No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling. You don't have to win money for it to be qualified as gambling. There are plenty of free to play casino games where you win no actual money or anything of value. Are you going to try to argue that those are not gambling too.
Yikes, that sucks dude(tte). If your account is attached to a credit card, I’d just shut down the account. Keep the card linked. So the next time you want to make a purchase you will have to dig out another CC, link the account, then make a purchase. That might buy you some time. Also, freeze all your credit cards in blocks of ice. Gives you time to think as you chisel them out.
If your account is attached to your debit card, remove it ASAP.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling
"for money or other stakes"...... Your money is gone the moment you spend it on the game. There are no stakes. You're not Gambling with the hope of any return. You're playing a game of chance. You roll a Crystal for guaranteed outcomes and hope for larger outcomes. You're not wagering anything you have or value. The game doesn't even belong to us, including our Accounts and the contents therein. I'm sorry, but playing a game of chance is not automatically Gambling. Rolling dice does not mean you're Gambling.
I think KABAM should sponsor a therapy session for their addicted gamers. Like some sort of a CSR program that help addicted MCOC players that's having a problem with controlling their behaviour to click the pay button every time they see a crystal offering. MCOC is one part like gambling so it almost probably similar like gambling addiction.
Kabam is not really responsible for someone having a Gambling Addiction. It's not even Gambling, it has elements of chance. Unfortunately, that's just a part of our makeup. Some people have internal conditions that make it dangerous to engage in certain activities.
How is it not gambling?
Playing a game of chance, yes, Gambling involves the potential for monetary payout. We're just playing a game of chance. There's really nothing we walk away from it with.
Money is not a necessity though. Just playing a game of chance in order to win something is gambling. The crystals in this game are a form of gambling.
Sure, in the colloquial sense playing a game of chance to win "something" is gambling. In fact, it doesn't have to be a game, and you don't have to win a "something" either. People gamble on the weather by choosing to take an umbrella or not. Lots of things are called gambling colloquially.
But in the "this is an activity that requires oversight and regulation" context, the definition of gambling is the legal one, and the legal definition of gambling requires that the "something" to be won have material value. It is legally impossible to win anything of value in MCOC, because it is impossible to take ownership of anything in MCOC, so you can't win a prize that satisfies a requirement for an activity to be considered gambling.
Maybe there should be a term or designation for "gambling" that exists between opening cracker jack boxes and the craps table. But at the moment, there is no such generally accepted term for things that "taste" like gambling but are not regulated gaming.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling. You don't have to win money for it to be qualified as gambling. There are plenty of free to play casino games where you win no actual money or anything of value. Are you going to try to argue that those are not gambling too.
It’s not gambling. By your logic, playing Monopoly is gambling. You get houses and deeds to property.
Best choice is to delete the game. This game is not worth going in debt and ruining your life.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling
"for money or other stakes"...... Your money is gone the moment you spend it on the game. There are no stakes. You're not Gambling with the hope of any return. You're playing a game of chance. You roll a Crystal for guaranteed outcomes and hope for larger outcomes. You're not wagering anything you have or value. The game doesn't even belong to us, including our Accounts and the contents therein. I'm sorry, but playing a game of chance is not automatically Gambling. Rolling dice does not mean you're Gambling.
So you are going to argue that the definition of gambling is wrong rather than admit you are incapable of making a mistake. You are gambling every time you buy a crystal. Yes your money is gone the moment you spend it that's kinda how spending works. The gambling comes into play when you spend the in game currency on the crystal. You are not hoping on a higher outcome from the crystal you are gambling that you can beat the odds given on the crystal. Why do you think drop rates were forced on crystals and loot boxes in other games.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling
"for money or other stakes"...... Your money is gone the moment you spend it on the game. There are no stakes. You're not Gambling with the hope of any return. You're playing a game of chance. You roll a Crystal for guaranteed outcomes and hope for larger outcomes. You're not wagering anything you have or value. The game doesn't even belong to us, including our Accounts and the contents therein. I'm sorry, but playing a game of chance is not automatically Gambling. Rolling dice does not mean you're Gambling.
So you are going to argue that the definition of gambling is wrong rather than admit you are incapable of making a mistake. You are gambling every time you buy a crystal. Yes your money is gone the moment you spend it that's kinda how spending works. The gambling comes into play when you spend the in game currency on the crystal. You are not hoping on a higher outcome from the crystal you are gambling that you can beat the odds given on the crystal. Why do you think drop rates were forced on crystals and loot boxes in other games.
If you're going to argue definitions with me, it's best to apply the entire definition, not the half that supports your claim.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling
"for money or other stakes"...... Your money is gone the moment you spend it on the game. There are no stakes. You're not Gambling with the hope of any return. You're playing a game of chance. You roll a Crystal for guaranteed outcomes and hope for larger outcomes. You're not wagering anything you have or value. The game doesn't even belong to us, including our Accounts and the contents therein. I'm sorry, but playing a game of chance is not automatically Gambling. Rolling dice does not mean you're Gambling.
So you are going to argue that the definition of gambling is wrong rather than admit you are incapable of making a mistake. You are gambling every time you buy a crystal. Yes your money is gone the moment you spend it that's kinda how spending works. The gambling comes into play when you spend the in game currency on the crystal. You are not hoping on a higher outcome from the crystal you are gambling that you can beat the odds given on the crystal. Why do you think drop rates were forced on crystals and loot boxes in other games.
If you're going to argue definitions with me, it's best to apply the entire definition, not the half that supports your claim.
I apologize for not posting the second definition of gambling Please tell me how this omission was important to your argument
I think KABAM should sponsor a therapy session for their addicted gamers. Like some sort of a CSR program that help addicted MCOC players that's having a problem with controlling their behaviour to click the pay button every time they see a crystal offering. MCOC is one part like gambling so it almost probably similar like gambling addiction.
Kabam is not really responsible for someone having a Gambling Addiction. It's not even Gambling, it has elements of chance. Unfortunately, that's just a part of our makeup. Some people have internal conditions that make it dangerous to engage in certain activities.
How is it not gambling?
Playing a game of chance, yes, Gambling involves the potential for monetary payout. We're just playing a game of chance. There's really nothing we walk away from it with.
Money is not a necessity though. Just playing a game of chance in order to win something is gambling. The crystals in this game are a form of gambling.
Sure, in the colloquial sense playing a game of chance to win "something" is gambling. In fact, it doesn't have to be a game, and you don't have to win a "something" either. People gamble on the weather by choosing to take an umbrella or not. Lots of things are called gambling colloquially.
But in the "this is an activity that requires oversight and regulation" context, the definition of gambling is the legal one, and the legal definition of gambling requires that the "something" to be won have material value. It is legally impossible to win anything of value in MCOC, because it is impossible to take ownership of anything in MCOC, so you can't win a prize that satisfies a requirement for an activity to be considered gambling.
Maybe there should be a term or designation for "gambling" that exists between opening cracker jack boxes and the craps table. But at the moment, there is no such generally accepted term for things that "taste" like gambling but are not regulated gaming.
We are talking about impulses here not strict regulation. If you’re a gambling addict and go to the casino, buying crystals in the game is essentially the same thing. We’re not discussing legal terms and if this game needs to be regulated, it’s moreso about the same impulse. Whether or not you get money back is irrelevant. People who spend money on crystals do so to get certain outcomes, just like if you went to a roulette table or craps table. It feeds the same impulse/addiction. I suppose it’s subjective but I feel for the OP because it’s an overwhelming urge. He/she even mentioned poker/gambling so the two are interconnected.
@GroundedWisdom the second definition you asked for. I didn't want to take up a whole screen to post a pic off Google dictionary but if it makes you feel better
@GroundedWisdom the second definition you asked for. I didn't want to take up a whole screen to post a pic off Google dictionary but if it makes you feel better
You're grasping. Care to indicate what you're venturing losing when you open a Crystal?
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling. You don't have to win money for it to be qualified as gambling. There are plenty of free to play casino games where you win no actual money or anything of value. Are you going to try to argue that those are not gambling too.
The thing about dictionaries is, I have no obligation to follow the dictionary. I do have an obligation to follow the law, and the law doesn't define gambling in that way.
There's another thing about dictionaries that people generally don't know. Most dictionaries don't actually assert the absolute definition of words. They document how people use words in general. In other words, and as this is usually described, dictionaries aren't prescriptive, they are only descriptive.
This is why dictionaries often have many definitions for words, even independent of context. That's because words are used in different ways by different people, and dictionaries attempt to document usage, not choose a side on who's correct. And that's why you can point to dictionaries as a reference, but not as a weapon. Dictionaries do not claim their stated definitions are "definitive."
Plus, people keep quoting Dictionary.com selectively. Dictionary.com lists two definitions for gambling:
the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.
the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly.
It is obvious that these are colloquial definitions that include a vast array of activities that people don't view identically. So just because something satisfies this very expansive definition of gambling, doesn't mean you can connect that activity to any other statement about gambling in general. Saying something is "gambling" based on this definition is practically meaningless. Few human activities can completely avoid the definition entirely.
@GroundedWisdom I'm not grasping at anything you asked for the full definition of gambling those are the two definitions of the word. You said if I was going to talk to you about definitions I shouldn't omit part of said definition
@GroundedWisdom I'm not grasping at anything you asked for the full definition of gambling those are the two definitions of the word. You said if I was going to talk to you about definitions I shouldn't omit part of said definition
You're providing the definition, but you're not applying it to the situation. Both cases, you're not wagering something of value you own. If you had said, "taking a gamble", I would agree. In your last example, you're not wagering losing anything. First off, because you do not own it to lose. Secondly, even before Drop Rates were listed, the stakes have been upfront. "Guaranteed X with a rare chance at Y.". There is no loss. There is what is described. You will get a guaranteed something with a chance at something else. That's not a wager. That's a fair exchange for the cost of what you pay. It's obvious this will go in circles, so I feel we should just agree to disagree.
I think KABAM should sponsor a therapy session for their addicted gamers. Like some sort of a CSR program that help addicted MCOC players that's having a problem with controlling their behaviour to click the pay button every time they see a crystal offering. MCOC is one part like gambling so it almost probably similar like gambling addiction.
Kabam is not really responsible for someone having a Gambling Addiction. It's not even Gambling, it has elements of chance. Unfortunately, that's just a part of our makeup. Some people have internal conditions that make it dangerous to engage in certain activities.
How is it not gambling?
Playing a game of chance, yes, Gambling involves the potential for monetary payout. We're just playing a game of chance. There's really nothing we walk away from it with.
Money is not a necessity though. Just playing a game of chance in order to win something is gambling. The crystals in this game are a form of gambling.
Sure, in the colloquial sense playing a game of chance to win "something" is gambling. In fact, it doesn't have to be a game, and you don't have to win a "something" either. People gamble on the weather by choosing to take an umbrella or not. Lots of things are called gambling colloquially.
But in the "this is an activity that requires oversight and regulation" context, the definition of gambling is the legal one, and the legal definition of gambling requires that the "something" to be won have material value. It is legally impossible to win anything of value in MCOC, because it is impossible to take ownership of anything in MCOC, so you can't win a prize that satisfies a requirement for an activity to be considered gambling.
Maybe there should be a term or designation for "gambling" that exists between opening cracker jack boxes and the craps table. But at the moment, there is no such generally accepted term for things that "taste" like gambling but are not regulated gaming.
We are talking about impulses here not strict regulation. If you’re a gambling addict and go to the casino, buying crystals in the game is essentially the same thing. We’re not discussing legal terms and if this game needs to be regulated, it’s moreso about the same impulse. Whether or not you get money back is irrelevant. People who spend money on crystals do so to get certain outcomes, just like if you went to a roulette table or craps table. It feeds the same impulse/addiction. I suppose it’s subjective but I feel for the OP because it’s an overwhelming urge. He/she even mentioned poker/gambling so the two are interconnected.
I don't see the clear distinction. If you're only talking about "impulses" but completely disconnecting those activities from any oversight at all (and I specifically said: oversight and regulation) then you're saying you're explicitly avoiding the context of whether anything should be done about these "impulses." That's an odd thing to deliberately omit, and it would be a reasonable perspective to view this subject otherwise.
If we omit this perspective entirely, then I don't see what else can be mentioned besides "many activities can spark the risk/reward mechanism that addictive behaviors crave, and MCOC is one such thing." But, omitting any notions of oversight, it then becomes simply an unfortunate situation that can only be described. There's no way to judge whether MCOC providing this opportunity is something that should be changed or not, or if it indeed is even a bad thing or not, absent the notion of whether the activity should or should not deserve some form of oversight. It just is.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling. You don't have to win money for it to be qualified as gambling. There are plenty of free to play casino games where you win no actual money or anything of value. Are you going to try to argue that those are not gambling too.
The thing about dictionaries is, I have no obligation to follow the dictionary. I do have an obligation to follow the law, and the law doesn't define gambling in that way.
There's another thing about dictionaries that people generally don't know. Most dictionaries don't actually assert the absolute definition of words. They document how people use words in general. In other words, and as this is usually described, dictionaries aren't prescriptive, they are only descriptive.
This is why dictionaries often have many definitions for words, even independent of context. That's because words are used in different ways by different people, and dictionaries attempt to document usage, not choose a side on who's correct. And that's why you can point to dictionaries as a reference, but not as a weapon. Dictionaries do not claim their stated definitions are "definitive."
Plus, people keep quoting Dictionary.com selectively. Dictionary.com lists two definitions for gambling:
the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.
the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly.
It is obvious that these are colloquial definitions that include a vast array of activities that people don't view identically. So just because something satisfies this very expansive definition of gambling, doesn't mean you can connect that activity to any other statement about gambling in general. Saying something is "gambling" based on this definition is practically meaningless. Few human activities can completely avoid the definition entirely.
Get the feeling that some of you like to be internet lawyers or simply get off on trying to impress people on the forum with double talk. If you dont like the definition of gambling take that up in court with the people who publish dictionaries.
There are scores of Lawyers that take these issues up in Court, and that vernacular is verbatim. You would have the same trouble proving your case there, because legally, it is not Gambling.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Definition of gambling:
to stake something on a contingency
Opening crystals that only have a percentage chance at something you want, is by definition, gambling. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it is what it is. Someone who buys crystals is taking a gamble. You don't have to be trying for any kind of money or property to be considered gambling.
The definition has changed, and I'm willing to bet mobile games like this are a big reason why. Again, I don't really think it's a problem, but let's not argue arbitrary semantics.
Why do you think drop rates were forced on crystals and loot boxes in other games.
That's an easy question to answer: because Apple changed their app store guidelines to mandate this to occur.
The less easy question to answer is: why did Apple do this? Is it because Apple considered lootboxes to be "gambling?" It doesn't seem so. First of all, and this is worth highlighting, Apple actually has guidelines for apps related to gambling. And nowhere in those guidelines does it specifically and explicitly require reward odds to be posted. In fact this isn't a requirement of gambling in general. Casinos don't have to post the reward odds of every slot machine for example. So lootbox odds publishing isn't something that necessarily comes from the gambling industry, nor is this a requirement that Apple enforces on the gambling industry specifically. It seems to be something that is explicitly enforced on lootboxes, and the video games that contain them.
The most likely reason is that publishing lootbox odds had been discussed in the industry for some time, because it falls within the context of informed choice. The presumption that many people make is that video game players *don't* treat lootboxes like true gambling, they treat them like in-game purchases with a randomization property. In other words, they expect to get the items they want within some reasonable amount of purchases, for some definition of reasonable, even though the random nature of the lootboxes makes no such guarantee. Because their gaming intuition conflicts with the actual properties of the lootboxes, in effect players were not making informed choices about whether to purchase the items. Publishing odds was intended to provide that informed choice, in no small part by highlighting when the odds of getting certain kinds of items was so low, no "normal" amount of purchases would guarantee, or at least offer a very high probability, of obtaining the item.
Many lootboxes are not constructed with the notion that if a player buys enough of them (within reason) they will probably get the item. Many are constructed with odds that make it clear no matter how many you buy, only a small percentage of players are likely to get certain items. Knowing this *before* you buy the items can prevent players "chasing" a reward once they have too much sunk cost into the pursuit.
It is almost certainly the case in my opinion that this is why lootbox odds were mandated to be published. Those published odds serve no useful purpose in reducing the addictive nature of the lootboxes to players with a propensity to gamble on them, because such players will simply try to "beat" those odds. And it doesn't serve to indicate more clearly that the activity is "gambling" because it doesn't stipulate a requirement that makes lootboxes conform to how gambling itself is treated in any way. It actually explicitly *distinguishes* itself from apps which are by Apple's definition gambling related. They only serve to address the informed decision issue that was being debated at the time in the video game industry.
I think KABAM should sponsor a therapy session for their addicted gamers. Like some sort of a CSR program that help addicted MCOC players that's having a problem with controlling their behaviour to click the pay button every time they see a crystal offering. MCOC is one part like gambling so it almost probably similar like gambling addiction.
Kabam is not really responsible for someone having a Gambling Addiction. It's not even Gambling, it has elements of chance. Unfortunately, that's just a part of our makeup. Some people have internal conditions that make it dangerous to engage in certain activities.
How is it not gambling?
Playing a game of chance, yes, Gambling involves the potential for monetary payout. We're just playing a game of chance. There's really nothing we walk away from it with.
Money is not a necessity though. Just playing a game of chance in order to win something is gambling. The crystals in this game are a form of gambling.
Sure, in the colloquial sense playing a game of chance to win "something" is gambling. In fact, it doesn't have to be a game, and you don't have to win a "something" either. People gamble on the weather by choosing to take an umbrella or not. Lots of things are called gambling colloquially.
But in the "this is an activity that requires oversight and regulation" context, the definition of gambling is the legal one, and the legal definition of gambling requires that the "something" to be won have material value. It is legally impossible to win anything of value in MCOC, because it is impossible to take ownership of anything in MCOC, so you can't win a prize that satisfies a requirement for an activity to be considered gambling.
Maybe there should be a term or designation for "gambling" that exists between opening cracker jack boxes and the craps table. But at the moment, there is no such generally accepted term for things that "taste" like gambling but are not regulated gaming.
We are talking about impulses here not strict regulation. If you’re a gambling addict and go to the casino, buying crystals in the game is essentially the same thing. We’re not discussing legal terms and if this game needs to be regulated, it’s moreso about the same impulse. Whether or not you get money back is irrelevant. People who spend money on crystals do so to get certain outcomes, just like if you went to a roulette table or craps table. It feeds the same impulse/addiction. I suppose it’s subjective but I feel for the OP because it’s an overwhelming urge. He/she even mentioned poker/gambling so the two are interconnected.
I don't see the clear distinction. If you're only talking about "impulses" but completely disconnecting those activities from any oversight at all (and I specifically said: oversight and regulation) then you're saying you're explicitly avoiding the context of whether anything should be done about these "impulses." That's an odd thing to deliberately omit, and it would be a reasonable perspective to view this subject otherwise.
If we omit this perspective entirely, then I don't see what else can be mentioned besides "many activities can spark the risk/reward mechanism that addictive behaviors crave, and MCOC is one such thing." But, omitting any notions of oversight, it then becomes simply an unfortunate situation that can only be described. There's no way to judge whether MCOC providing this opportunity is something that should be changed or not, or if it indeed is even a bad thing or not, absent the notion of whether the activity should or should not deserve some form of oversight. It just is.
You’re the one that jumped in and started talking about oversight and regulation, not me. All I did was relate the impulse of wanting to continue to open crystals to the impulse of going to the casino to gamble. You started talking about regulation and legalspeak. I said nothing about MCOC needing to be regulated or any such thing. I simply stated that opening these crystals is akin to gambling. I didn’t omit anything, you just added on unnecessary talk about regulation and law which I wasn’t even speaking to.
No, actually. It's not. By the very definition, this game is not Gambling. There is nothing of value you receive from it. We don't own anything. It's playing a game of chance, and not all games of chance are classified as Gambling. We don't own any sort of payout, and we don't receive any money to be defined as Gambling. Had this debate many times.
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling. You don't have to win money for it to be qualified as gambling. There are plenty of free to play casino games where you win no actual money or anything of value. Are you going to try to argue that those are not gambling too.
The thing about dictionaries is, I have no obligation to follow the dictionary. I do have an obligation to follow the law, and the law doesn't define gambling in that way.
There's another thing about dictionaries that people generally don't know. Most dictionaries don't actually assert the absolute definition of words. They document how people use words in general. In other words, and as this is usually described, dictionaries aren't prescriptive, they are only descriptive.
This is why dictionaries often have many definitions for words, even independent of context. That's because words are used in different ways by different people, and dictionaries attempt to document usage, not choose a side on who's correct. And that's why you can point to dictionaries as a reference, but not as a weapon. Dictionaries do not claim their stated definitions are "definitive."
Plus, people keep quoting Dictionary.com selectively. Dictionary.com lists two definitions for gambling:
the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.
the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly.
It is obvious that these are colloquial definitions that include a vast array of activities that people don't view identically. So just because something satisfies this very expansive definition of gambling, doesn't mean you can connect that activity to any other statement about gambling in general. Saying something is "gambling" based on this definition is practically meaningless. Few human activities can completely avoid the definition entirely.
Get the feeling that some of you like to be internet lawyers or simply get off on trying to impress people on the forum with double talk. If you dont like the definition of gambling take that up in court with the people who publish dictionaries.
That's amusingly ironic. I don't have to take up anything "in court" because in court that's not the definition anyone would hold me to. Nor do I have to take up anything with the people who publish dictionaries, because it is they who make the case that most of their dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive.
Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary (or rather an editor of it) had to say about this:
After all, as lexicographers we would consider the role of dictionaries to be scrupulously descriptive. We are in the business of recording the language, as it is spoken. So the thought of prescription, even in conjunction with descriptivism, seems anathema to us.
A dictionary editor would almost certainly find your use of the dictionary to be an abuse of what dictionaries are supposed to be used for, and how they are written and edited.
I think KABAM should sponsor a therapy session for their addicted gamers. Like some sort of a CSR program that help addicted MCOC players that's having a problem with controlling their behaviour to click the pay button every time they see a crystal offering. MCOC is one part like gambling so it almost probably similar like gambling addiction.
Kabam is not really responsible for someone having a Gambling Addiction. It's not even Gambling, it has elements of chance. Unfortunately, that's just a part of our makeup. Some people have internal conditions that make it dangerous to engage in certain activities.
How is it not gambling?
Playing a game of chance, yes, Gambling involves the potential for monetary payout. We're just playing a game of chance. There's really nothing we walk away from it with.
Money is not a necessity though. Just playing a game of chance in order to win something is gambling. The crystals in this game are a form of gambling.
Sure, in the colloquial sense playing a game of chance to win "something" is gambling. In fact, it doesn't have to be a game, and you don't have to win a "something" either. People gamble on the weather by choosing to take an umbrella or not. Lots of things are called gambling colloquially.
But in the "this is an activity that requires oversight and regulation" context, the definition of gambling is the legal one, and the legal definition of gambling requires that the "something" to be won have material value. It is legally impossible to win anything of value in MCOC, because it is impossible to take ownership of anything in MCOC, so you can't win a prize that satisfies a requirement for an activity to be considered gambling.
Maybe there should be a term or designation for "gambling" that exists between opening cracker jack boxes and the craps table. But at the moment, there is no such generally accepted term for things that "taste" like gambling but are not regulated gaming.
We are talking about impulses here not strict regulation. If you’re a gambling addict and go to the casino, buying crystals in the game is essentially the same thing. We’re not discussing legal terms and if this game needs to be regulated, it’s moreso about the same impulse. Whether or not you get money back is irrelevant. People who spend money on crystals do so to get certain outcomes, just like if you went to a roulette table or craps table. It feeds the same impulse/addiction. I suppose it’s subjective but I feel for the OP because it’s an overwhelming urge. He/she even mentioned poker/gambling so the two are interconnected.
I don't see the clear distinction. If you're only talking about "impulses" but completely disconnecting those activities from any oversight at all (and I specifically said: oversight and regulation) then you're saying you're explicitly avoiding the context of whether anything should be done about these "impulses." That's an odd thing to deliberately omit, and it would be a reasonable perspective to view this subject otherwise.
If we omit this perspective entirely, then I don't see what else can be mentioned besides "many activities can spark the risk/reward mechanism that addictive behaviors crave, and MCOC is one such thing." But, omitting any notions of oversight, it then becomes simply an unfortunate situation that can only be described. There's no way to judge whether MCOC providing this opportunity is something that should be changed or not, or if it indeed is even a bad thing or not, absent the notion of whether the activity should or should not deserve some form of oversight. It just is.
You’re the one that jumped in and started talking about oversight and regulation, not me.
Sure, and in context that seemed entirely reasonable. A poster stated that in their opinion MCOC crystals are not gambling. You asked how could it not be, and they in turn replied that this was because by their definition, gambling required a monetary prize of some kind. You said a monetary prize isn't necessary for something to be gambling, and that's when I specifically offered my opinion on the notion that some definitions agree with you, some agree with them, and the reason why we have different definitions is because there are different contexts where those definitions are used. I then mentioned what those contexts were, which is entirely reasonable. I don't need your permission to introduce an idea into a discussion that is relevant to that discussion.
OP I feel for you. You’re gonna have to make some tough decisions about your habits with this game. I think there are probably a lot of people in your shoes that would never be open about their addiction to the game. I’d advise you to seek some counseling. Wish you the best.
Comments
Argue with the dictionary. This game is a form of gambling. You don't have to win money for it to be qualified as gambling. There are plenty of free to play casino games where you win no actual money or anything of value. Are you going to try to argue that those are not gambling too.
If your account is attached to your debit card, remove it ASAP.
Your money is gone the moment you spend it on the game. There are no stakes. You're not Gambling with the hope of any return. You're playing a game of chance. You roll a Crystal for guaranteed outcomes and hope for larger outcomes. You're not wagering anything you have or value. The game doesn't even belong to us, including our Accounts and the contents therein. I'm sorry, but playing a game of chance is not automatically Gambling. Rolling dice does not mean you're Gambling.
But in the "this is an activity that requires oversight and regulation" context, the definition of gambling is the legal one, and the legal definition of gambling requires that the "something" to be won have material value. It is legally impossible to win anything of value in MCOC, because it is impossible to take ownership of anything in MCOC, so you can't win a prize that satisfies a requirement for an activity to be considered gambling.
Maybe there should be a term or designation for "gambling" that exists between opening cracker jack boxes and the craps table. But at the moment, there is no such generally accepted term for things that "taste" like gambling but are not regulated gaming.
Best choice is to delete the game. This game is not worth going in debt and ruining your life.
Please tell me how this omission was important to your argument
@GroundedWisdom the second definition you asked for. I didn't want to take up a whole screen to post a pic off Google dictionary but if it makes you feel better
There's another thing about dictionaries that people generally don't know. Most dictionaries don't actually assert the absolute definition of words. They document how people use words in general. In other words, and as this is usually described, dictionaries aren't prescriptive, they are only descriptive.
This is why dictionaries often have many definitions for words, even independent of context. That's because words are used in different ways by different people, and dictionaries attempt to document usage, not choose a side on who's correct. And that's why you can point to dictionaries as a reference, but not as a weapon. Dictionaries do not claim their stated definitions are "definitive."
Plus, people keep quoting Dictionary.com selectively. Dictionary.com lists two definitions for gambling:
the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.
the act or practice of risking the loss of something important by taking a chance or acting recklessly.
It is obvious that these are colloquial definitions that include a vast array of activities that people don't view identically. So just because something satisfies this very expansive definition of gambling, doesn't mean you can connect that activity to any other statement about gambling in general. Saying something is "gambling" based on this definition is practically meaningless. Few human activities can completely avoid the definition entirely.
It's obvious this will go in circles, so I feel we should just agree to disagree.
If we omit this perspective entirely, then I don't see what else can be mentioned besides "many activities can spark the risk/reward mechanism that addictive behaviors crave, and MCOC is one such thing." But, omitting any notions of oversight, it then becomes simply an unfortunate situation that can only be described. There's no way to judge whether MCOC providing this opportunity is something that should be changed or not, or if it indeed is even a bad thing or not, absent the notion of whether the activity should or should not deserve some form of oversight. It just is.
to stake something on a contingency
Opening crystals that only have a percentage chance at something you want, is by definition, gambling. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it is what it is. Someone who buys crystals is taking a gamble. You don't have to be trying for any kind of money or property to be considered gambling.
The definition has changed, and I'm willing to bet mobile games like this are a big reason why. Again, I don't really think it's a problem, but let's not argue arbitrary semantics.
The less easy question to answer is: why did Apple do this? Is it because Apple considered lootboxes to be "gambling?" It doesn't seem so. First of all, and this is worth highlighting, Apple actually has guidelines for apps related to gambling. And nowhere in those guidelines does it specifically and explicitly require reward odds to be posted. In fact this isn't a requirement of gambling in general. Casinos don't have to post the reward odds of every slot machine for example. So lootbox odds publishing isn't something that necessarily comes from the gambling industry, nor is this a requirement that Apple enforces on the gambling industry specifically. It seems to be something that is explicitly enforced on lootboxes, and the video games that contain them.
The most likely reason is that publishing lootbox odds had been discussed in the industry for some time, because it falls within the context of informed choice. The presumption that many people make is that video game players *don't* treat lootboxes like true gambling, they treat them like in-game purchases with a randomization property. In other words, they expect to get the items they want within some reasonable amount of purchases, for some definition of reasonable, even though the random nature of the lootboxes makes no such guarantee. Because their gaming intuition conflicts with the actual properties of the lootboxes, in effect players were not making informed choices about whether to purchase the items. Publishing odds was intended to provide that informed choice, in no small part by highlighting when the odds of getting certain kinds of items was so low, no "normal" amount of purchases would guarantee, or at least offer a very high probability, of obtaining the item.
Many lootboxes are not constructed with the notion that if a player buys enough of them (within reason) they will probably get the item. Many are constructed with odds that make it clear no matter how many you buy, only a small percentage of players are likely to get certain items. Knowing this *before* you buy the items can prevent players "chasing" a reward once they have too much sunk cost into the pursuit.
It is almost certainly the case in my opinion that this is why lootbox odds were mandated to be published. Those published odds serve no useful purpose in reducing the addictive nature of the lootboxes to players with a propensity to gamble on them, because such players will simply try to "beat" those odds. And it doesn't serve to indicate more clearly that the activity is "gambling" because it doesn't stipulate a requirement that makes lootboxes conform to how gambling itself is treated in any way. It actually explicitly *distinguishes* itself from apps which are by Apple's definition gambling related. They only serve to address the informed decision issue that was being debated at the time in the video game industry.
Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary (or rather an editor of it) had to say about this: Ref: https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/08/22/describe-or-prescribe-poll/
A dictionary editor would almost certainly find your use of the dictionary to be an abuse of what dictionaries are supposed to be used for, and how they are written and edited.