**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.
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.
Comments
What do you expect it to be?
Actually the Kang drop rates out of GGC would probably amongst the most interesting thing to see. I suspect it is so low that if people knew what it was....they would sell a fraction of them compared to now.
I agree. I ask because I'm surprised the previous poster thinks it's on the order of 4-5 %
I suspect that it is less than a 4* from a PHC, but it would be nice to know. This is why the good people at Apple are requiring this.
It is Kabam's biggest success and money maker... there is no straw big enough to break its back right now. If this game ever goes under it would not be due to in-game issues... it would be due to company issues elsewhere (as in Kabam, from what I have read, has a ton of unsuccessful ventures and thus that could kill the company... though even in this case the game would be sold to another dev and they would continue it anyways).
So yeah... no need to worry about that
I really hope that's not true. I might buy a specific deal, but no way am I buying units regularly.
I would be surprised if Apple's interpretation of their guidelines matches this, but I'm pretty sure we will find out relatively quickly given all mobile games will have to comply with this change fairly quickly. Apple doesn't tend to give large grace periods to compliance.
I'm a people that says random knowing what the generally accepted statistical tests are for sufficiently random when it comes to computer implemented pseudo-random number generation.
The app store guidelines are in effect an agreement between Apple and the app developers. What prevents anyone from violating any term of that agreement is the threat of having their apps barred from the app store. MCOC makes millions of dollars a month. That's what they are risking if they violate the terms of the agreement, and Apple has demonstrated in the past they are willing to remove apps from the app store that they believe violate their developer agreement. Apple, in fact, as removed apps from the app store that they believe violate the spirit of the agreement even when they followed the exact letter of the agreement perfectly.
People are very unpredictable when it comes to statistics. For example, when Powerball lottery revenue dropped a few years ago the solution proposed was to shift the odds so that the odds of winning the jackpot actually got worse: from about 170 million to one to 292 million to one. The net effect was Powerball revenue increased substantially. The reason? By reducing the odds of winning the jackpot, they reduced the odds of anyone ever getting the jackpot in any particular week, which meant the value of the jackpot rose higher before someone eventually won it. The higher advertised jackpots encouraged more people to buy more lottery tickets, even though the actual rate of return on those tickets was basically the same.
When something is harder to get, that discourages people from trying to get it. But it also makes that thing more valuable, which can encourage people to try to get it. Which psychological effect wins is often impossible to foresee.
It doesn't matter if it is gambling or not. Gambling is just a term, and lootboxes do not have to be pigeonholed into that term to be subject to rules and regulations. Smoking is not gambling, but it is regulated. Flying isn't gambling, but we license pilots.
Whether lootboxes are gambling or not doesn't address the fundamental issue. I personally think lootboxes are not gambling in the legal sense of the term because in general lootboxes do not return monetary value. That's significant because a lot of gambling law makes that presumption. But that doesn't mean lootboxes don't have enough resemblance to gambling that many if not all of the rules we place on gambling make sense to consider.
Given that the entire premise of lootboxes relies on at least a little psychological manipulation, and given that gaming companies in general seem unwilling or unable to draw reasonable boundaries around that manipulation, I think there should be significant thought put into drawing those boundaries for them.
You keep using words without caring what they mean. Apple has full "legal jurisdiction" to enforce any terms and conditions upon applications submitted to the App Store which they own and operate. Kabam has no right to put applications onto the Apple App Store unless Apple gives them permission to do so, which they are free to revoke at any time.
Also, to the extent that the time I spend learning implementation details about the game and sharing them with other players breaches the protection of that information you believe Kabam is owed, I'm more pleased than I really ought to be.
if knowing the odds does make any difference at all is a completely other question, but i would like to know.
We can agree to disagree. This is not Gambling in a couple very crucial areas. It can be habit-forming and addictive for some, but they're not at all the same. Nor will I entertain the idea because I have several thoughts that are better left unsaid in a respectful Forum. I will disagree because I feel strongly on this, and I do not agree with the Right-Wing, stretched definition of Gambling, and I find the connection disingenuous towards actual Gambling and the destruction it brings.
What you're talking about in the second thought is marketing. It's stated clearly that the chances are rare. Which is true. We don't need to see it's 10%, 2%, 1%, 0.00000001%, whatever that is. Rare means rare. If you're going to cite all the companies that offer things for sale and don't go into a delitany upon purchase, we'll be here a while. The buyer has a responsibility for their own purchases. Simple as that. If I go to the Bakery, they list the ingredients on the foodstuff. They don't list the recipe. That much is up to the discretion of the Baker. Offering a selling point, "A rare chance at X...." is not at all deception. It's accurate marketing. Seen in everything from Supermarkets to Toy Stores. I'll say it again. Apple is jumping the gun. There is no legal basis for it. When you talk about me defending "Fascism" that's also a stretched definition. The right to provide a service without being forced to expose your process in complete detail is not Fascist Regime. Imposing your ideals under fear of non-compliance is.
Yes they do. It is their store. They can regulate it however they wish as long as they are not discriminating based on race, sex, etc..... Nobody has a "right" to sell something in the app store. It belongs to Apple.
Of course Sir Grounded Wisdom. I’m sure there are some dragons for you to slay over in the bugs and issues section. Off you trot.
Wrong.