**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options

Loot boxed (cav crystals) Might become illegal

manveertherealmanveerthereal Posts: 1,359 ★★★
in General Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuNpvdnVxRI
i watched this video about loot boxes and they might make it "illegal" for things like cav crystals in this game i want to know how you feel about this i feel like if it;s not good because if kabam gets taken down no mcoc and that would make a lot of us sad and another thing i now is im from canada so is the company kabam. How do ya'll feel?
«13

Comments

  • Options
    HavocGamer49HavocGamer49 Posts: 408 ★★★
    SpideyFunko said:

    HavocGamer49 said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    i don’t care as long as EA gets shafted by it.

    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
    That game went from hot garbage to a great Star Wars game. I love it.
    Same, wish they kept updating it
  • Options
    GinjabredMonstaGinjabredMonsta Posts: 6,454 Guardian
    X_Factor_Agent said:

    Ya, this came around last year or the year before too.

    Yeah then they try to bring out the "patents" and this goes on for a week
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,248 ★★★★★
    GinjabredMonsta said:

    X_Factor_Agent said:

    Ya, this came around last year or the year before too.

    Yeah then they try to bring out the "patents" and this goes on for a week
    Then we have the obligatory definition of Gambling debate.
  • Options
    MasterpuffMasterpuff Posts: 6,466 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    GinjabredMonsta said:

    X_Factor_Agent said:

    Ya, this came around last year or the year before too.

    Yeah then they try to bring out the "patents" and this goes on for a week
    Then we have the obligatory definition of Gambling debate.
    Yep. Then we have the drop rates brought up.
  • Options
    DarkSoulDLXDarkSoulDLX Posts: 676 ★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    It's drivel. The Lawsuit alleges that the game is running an unlicensed Gambling Business. I'm well-aware of the Canadian Laws concerning Gambling. It doesn't hold water.

    👍
  • Options
    Scopeotoe987Scopeotoe987 Posts: 1,548 ★★★★★
    SpideyFunko said:

    HavocGamer49 said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    i don’t care as long as EA gets shafted by it.

    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
    That game went from hot garbage to a great Star Wars game. I love it.
    Unpopular opinion: Battlefront 2015 was more fun then battlefront 2 because of how op the hero’s and villains are.
  • Options
    HavocGamer49HavocGamer49 Posts: 408 ★★★
    Scopeotoe987 said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    HavocGamer49 said:

    SpideyFunko said:

    i don’t care as long as EA gets shafted by it.

    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
    That game went from hot garbage to a great Star Wars game. I love it.
    Unpopular opinion: Battlefront 2015 was more fun then battlefront 2 because of how op the hero’s and villains are.
    Laughs in only heroes and villains mode
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,248 ★★★★★
    walkerdog said:

    DNA3000 said:

    X_Factor_Agent said:

    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.
    You can't really rely on stipulating away reality. Saying "you agree they don't have value to play" doesnt make it true.

    I dont know that it will work because of that, but TOS have failed companies who tried to rely on them as a shield in the past iirc.
    As myself and DNA pointed out, the case alleges that they are operating an unregulated Gambling Business. The very definition of Gambling is in question. Therefore the TOS is a legally-binding argument. You have to prove that the promise of something of value in return is present. Here in Canada, there are no current legislations for Loot Boxes, nor are there any formal ones in the U.S. The Laws on Gambling here are very specific, and succinct, and these games do not fall under that. They simply wouldn't operate if they did. Moreover, there is nothing of value as a return from these games.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,248 ★★★★★
    Province-wide, Gambling regulations are autonomous, but Loot Boxes do not fall under Gambling. Neither in Ontario not British Columbia, where both Plaintiffs hail from.
  • Options
    TheInfintyTheInfinty Posts: 1,382 ★★★★
    Will3808 said:

    Battlefront 2 ended up being such a good game. Fixing the loot boxes and progression system saved the game

    Still play the game regularly. Phenomenal game sad they killed the game when it was at its peak
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,248 ★★★★★
    walkerdog said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    walkerdog said:

    DNA3000 said:

    X_Factor_Agent said:

    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.
    You can't really rely on stipulating away reality. Saying "you agree they don't have value to play" doesnt make it true.

    I dont know that it will work because of that, but TOS have failed companies who tried to rely on them as a shield in the past iirc.
    As myself and DNA pointed out, the case alleges that they are operating an unregulated Gambling Business. The very definition of Gambling is in question. Therefore the TOS is a legally-binding argument. You have to prove that the promise of something of value in return is present. Here in Canada, there are no current legislations for Loot Boxes, nor are there any formal ones in the U.S. The Laws on Gambling here are very specific, and succinct, and these games do not fall under that. They simply wouldn't operate if they did. Moreover, there is nothing of value as a return from these games.
    They do have value. People sell accounts, etc. Trying to say "we agree" doesn't negate the fact that virtual objects have value. Whether it's enough to get the case to stick? Probably not. But its not an impossible barrier either.
    People sell Accounts illegally. That may or may not be something that is pursued, but the game remains property of Kabam. Your Account belongs to Kabam. The contents therein belong to Kabam. You are in fact, leasing permission to use their product when you spend. We have literally nothing of value ourselves within the game, and have no proprietary claim.
This discussion has been closed.