at a super rare, probably DOES make this legally gambling.

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

Log in to STO and see for yourself. The greed is awe inspiring... and not in a good way.

 

 

I don't know if you're comparing unlike currencies but 850 million is a ridiculous number and no one has or would pay that for any item in this game. I could see 10 - 50 million, even 100 million if the items sell well. The market will decide, but I bet you 850 million credits that nothing will sell for 850 million credits.

[Tim-ONeil]

You're a moron if you think any of these items will be put on the GTN for any kind of reasonable price. The items in such boxes on STO sell on their market for upwards of 850 million credits. You got that much saved up, bub?

 

 

Of course not but neither does anyone else. The prices will reflect the market and what we can pay. If you want it it's available for a price. That's as fair as it can be. If they made these items no trade then you'd really have something to complain about and I'd agree with you.

[CelCawdro]

Now I'm confused. But I still think you guys should define your terms with specificity before you argue about them.

 

Essentially, we started by discussing the actual activity, that you would find in casinos or with lottery tickets or the like. That activity is gambling. When he started to lose ground, he attempted to expand the definition into the literary sense of the term, as well as adding to the end of his sentences in an attempt to condescend. In short, he changed the topic mid-discussion in an attempt to regain ground.

 

And with that, I take my leave of this thread as that change in direction is tantamount to him conceding.

[Blackavaar]

I don't know if you're comparing unlike currencies but 850 million is a ridiculous number and no one has or would pay that for any item in this game. I could see 10 - 50 million, even 100 million if the items sell well. The market will decide, but I bet you 850 million credits that nothing will sell for 850 million credits.

 

That's where gold farmers come into play.

 

Trust me, with something like this, they'll be coming whether the game is a success or not.

 

Edited October 24, 2012 by Blackavaar

[Urael]

Incorrect, gambling requires some monetary value in return. The bags, in effect, have no equal monetary value. You cannot cash them in for x amount of real world currency. So in a legal point of view it is not gambling.

 

We pay $15 to play the game. We 'rent' our characters and the server space. We 'rent' that space to improve our characters and enjoy the game. However this 'service' includes the 'chance' to obtain items. In other words gambling is, by your view point, a service we pay for while playing the game. Just because it is not as clear cut as buying the lock boxes, which does guarantee some item(s) of value equaling or surpassing the value of what you payed, does not mean it does not fall into your definition.

 

Then again, I have to wonder at my sanity as I am trying to debate with someone who uses 'smilies' in their arguments.

 

You are only applying ONE definition of the word gambling:

 

v.intr.

1.

a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.

b. To play a game of chance for stakes.

2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.

3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.

v.tr.

1. To put up as a stake in gambling; wager.

2. To expose to hazard; risk: gambled their lives in a dangerous rescue mission.

n.

1. A bet, wager, or other gambling venture.

2. An act or undertaking of uncertain outcome; a risk: I took a gamble that stock prices would rise.

What is being done in reference to a lock box fits gambling under both the transitive and instrasitive verb definitions AND the noun definition. Monitary value (if you mean cash) is not required for the action to be considerd gambling.

 

No the $15 clearly goes to the service as provided in the EULA. The randomness of the game is part of the service but not the primary good purchased. The overall service is the primary good purchased.

 

Also, when you resort to pejorative ad hominem retorts you loose an argument.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Urael

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

That's where gold farmers come into play.

 

 

You'll need them to pay me my 850 million credits when no one ever sells anything for that much .

 

Why would people spend real money to buy credits when they can spend the real money to get the coins to buy the item from the cartel market?

[Walking-Carpet]

I'm not sure I agree. As I understand it, if you *always* got X common items, Y rare, and Z super rare, then it wouldn't legally be gambling. (which, also as I understand it, is how CCG/trading cards get away with it)

 

The fact that you don't, but only have a *chance* at a super rare, probably DOES make this legally gambling.

In the US, at least under current case law, this sort of purchase is not considered gambling, to the best of my knowledge. I cannot speak for other countries, whose laws are vastly different in some regards, particularly when it comes to industry regulation and consumer protection.

[Blackavaar]

You'll need them to pay me my 850 million credits when no one ever sells anything for that much .

 

Why would people spend real money to buy credits when they can spend the real money to get the coins to buy the item from the cartel market?

 

Because buying credits will be a cheaper, guaranteed way to get what they want.

 

That's what happened to STO. That's why their prices are so crazy. Trust me, it will happen here too.

 

And I never agreed to the bet, because you would never pay up when you lost anyway.

 

[Norsalith]

Whereas with these bags, it is pretty much a straight up, (assume $1 = 100 points) something like $3 for a chance at something you want.

Right now people are twisting the term 'gambling' to suit their own needs. You are not purchasing the boxes/bags (whatever) with the intent of a chance to increase your monetary Wealth. You are simply buying an item with a random loot table.

[Urael]

Right now people are twisting the term 'gambling' to suit their own needs. You are not purchasing the boxes/bags (whatever) with the intent of a chance to increase your monetary Wealth. You are simply buying an item with a random loot table.

 

Actually YOU are the one "twisting the term 'gambling' to suit you own needs". Clearly the full definition of gambeling contains ALL of the views presented.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Urael

[Tim-ONeil]

You'll need them to pay me my 850 million credits when no one ever sells anything for that much .

 

Why would people spend real money to buy credits when they can spend the real money to get the coins to buy the item from the cartel market?

 

Quoted for emphasis. He's just opposed to this and will not be swayed to consider the real life implications here.

 

Right now the price of credits seems extremely high checking those sites. If I'm going to spend $80 or more to get 1 million credits it would be smarter to put that into the boxes themselves.

 

Two things could happen. I get the item that I'm looking for or I get other items that I can sell to buy the items I'm looking for.

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

And I never agreed to the bet, because you would never pay up when you lost anyway.

 

 

The pot said to the kettle.

[Crabbits]

I was at the movie theater last night (Hotel Transylvania-fun movie) with my kiddos. Out in the lobby they had several of those quarter machines-the kind where you put a couple of quarters in and you get some trinket out. Completely random on the trinket that comes out-the grab bags are no different. What about baseball cards? Same concept with the grab bags. I don't see this as gambling and I have no problem with them because they are not pay to win.

[GnatB]

Sweepstakes are gambling. (or would be, if purchase was required). The reason they have "No purchase required" methods of playing is to avoid being legally considered gambling.

 

So what, exactly, is the difference between buying a Dr. Pepper, hoping there is a code to get a Dr. Pepper hat under the lid, and buying one of these swag bags of miscellaneous mats (or whatever the standard item is) hoping to get that cool new armor?

 

As long as virtual goods have value, (which I'll admitis debateable, but the only court case I've seen (albeit EU case) the court found that they did), then the answer is NOTHING.

[stephenalandavie]

are these on the cash shop?

[Blackavaar]

The pot said to the kettle.

 

If I agree to any such bet (which I don't because I don't gamble, a big reason I am against these boxes) I would pay up if I lost, but I didn't and so I won't even though I will not lose. Watch and see. I'm going to be proven right and you will be proven wrong.

 

Gamble boxes added.

Number of Credit Farmers rises.

Price to buy credits via RMT sites goes down.

Price to buy items for Credits goes up.

Game become an Asian market farm.

Game dies a slow lingering death.

 

I've seen it happen before.

 

[Walking-Carpet]

With regard to the legality issue in the US, here are a couple of quotes from Price v. Pinnacle Brands, Inc., 138 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 1998). This was a RICO case, but it directly considered the issue of whether collectible trading cards are considered "gambling." It is fairly typical of the case law on this issue.

 

Pinnacle is a leading manufacturer of sports trading cards, especially football, baseball, hockey and motor sports cards. These trading cards employ names, likenesses, and other images of athletes and sports teams whose rights are licensed to Pinnacle for use in connection with the cards. Pinnacle sells its cards in packages of six to twenty cards, one or more of which might be “chase” cards,FN2 rare and valuable collectibles which are randomly inserted in some of the packages. The odds of a chase card being included are printed on each package.

 

FN2. These cards are referred to as “chase cards” because collectors allegedly “chase” these limited edition cards.

 

Plaintiffs are individuals who have purchased Pinnacle trading cards for themselves or their children, and who purport to represent a class consisting of “[a]ll original end-use purchasers of sports cards marketed by Pinnacle Brands, Inc. .... within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.” Plaintiffs assert that they purchase packages of Pinnacle cards in search of chase cards, and allege that Pinnacle's marketing of its chase cards comprises all the elements of illegal gambling: (1) consideration (“persons must purchase card packages in order to try to win a valuable chase card”);FN3 (2) chance *605 (“valuable chase cards are randomly inserted in the packages”); and (3) a prize (“chase cards have, and are perceived by class members to have, value, and obtaining a chase card in a package is winning a prize”).

 

FN3. Plaintiffs also contend in their complaint that there is no alternative free means of obtaining an opportunity to win a chase card, e.g., through a postcard mail-in.

 

Our review of the record and the relevant law convinces us that Pinnacle has the prevailing argument. We agree with the district court that “[p]laintiffs do not allege that they received something different than precisely what they bargained for: six to twenty cards in a pack with a chance that one of those cards may be of Ken Griffey, Jr.” Injury to mere expectancy interests or to an “intangible property interest” is not sufficient to confer RICO standing. [footnote omitted] Furthermore, as noted by the court, even if a pack does not contain a chase card, “[p]laintiffs do not allege that the value of the cards that they did receive is less than the consideration paid.” [footnote omitted] And even though courts may look to state law to determine, for RICO purposes, whether a property interest exists, [footnote omitted] it does not follow that any injury for which a plaintiff might assert a state law claim is necessarily sufficient to establish a claim under RICO. [footnote omitted]

 

. . . in addition to the reasons set forth by the district court, we find comfort in the fact that, of the many suits of this nature that have been filed around the country against trading card manufacturers and their licensors, all but two have been dismissed with prejudice.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Walking-Carpet

[CelCawdro]

If I agree to any such bet (which I don't because I don't gamble, a big reason I am against these boxes) I would pay up if I lost, but I didn't and so I won't even though I will not lose. Watch and see. I'm going to be proven right and you will be proven wrong.

 

Gamble boxes added.

Number of Credit Farmers rises.

Price to buy credits via RMT sites goes down.

Price to buy items for Credits goes up.

Game become an Asian market farm.

Game dies a slow lingering death.

 

I've seen it happen before.

 

Cite your examples. Because practices very similar to the ones seen here savagely curtailed the activities of gold sellers in a few games I've played, including City of Heroes, Dungeons & Dragons Online and Lord of the Rings: Online. The second you give the power to the players to purchase in-game money directly or indirectly (as the case is, here), is the second that you neuter those gold selling operations. People prefer the legitimate means, even if they get a little less bang for their buck.

 

While your chain of events is logical, it isn't realistic.

[stephenalandavie]

what are these grab bags and where do i find them?.

[RSLeMire]

100% agreed. It is absolutely disgusting.

[RSLeMire]

what are these grab bags and where do i find them?.

 

 

they are packs you can purchase for cartel coins in the cartel market. Inside is a random loot table with several nifty things that can only be found in the packs... but only randomly.... so please buy 50 of them.

[Andryah]

If I agree to any such bet (which I don't because I don't gamble, a big reason I am against these boxes) I would pay up if I lost, but I didn't and so I won't even though I will not lose. Watch and see. I'm going to be proven right and you will be proven wrong.

 

Gamble boxes added.

Number of Credit Farmers rises.

Price to buy credits via RMT sites goes down.

Price to buy items for Credits goes up.

Game become an Asian market farm.

Game dies a slow lingering death.

 

I've seen it happen before.

 

 

Considering how well Bioware has handled the attempts to farm and market credits by RMT in this game, I think you are worrying excessively for nothing. Either that, or you are so upset you feel the need to prosecute any and every possible doomsday senario you can think of.

 

Maybe chill out.. wait and see... I think you will find that the approach by Bioware here actually further attenuates RMT efforts for the game, rather then the reverse.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Andryah

[orpheus]

came here expecting a discussion on the "grab bags" but all i see is QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

[Andryah]

What is being done in reference to a lock box fits gambling under both the transitive and instrasitive verb definitions AND the noun definition. Monitary value (if you mean cash) is not required for the action to be considerd gambling.

 

This have been said by someone else, either in this thread of one of the others.... for all practical purposes "gambling" in the legal sense (ie: legal enforcement) is generally enforced in two contexts by goverment: 1) to prevent harm to the public (and harm has to be proven, not just alleged) 2) to capture revenue from the enterprise, which is the more common reason for governments to apply statute and enforcement on anything in commerce, be it buying, selling, gambling, whatever. Grab bags as virutal items inside a virtual world do not meet either test in any material sense. Sure, people can apply broad meaning to the term "gambling" to press a bias, a preference, or a moral standard, but unless 1 or 2 above is material.... there is no gambling in the context of statue enforcement. There is however a game of chance in play here... which is what grab bags are, but then again, so is running an instance for boss loot in the game proper.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Andryah