**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Options
Comments
There it is. If drop rates are not manipulated in anyway as many believe then Kabam should welcome the opportunity to disclose this.
Again, Apple is simply getting in front of federal regulations that see coming so as not interrupt their business model. If you think that saying items purchased with units don't count....then good for you. You are wrong though.
Also everyone please stop feeding the troll. His nonsensical posts are annoying.
You forgot to add his opinions too.
If any, this would have bigger issues for Kabam logistically. This means they need to continuously disclose any changes to their algo which adds overhead. And they need to make sure that their app behaves as intended.
I am 100% sure that your arse is jealous of the amount of **** that comes out of your mouth
You can put down real money and risk it for something of value. It's gambling.
You say it's not gambling because the TOS says this game has no monetary value? Really? Then why is REAL money involved if nothing of value is on the line?
Real money involved? It's gambling. No money involved, it's not gambling. But it can't be real money and no gambling at the same time. The two can't coexist at the same time and make sense.
Amen to that 🙏
Legally, if you believe the MCOC TOS is not legal, you must stop playing the game. You agree to accept the TOS when you play, and if you decide the TOS is not legal and choose to disregard it, you no longer have a legal permission to play the game.
Basically, the TOS is an agreement that grants you permission to play the game under a set of conditions. If the agreement itself is considered invalid, nothing else extends you permission to access the game servers.
Um, the first part of your quote appears to come from this study: https://www.moontechnolabs.com/apple-vs-android-comparative-study-2017/
However, that study does not have your income statement and I can find no source for it. In fact, the above source states:
iOS has generally always had higher engagement and revenue numbers than Android. 2017 was supposed to be the year that Android finally overtook the Appstore, but only when counting all Android app stores world wide combined (and not just the Google Play store) but I'm not sure if that actually happened since both stores experienced huge growth overall.
The legal definition of gambling in most jurisdictions requires both the risk of material value and the potential reward of material value. It is not enough for "real money to be involved." You have to be able to win real money. Lootboxes generally do not allow you to win money, so they are not gambling according to the law in most jurisdictions.
Because the intrinsic value of virtual items in online games is a legal grey area, there is some dispute over this, but the majority of cases I've seen so far suggest that regulating games of chance with no monetary rewards would require additional legislation. That's why some legislators are pursuing such legislation now: the current legal definition of gambling doesn't apply, or they would apply it.
Wrong.
Gambling requires your "something of value" in order for a chance to obtain Material Goods or goods and services, especially those considered unnecessary luxuries.
Technically yes, gambling laws specify "something of value." I was speaking colloquially here.
I am unaware of any jurisdiction that defines gambling with the phrase "unnecessary luxuries." Reference please.
Most US states define gambling similar to my own state of Hawaii, which legally defines the act of gambling to be: "A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome."
"Something of value" is defined in the statute: "Something of value means any money or property, any token, object, or article exchangeable for money or property, or any form of credit or promise directly or indirectly contemplating transfer of money or property or of any interest therein, or involving extension of a service or entertainment." cf: https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_ch0701-0853/hrs0712/hrs_0712-1220.htm
The definition requires that the "something of value" have some monetary value, either directly or indirectly. The phrase "involving extension of service" is legally technical having to do with closing a loop hole in gambling establishments awarding "credits" that could be used to further gameplay and eventually be exchanged for cash. For example: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/washington-federal-court-finds-social-casino-games-not-gambling.
Pertinent passage:
In all of my research on the subject in the past, all legal analysis tends to eventually arrive at the seminal question of whether something of monetary value is being risked, and something of monetary value is potentially being awarded, based primarily on an element of chance. Up to now, courts have been unwilling to state that just because someone claims something to have monetary value that it does. There must be some legitimate legal way to convert the one into the other for that value to be recognized legally.
It's in Kabam's ToS agreement that you agree that your account and all in game
All apps go through Apple's review process. If it's in the store, it's approved by Apple, so I doubt you'll have much luck with that argument.
Apple's guidelines are seemingly deliberately very loose and open to interpretation by their reviewers. MCoC's crystals likely already conformed to the new rule. The guidelines simply state that before purchase, the user must be made aware of the odds of getting a type of item. In the case of PHC's, the little blarb about "Guarantees a 2* champion with a rare chance at a 3* or 4* champion" satisfies the stated guidelines. "Champion" is being interpreted by Apple as the "type of item.". Apple never stated they had to give drop rates for specific Champions or rarities.
Doubt it. Saying "Guaranteed chance at a 2 star blah blah" is NOT stating odds. You can BET that unless you see exact odds stated there WILL be complaints to Apple, and they WILL come down hard on MCOC
It states the odds exactly. You have a 100% chance of getting a Champion from a Premium Hero Crystal. Apple's guidelines state that they must make the user aware of the odds of getting a certain TYPE of item. Logically, Champions are a type of item. It says nothing about them having to reveal the odds of getting a specific item(like a specific Champion) or a certain rarity of item(2*, 3*, etc.).
I should point out that the lootbox clause is in the app developer guidelines. The guidelines are not "rules" or a checklist that developers must follow, and following them is not necessarily sufficient to have an app approved either. The guidelines were published by Apple because app developers were getting apps rejected by the app store without clear guidance as to what they were doing wrong or what they were allowed to do. Apple started publishing the guidelines to be just that: guidelines that were supposed to be used by the app developers to know what to steer towards and what to steer away from if they wanted their apps approved quickly.
In other words, the guidelines are not a recipe for making an approved app, they are a way for Apple to signal to developers what they are looking at and what they will scrutinize more carefully. Apple can still choose to accept or reject an app from the app store entirely at their own discretion. That's why attempting to figure out what the boundaries of the rule are is missing the point a bit, because Apple doesn't use the guidelines as strict rules. They use them to signal to developers what to be careful about. Apple is *signalling* that they are looking at this issue more carefully and may start rejecting apps they feel do not properly disclose enough information. How much information that is, is probably something that will evolve over time.
You can't ask for a refund just because an app is not in compliance with the guidelines because a) the guidelines are not hard and fast rules, b) those guidelines are for the app approval process and not a prerequisite for being in the app store, and c) in any case they are terms between the app developer and Apple and have nothing to do with you.
As far as I'm aware, every western court case has ruled the other way. I've heard of a couple unusual exceptions in China and Korea.
I think game companies are going to try to find wiggle room here. This is how Blizzard chose to interpret the disclosure laws in China for Hearthstone, publishing odds as such:
That's not precise odds, and it doesn't precisely detail the mechanics of the "pity timer" but it currently appears to put them in compliance with the law. I would expect something similar to be what Apple is after.
Well, I suggested in another Thread that someone contact both Kabam and Apple for a mistaken purchase. This would be an entirely different scenario. If you're asking for Refunds because you believe the company is non-compliant, and you're still playing, that's another subject.