From experience most crystals with an increased chance are glorified 2* crystals.... just saying from my experience... spend units on energy refills complete events best use of units.
"Increased chance" means the chances are higher by an unspecified amount. It does not mean it is necessarily likely. You have an increased chance of winning the lottery if you buy two tickets instead of one with different numbers.
Real talk right here. "It's more than that other thing" +1
In the lottery though that second ticket actually has a definable increase number associated with it. To this point, in another thread, I do argue that without disclosing odds this game is not in line with the December apple TOS changes. Apple hasn't commented on if apps are grandfathered in or what enforcement will be though.
You might want to reread the apple ToS again, because in no way do they have to disclose odds from phc’s, just from “loot boxes” purchased with money (not units).
It means exactly what it says. You get an increased chance at getting your desired outcome/champ. How much is the chance of that increased by? Who knows? Certainly not me. It could be a 10% increase or it could be a 0.0001% increase. I say it's closer to the latter.
Crystals are slot machines. Put quarters in at your own risk. Just don't go crying to the pit boss if you come up empty.
"Increased chance" means the chances are higher by an unspecified amount. It does not mean it is necessarily likely. You have an increased chance of winning the lottery if you buy two tickets instead of one with different numbers.
Real talk right here. "It's more than that other thing" +1
In the lottery though that second ticket actually has a definable increase number associated with it. To this point, in another thread, I do argue that without disclosing odds this game is not in line with the December apple TOS changes. Apple hasn't commented on if apps are grandfathered in or what enforcement will be though.
You might want to reread the apple ToS again, because in no way do they have to disclose odds from phc’s, just from “loot boxes” purchased with money (not units).
Neither of you are reading Apple's TOS. You are reading their guidelines for app store approval. That guidelines document spells out Apple's recommendations for what app developers should do to get their apps approved for upload to the app store. Failing to conform with them can mean your app doesn't get approved. Worth reminding people that the app approval guidelines are not retroactive and are not explicit rules or regulations. They are essentially a FAQ that tells developers what Apple can choose to reject an app for.
As to whether app developers have to disclose the odds for loot boxes purchased with in-game currency, that seems to be a point of debate. A lot of people are trying to swing dictionaries around here, but the loot box clause has to be taken in totality with the entire section on purchases. If you take statements in the guidelines literally and out of context, then the very first statement of section 3.1 says "If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase." This says on its face that Kabam cannot sell us anything for units at all. It says they can sell us in-game currencies, but it doesn't say we can use them to buy anything else. It explicitly says everything we buy must use the in-app purchase mechanism. But taken literally, that's nonsensical.
Similarly, the statement "Apps offering “loot boxes” or other mechanisms that provide randomized virtual items for purchase must disclose the odds of receiving each type of item to customers prior to purchase" doesn't itself define what a "purchase" is, but in the context of section 3.1 it is seems reasonable to assume that "purchase with in-game currency" has to be a purchase as defined by Apple. For one thing, if it is not then the requirement is trivial to bypass. Simply create an in-game currency that can *only* be used to buy the item in question. Sell "purple widgets" and then make the only in-game item that can be purchased with purple widgets be the item in question. Apple is not a court of law and has no obligation to honor word-weaseling.
Second and perhaps more fundamental, if in-game purchases with in-game currency are not actually purchases, then it calls into question what in-game currencies actually are. If they are not used for purchases, then they aren't "currencies" as the word is usually defined to mean.
Apple's guidelines are nonsensical on their face unless you interpret them to mean that if you are going to sell your customers something, you must use the in-app purchase mechanism; using the in-app purchase mechanism to sell in-app currency that your customers use to them purchase in-game items is itself a legitimate purchasing mechanism because it ultimately uses the in-app purchase function, and all purchases made directly through in-app purchase or indirectly with in-app purchased in-app currency are acceptable. Within that score, loot boxes purchased directly or indirectly are subject to the requirement to disclose odds.
There is still a lot of potential grey area in there, but the notion that if you don't purchase the lootbox directly with cash then the lootbox clause automatically doesn't apply doesn't appear to be tenable. Apple never publishes guidelines for no reason: it is always to ultimately effect a change to the apps in the app store. So any interpretation of any guideline as saying something that any developer can trivially ignore is almost certainly false. And the history of the Apple app store is full of people who attempted to make a guideline meaningless by quibbling with the wording and trying to find a loophole, only to discover that Apple simply rejected their app and their interpretation of Apple's own guidelines.
To put it another way, Apple's position on the guidelines is this: they are there to help you, the app developer, get your app approved. If you don't want to heed the warnings in there, that's up to you. But just remember that we, Apple, can reject your app for any reason whatsoever, and we are not obligated to honor your interpretation of our guidelines.
Neither of you are reading Apple's TOS. You are reading their guidelines for app store approval. That guidelines document spells out Apple's recommendations for what app developers should do to get their apps approved for upload to the app store. Failing to conform with them can mean your app doesn't get approved. Worth reminding people that the app approval guidelines are not retroactive and are not explicit rules or regulations. They are essentially a FAQ that tells developers what Apple can choose to reject an app for.
To put it another way, Apple's position on the guidelines is this: they are there to help you, the app developer, get your app approved. If you don't want to heed the warnings in there, that's up to you. But just remember that we, Apple, can reject your app for any reason whatsoever, and we are not obligated to honor your interpretation of our guidelines.
Firstly, good post. Thanks.
In the end we all know what this means. Apple is taking steps to control gacha. Doing exactly this is the first step. While I don’t blame kabam for not disclosing odds we should be able to agree it is intentional and gacha.
That being said, at some point I do believe the hammer will come down. Making money without exposing odds is exploitation...my opinion though, not a fact.
In the end we all know what this means. Apple is taking steps to control gacha. Doing exactly this is the first step. While I don’t blame kabam for not disclosing odds we should be able to agree it is intentional and gacha.
I don't know if they are specifically targeting gacha. Gacha is something very specific that MCOC doesn't really exploit. Apple has their own sense of, for lack of a better word for it, app store morality. For example, when they decided they just didn't want to be associated with so-called vanity apps. A while ago someone made an app that just had a big red button and it cost a thousand dollars. The point of the app was that the app didn't do anything: it existed for people to show off the fact that they were willing to spend a thousand dollars on an app that did nothing. There was nothing illegal about it and the app didn't try to trick anyone to buy it: the developer was 100% up front about telling people not to buy the app unless they were absolutely certain they wanted to flush that money down the toilet. Apple decided they just didn't want to have anything to do with the concept, and decided to rid themselves of that kind of thing.
I think the lootboxes are a similar thing. Loot boxes are mostly a gamer thing, but they've recently become a big thing outside the gaming world. Apple decided they needed to pick a side, and they decided to pick this side, at least for now.
For those unfamiliar, "gacha" games are games that revolve around collecting a set of things from random drops. The whole point is to exploit the pressure of wanting to complete a set. MCOC doesn't really do that: they have "rares" that people pursue, but pursuing rares is nothing compared to trying to complete a set. People suck at math, and if you think people don't understand the concept of "one in five" then try this on for size. Suppose you have a set of 20 items and these things drop perfectly randomly from a lootbox, one per. Approximately how many lootboxes do you think you will have to open on average to complete a set?
Answer: about 72. It is way more than most people think, but the kicker is that is the average. A significant percentage of the players playing the game will need twice that many, or even three times that many pulls. But it is much easier to get, say, 17 out of 20. That takes only about 35 pulls. The next thirty seven pulls (on average) will be chasing the last three items. The last twenty pulls will be chasing the *last* item. Think about how that works psychologically.
all the samples posted by individuals are for PHC/GMC etc so they cant be used as reference ....again the question remains ... what does "Increased chance" mean?
all the samples posted by individuals are for PHC/GMC etc so they cant be used as reference ....again the question remains ... what does "Increased chance" mean?
Yes, it can. The % of pulling a 4* is the same, but the chance of getting the featured 4* is bigger then any random 4*.
Comments
You might want to reread the apple ToS again, because in no way do they have to disclose odds from phc’s, just from “loot boxes” purchased with money (not units).
lmaoooo
It means exactly what it says. You get an increased chance at getting your desired outcome/champ. How much is the chance of that increased by? Who knows? Certainly not me. It could be a 10% increase or it could be a 0.0001% increase. I say it's closer to the latter.
Crystals are slot machines. Put quarters in at your own risk. Just don't go crying to the pit boss if you come up empty.
Neither of you are reading Apple's TOS. You are reading their guidelines for app store approval. That guidelines document spells out Apple's recommendations for what app developers should do to get their apps approved for upload to the app store. Failing to conform with them can mean your app doesn't get approved. Worth reminding people that the app approval guidelines are not retroactive and are not explicit rules or regulations. They are essentially a FAQ that tells developers what Apple can choose to reject an app for.
As to whether app developers have to disclose the odds for loot boxes purchased with in-game currency, that seems to be a point of debate. A lot of people are trying to swing dictionaries around here, but the loot box clause has to be taken in totality with the entire section on purchases. If you take statements in the guidelines literally and out of context, then the very first statement of section 3.1 says "If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase." This says on its face that Kabam cannot sell us anything for units at all. It says they can sell us in-game currencies, but it doesn't say we can use them to buy anything else. It explicitly says everything we buy must use the in-app purchase mechanism. But taken literally, that's nonsensical.
Similarly, the statement "Apps offering “loot boxes” or other mechanisms that provide randomized virtual items for purchase must disclose the odds of receiving each type of item to customers prior to purchase" doesn't itself define what a "purchase" is, but in the context of section 3.1 it is seems reasonable to assume that "purchase with in-game currency" has to be a purchase as defined by Apple. For one thing, if it is not then the requirement is trivial to bypass. Simply create an in-game currency that can *only* be used to buy the item in question. Sell "purple widgets" and then make the only in-game item that can be purchased with purple widgets be the item in question. Apple is not a court of law and has no obligation to honor word-weaseling.
Second and perhaps more fundamental, if in-game purchases with in-game currency are not actually purchases, then it calls into question what in-game currencies actually are. If they are not used for purchases, then they aren't "currencies" as the word is usually defined to mean.
Apple's guidelines are nonsensical on their face unless you interpret them to mean that if you are going to sell your customers something, you must use the in-app purchase mechanism; using the in-app purchase mechanism to sell in-app currency that your customers use to them purchase in-game items is itself a legitimate purchasing mechanism because it ultimately uses the in-app purchase function, and all purchases made directly through in-app purchase or indirectly with in-app purchased in-app currency are acceptable. Within that score, loot boxes purchased directly or indirectly are subject to the requirement to disclose odds.
There is still a lot of potential grey area in there, but the notion that if you don't purchase the lootbox directly with cash then the lootbox clause automatically doesn't apply doesn't appear to be tenable. Apple never publishes guidelines for no reason: it is always to ultimately effect a change to the apps in the app store. So any interpretation of any guideline as saying something that any developer can trivially ignore is almost certainly false. And the history of the Apple app store is full of people who attempted to make a guideline meaningless by quibbling with the wording and trying to find a loophole, only to discover that Apple simply rejected their app and their interpretation of Apple's own guidelines.
To put it another way, Apple's position on the guidelines is this: they are there to help you, the app developer, get your app approved. If you don't want to heed the warnings in there, that's up to you. But just remember that we, Apple, can reject your app for any reason whatsoever, and we are not obligated to honor your interpretation of our guidelines.
Firstly, good post. Thanks.
In the end we all know what this means. Apple is taking steps to control gacha. Doing exactly this is the first step. While I don’t blame kabam for not disclosing odds we should be able to agree it is intentional and gacha.
That being said, at some point I do believe the hammer will come down. Making money without exposing odds is exploitation...my opinion though, not a fact.
I don't know if they are specifically targeting gacha. Gacha is something very specific that MCOC doesn't really exploit. Apple has their own sense of, for lack of a better word for it, app store morality. For example, when they decided they just didn't want to be associated with so-called vanity apps. A while ago someone made an app that just had a big red button and it cost a thousand dollars. The point of the app was that the app didn't do anything: it existed for people to show off the fact that they were willing to spend a thousand dollars on an app that did nothing. There was nothing illegal about it and the app didn't try to trick anyone to buy it: the developer was 100% up front about telling people not to buy the app unless they were absolutely certain they wanted to flush that money down the toilet. Apple decided they just didn't want to have anything to do with the concept, and decided to rid themselves of that kind of thing.
I think the lootboxes are a similar thing. Loot boxes are mostly a gamer thing, but they've recently become a big thing outside the gaming world. Apple decided they needed to pick a side, and they decided to pick this side, at least for now.
For those unfamiliar, "gacha" games are games that revolve around collecting a set of things from random drops. The whole point is to exploit the pressure of wanting to complete a set. MCOC doesn't really do that: they have "rares" that people pursue, but pursuing rares is nothing compared to trying to complete a set. People suck at math, and if you think people don't understand the concept of "one in five" then try this on for size. Suppose you have a set of 20 items and these things drop perfectly randomly from a lootbox, one per. Approximately how many lootboxes do you think you will have to open on average to complete a set?
Answer: about 72. It is way more than most people think, but the kicker is that is the average. A significant percentage of the players playing the game will need twice that many, or even three times that many pulls. But it is much easier to get, say, 17 out of 20. That takes only about 35 pulls. The next thirty seven pulls (on average) will be chasing the last three items. The last twenty pulls will be chasing the *last* item. Think about how that works psychologically.
Yes, it can. The % of pulling a 4* is the same, but the chance of getting the featured 4* is bigger then any random 4*.