No it doesn't fit the criteria of Gambling. You're not playing a game of chance for anything of value to you. Nothing. You're spinning a random outcome that gives permission to use a certain aspect of Kabam's product. You're not purchasing anything for ownership. Not even in Offers which contain no Loot Boxes. Nothing.
So you’re not gambling... you’re just doing something that looks like gambling. Thanks for your input...
Ps. The champion is “of value” to the player when the player pays to spin a slot machine for it. Your definitions are so insanely stupid that you should be embarrassed to post them
A slot machine gives money. You walk home with empty pockets no matter what you win in the game. For that matter, within the game, there's always something given.
'Value' can be monetary, intangible, emotional or virtual. Take a pick which one is it with Cav crystals
But gambling only applies to monetary value
you can sell it (regardless of what the ToS say)
No you cant. You cant just accept an agreement saying that you're not the legal owner of something and then act as if you are the legal owner of it. Also its not illegal to give money to a company without receiving anything back so that's not something you can complain about either if you planned to do that next. Just because you're not literraly incapable of doing something doesnt mean you're allowed to do it
'Value' can be monetary, intangible, emotional or virtual. Take a pick which one is it with Cav crystals
But gambling only applies to monetary value
you can sell it (regardless of what the ToS say)
No you cant. You cant just accept an agreement saying that you're not the legal owner of something and then act as if you are the legal owner of it. Also its not illegal to give money to a company without receiving anything back so that's not something you can complain about either if you planned to do that next. Just because you're not literraly incapable of doing something doesnt mean you're allowed to do it
So if in my ToS I say 'if you play this game, you can never say anything bad about this company. You can't express your opinions' Does that change the law and make it so that I dont have freedom of speech anymore?
Yes a company is legally allowed to refuse service to you if you say something bad about them
'Value' can be monetary, intangible, emotional or virtual. Take a pick which one is it with Cav crystals
But gambling only applies to monetary value
you can sell it (regardless of what the ToS say)
No you cant. You cant just accept an agreement saying that you're not the legal owner of something and then act as if you are the legal owner of it. Also its not illegal to give money to a company without receiving anything back so that's not something you can complain about either if you planned to do that next. Just because you're not literraly incapable of doing something doesnt mean you're allowed to do it
So if in my ToS I say 'if you play this game, you can never say anything bad about this company. You can't express your opinions' Does that change the law and make it so that I dont have freedom of speech anymore?
Yes a company is legally allowed to refuse service to you if you say something bad about them
But that doesnt change the law does it? So even if Kabam says you cant sell accounts, there is no law that says so meaning
Yeah so kabam cant literally sue you for selling your account. That doesnt change that kabam owns your account
'Value' can be monetary, intangible, emotional or virtual. Take a pick which one is it with Cav crystals
But gambling only applies to monetary value
you can sell it (regardless of what the ToS say)
No you cant. You cant just accept an agreement saying that you're not the legal owner of something and then act as if you are the legal owner of it. Also its not illegal to give money to a company without receiving anything back so that's not something you can complain about either if you planned to do that next. Just because you're not literraly incapable of doing something doesnt mean you're allowed to do it
So if in my ToS I say 'if you play this game, you can never say anything bad about this company. You can't express your opinions' Does that change the law and make it so that I dont have freedom of speech anymore?
Yes a company is legally allowed to refuse service to you if you say something bad about them
But that doesnt change the law does it? So even if Kabam says you cant sell accounts, there is no law that says so meaning
Yeah so kabam cant literally sue you for selling your account. That doesnt change that kabam owns your account
A few online companies have tried to sue people for selling accounts/resources etc. and they’ve pretty much never been successful. They can ban/wipe accounts, ban IPs etc. to make it valueless or try to prevent the rotten eggs doing their thing but there’s not really a huge amount else that they can do - otherwise mercs etc. on all online games haven’t been prosecuted.
I'm from Belgium and cavalier crystals are not illegal. There is no general ban on loot boxes, only specific court orders. Unless I or specific else would sue Kabam, nothing will happen. Same thing in Canada.
Ya, this came around last year or the year before too.
This is a new lawsuit, and its almost certainly going to fail just like every other one because the people filing suit have a completely faulty legal argument. I suspect that in fact, the lawyers involved *know* they have no legal basis for the suit, as a reading of the filing suggests to me they don't intend to win on the merits, they think they can win by just making the defendent (EA in this case) look bad. Which works fine on the internet, but virtually never works in a court of law.
The legal argument is basically this: you can buy lootboxes for money. The lootboxes contain things people value. Ergo the items in the lootboxes have material value. Ergo the transaction of buying a lootbox and receiving a prize meets the legal definition of gambling, which means the transaction, being unlicensed in Canada, is illegal.
I can provide EA's defense, which doesn't take long. The terms of service of the game require that the players agree the items in the game have no monetary value. They are therefore legally estopped from claiming they have extractable value, and any attempt to do so would be a contractual violation. EA cannot be held responsible for the actions of customers who deliberately violate their contractual obligations to EA.
Furthermore, as the TOS requires participants to stipulate that items in game do not have material value nor will they attempt to extract such from the game, the participants are in violation of that agreement and their right to play the games is immediately revoked. This would negate their legal standing to claim damages.
This is why a similar lawsuit failed in England, which has similar laws. The claimants claimed that lootboxes are gambling. The legal argument against this is the so-called cash out argument. The players can't cash out. They can claim they got something of monetary value, but that claim is meaningless if the game provides no *legal* means of extracting that value. If the only way to get that cash value is to sell items in the grey market, and those grey markets are forbidden according to the terms of service, players can't break the TOS then claim the game contains gambling. Prohibiting the items from being sold is legally sufficient to protect them from that claim. The same argument is almost certainly going to send the Canada lawsuit down in flames.
I gotta say you're my favorite person in this forum. Whenever a contentious issue comes up, I always wait for your comment since it's far more informative than all the tinsel floating around.
If you're dumb enough to gamble for pixels or anything else you deserve to lose. Nobody is forcing anyone to spend money. Basically you can sue because you have no self control? If you waste all your money on a game that's your own fault.
EA was already forced to completely change the loot box system in battlefront 2. Made it a much better game tbh but they stopped updating it cuz no money. Smh
World: the sky is blue GW: no, the government paints it blue.
There is literally no point arguing with it.
We're discussing a Lawsuit. So I'm talking about government regulations. Besides that, it's not Gambling. Otherwise the next step is that no person under 18 should roll a die, spin a wheel, flip a coin, or do anything with a random outcome. That's all it is. Playing a game of chance with no payout.
Hey everybody. The forums are not the place to discuss politics or these kinds of issues. We abide by all rules, regulations, and laws that we are subject to, and as those change, we adapt the game to them.
Comments
Just because you're not literraly incapable of doing something doesnt mean you're allowed to do it