Apple Now Requires Game Developers to disclose odds on "Loot Boxes" [MERGED THREADS]

1101113151635

Comments

  • Zeke_the_XbotZeke_the_Xbot Posts: 202
    Already thought of a way they might be able to get around this. Instead of a Crystal in bundles they offer the shards to form a full crystal thus you are buying Shards not Crystals (the thing that the odds are attached to).
  • LeDeeLeDee Posts: 35
    Pixels on a screen that are beyond our control are not tangible goods. Just my opinion, but I wouldn't interpret pixels as something we receive.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 27,048 ★★★★★
    edited December 2017
    CoquiFongo wrote: »
    US Legal Code

    Bet or wager.—The term “bet or wager”—
    -means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;

    Just because we don’t keep the items(since Kabam owns all) doesn’t mean we don’t recieve them. Once again a semantic argument. Wager, odds, chance, gamble, stakes; all of these words are taken in the same context.

    That's exactly what it means. You don't receive, own, or have any legal right to anything in the game. There is nothing of value being returned to us.
    Also, you left out the section that stated "does not include".
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 27,048 ★★★★★
    Riegel wrote: »
    So much misinformation in one thread. Trust that Apple and Kabam know the real legal definitions. Soon we will know percentage drop rates, and it wont change anything in game so calm down. :)

    We don't know what will take place any more than spamming the word "Wrong" makes a viable counter.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 27,048 ★★★★★
    Interesting. When you use it to support your opinion, the words are flexible, but when I point out the legality of it, you call it semantics. There is no such thing as semantics when it comes to a legal definition. That's the law. It is not classified as Gambling. That's not semantics. It's the truth. We're not paying money for something in return. We're paying money for the permission to use their product. There is no return. If the game folded tomorrow, there would be no way of "cashing out". Whether that lease includes an element of chance or not doesn't matter. We don't take anything home from purchases.
  • Cujo999Cujo999 Posts: 117
    CoquiFongo wrote: »
    US Legal Code

    Bet or wager.—The term “bet or wager”—
    -means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;

    Just because we don’t keep the items(since Kabam owns all) doesn’t mean we don’t recieve them. Once again a semantic argument. Wager, odds, chance, gamble, stakes; all of these words are taken in the same context.

    Receive in legal terms generally means taking possession of something. Not that it really matters. In Kabam's ToS, which is legally binding, we all agreed that all in game items and currency have no value. In order for something to be legally classified as gambling under US law, the person must have a chance to receive something of value. Since all in-game items have no value, no Crystals that dispense in game items can be classified as gambling under US law. Now, U.S. law could change, but they currently appear to be well in the clear.
  • JaffacakedJaffacaked Posts: 1,416 ★★★★
    This thread needs to be closed as it will just be yet another thread of 20+ pages of arguments with the same people just going on an on. You can't fix stupid so why bother trying
  • LeDeeLeDee Posts: 35
    Cujo999 wrote: »
    CoquiFongo wrote: »
    US Legal Code

    Bet or wager.—The term “bet or wager”—
    -means the staking or risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome;

    Just because we don’t keep the items(since Kabam owns all) doesn’t mean we don’t recieve them. Once again a semantic argument. Wager, odds, chance, gamble, stakes; all of these words are taken in the same context.

    Receive in legal terms generally means taking possession of something. Not that it really matters. In Kabam's ToS, which is legally binding, we all agreed that all in game items and currency have no value. In order for something to be legally classified as gambling under US law, the person must have a chance to receive something of value. Since all in-game items have no value, no Crystals that dispense in game items can be classified as gambling under US law. Now, U.S. law could change, but they currently appear to be well in the clear.

    This is correct, as are most of Grounded Wisdom's posts.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 27,048 ★★★★★
    JRock808 wrote: »
    You can't argue with someone who said defensive kills were bad and diversity/rating should decide the winner of alliance war.

    Well, you can, but it's folly to do so.
    That's another discussion.
  • DarkestDestroyerDarkestDestroyer Posts: 2,570 ★★★★
    JRock808 wrote: »
    You can't argue with someone who said defensive kills were bad and diversity/rating should decide the winner of alliance war.

    Well, you can, but it's folly to do so.
    That's another discussion.

    Another discussion for you to argue against the majority?

    Apple are doing right by gamers, this is a major win. And your complaining about it... I have no idea why
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 27,048 ★★★★★
    JRock808 wrote: »
    You can't argue with someone who said defensive kills were bad and diversity/rating should decide the winner of alliance war.

    Well, you can, but it's folly to do so.
    That's another discussion.

    Another discussion for you to argue against the majority?

    Apple are doing right by gamers, this is a major win. And your complaining about it... I have no idea why

    It has nothing to do with a majority or minority. I have my own views on it, and I do not agree with it. It's as simple as that. My views on Apple won't change, and I'm not in favor of what they're doing. It's perfectly fine for people to disagree.
  • SirnoobSirnoob Posts: 952 ★★★
    [
    I understand that you like to argue just for the sake of arguing but you are deliberately missing the point. Apple is trying to get out in front on an issue that governments are increasing looking at to be able to say, hey no need to pass laws & or ban loot boxes. We are policing them ourself. You may not FEEL it is gambling but many governments do. Apple is simply trying to convince those governments not to outlaw loot boxes so that Apple does not lose the revenue they receive from them and companies like KABAM are not put out of business by the same loss (not that Apple cares about those companies further than the monies they get from them).

    https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/22/16690182/battlefront-2-loot-crates-hawaii-belgium-banned-regulation-investigate

    http://www.pcgamer.com/petition-forces-the-uk-government-to-weigh-in-on-loot-boxes-and-gambling-laws/

    https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/27/game-industry-pros-take-first-step-toward-self-regulating-loot-boxes/[/quote]

    Incase u wanna look further into those story’s

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/26/uk-government-responds-to-loot-box-petition-7029179/
    Uk gov saying it’s not gambling

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/11/28/the-national-committee-for-games-policy-was-created-by-a-troll/
    Forbes pretty much saying the whole ncgp is nothing more then a giant troll
  • SirnoobSirnoob Posts: 952 ★★★
    edited December 2017

    Quote messed up
  • DarkestDestroyerDarkestDestroyer Posts: 2,570 ★★★★
    JRock808 wrote: »
    You can't argue with someone who said defensive kills were bad and diversity/rating should decide the winner of alliance war.

    Well, you can, but it's folly to do so.
    That's another discussion.

    Another discussion for you to argue against the majority?

    Apple are doing right by gamers, this is a major win. And your complaining about it... I have no idea why

    It has nothing to do with a majority or minority. I have my own views on it, and I do not agree with it. It's as simple as that. My views on Apple won't change, and I'm not in favor of what they're doing. It's perfectly fine for people to disagree.

    Well what have apple done so wrong for you to be against this? When it's helping gamers?

    Please explain?

    You seem to be just arguing for the sake of it, sometimes your right with your views but on this... I find it hard to believe your so against something that is so good for us.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 27,048 ★★★★★
    edited December 2017
    JRock808 wrote: »
    You can't argue with someone who said defensive kills were bad and diversity/rating should decide the winner of alliance war.

    Well, you can, but it's folly to do so.
    That's another discussion.

    Another discussion for you to argue against the majority?

    Apple are doing right by gamers, this is a major win. And your complaining about it... I have no idea why

    It has nothing to do with a majority or minority. I have my own views on it, and I do not agree with it. It's as simple as that. My views on Apple won't change, and I'm not in favor of what they're doing. It's perfectly fine for people to disagree.

    Well what have apple done so wrong for you to be against this? When it's helping gamers?

    Please explain?

    You seem to be just arguing for the sake of it, sometimes your right with your views but on this... I find it hard to believe your so against something that is so good for us.

    I'm not elaborating because I have very strong opinions on Apple and some of their business practices, and I don't agree that their concern is for the Users. There are many things I do not approve of when it comes to Apple, but I really don't want to get into it because it's not the appropriate place, and it would become off-topic. Plus the fact that I don't agree that the information needs to be mandatorily displayed. So, as I said, I'll just leave it as I don't agree with it.
  • Sirnoob wrote: »
    [

    Incase u wanna look further into those story’s

    http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/26/uk-government-responds-to-loot-box-petition-7029179/
    Uk gov saying it’s not gambling

    Actually the official response from the UK was:

    'The government recognises the risks that come from increasing convergence between gambling and video games. The Gambling Commission is keeping this matter under review and will continue to monitor developments in the market’,

    You cannot make your argument seem more legitimate by only posting the part of quotes that you agree with. China has already passed laws requiring the odds of loot boxes be provided and several other countries (including the UK, USA, Russia & India) are looking into it. Several have even spoken of passing laws that would classify loot boxes and other such gaming contrivances as Gambling. As much as GW may claim otherwise if laws are passed then they are the 'legal' definition of gambling. Laws = Legal Definition.
  • RiegelRiegel Posts: 1,088 ★★★★
    Riegel wrote: »
    So much misinformation in one thread. Trust that Apple and Kabam know the real legal definitions. Soon we will know percentage drop rates, and it wont change anything in game so calm down. :)

    We don't know what will take place any more than spamming the word "Wrong" makes a viable counter.

    It's hard because most of what you say is plan wrong. Sorry man.
  • LeDeeLeDee Posts: 35
    So when Kabam shifts to all gameplay won crystals as shards, and all purchased crystals as whole items, and they advertise drop odds on whole crystals but not on shard crystals, and the game economics shift (at least with SA and other events) to favor more heavily the purchased items, you don't think people will spend more? Therefore boosting Apple's financial take?

    Apple is no more and no less an ethical player than any other for profit business. And there have been many complaints about their business practices (not unlike countless otrher companies). Just look them up. No need to derail a good convo about likely outcomes of loot box rules changes.
  • Dave_the_destroyerDave_the_destroyer Posts: 981 ★★
    This thread is funny!! All the armchair-lawyers up in arms saying that what they think is correct. While the few who actually do have some insight into this are pulled apart

    Be even funnier when NOTHING happens! lol. Slag and call Kabam as much as you want, you dont make the laws or rules, you have no say. Kabam will not have to do this at all, as is shown by the fact it is now 11 days since, according to the armchairs, they were told they had to! Apple didnt say "do this when you can be bothered", it was a fixed date to do it by. This is the no1 app on Apple and they havent done this, doesnt that show you that they dont have to ffs?

    Keep posting, nothing will happen
  • LeDeeLeDee Posts: 35
    To be clear, Apple isn't doing this to generate more revenue. They are doing it to prevent a possible loss of future revenue. But they realize that developers like Kabam are very good at finding ways to make money, even as rules change, so I'm sure they are not at all concerned about possible revenue loss from the added guidelines over loot boxes. This won't translate to less player money being spent on MCOC.
  • JaffacakedJaffacaked Posts: 1,416 ★★★★
    This thread is funny!! All the armchair-lawyers up in arms saying that what they think is correct. While the few who actually do have some insight into this are pulled apart

    Be even funnier when NOTHING happens! lol. Slag and call Kabam as much as you want, you dont make the laws or rules, you have no say. Kabam will not have to do this at all, as is shown by the fact it is now 11 days since, according to the armchairs, they were told they had to! Apple didnt say "do this when you can be bothered", it was a fixed date to do it by. This is the no1 app on Apple and they havent done this, doesnt that show you that they dont have to ffs?

    Keep posting, nothing will happen

    When was the date given by Apple ?
  • DL864DL864 Posts: 792 ★★★
    I think Apple said the 1st of Jan not 💯 on that
  • JRock808JRock808 Posts: 1,149 ★★★★
    There is always leeway, if the company shows good faith effort in beooming compliant. Apple isn't going to remove their app from the App Store because a billion dollar company couldn't make a change happen overnight.
Sign In or Register to comment.