Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

So Bioware is not backing down from the "Grab Bags"

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
So Bioware is not backing down from the "Grab Bags"

Arlon_Nabarlly's Avatar


Arlon_Nabarlly
10.24.2012 , 01:23 PM | #91
Quote: Originally Posted by CelCawdro View Post
There is a difference between gambling and making a "mystery/blind purchase." You are getting the items that are listed, every time you purchase the item. There is no potential for loss.
The potential loss would be buying 700 bags trying to get one particular item.

CelCawdro's Avatar


CelCawdro
10.24.2012 , 01:25 PM | #92
Quote: Originally Posted by Arlon_Nabarlly View Post
The potential loss would be buying 700 bags trying to get one particular item.
I could also buy a billion bags of chips trying to find one shaped like Abraham Lincoln. It doesn't mean I'm gambling.

Urael's Avatar


Urael
10.24.2012 , 01:27 PM | #93
Quote: Originally Posted by CelCawdro View Post
There is a difference between gambling and making a "mystery/blind purchase." You are getting the items that are listed, every time you purchase the item. There is no potential for loss.
Disagree. If the items are "worthless" to the person that obtained them then it is a loss.

Now before you argue that the person could wait till the bind timer expiers and then sell them, I counter with then the person "incurs a time sink" and a "new gamble" by playing the GTN which could be viewed as annoying by people that don't like to play the GTN mini-game.

I don't like lock boxes and never will. I don't even "buy" lotto "scratchers" for similar reasons, nor would I ever go to Los Vegas or any similar destination to "gamble" as a form of entertainment.

I can get "all the rush" I need PvPing ( I do PvP from time to time contrary to popular belief).

CelCawdro's Avatar


CelCawdro
10.24.2012 , 01:29 PM | #94
Quote: Originally Posted by Urael View Post
Disagree. If the items are "worthless" to the person that obtained them then it is a loss.

Now before you argue that the person could wait till the bind timer expiers and then sell them, I counter with then the person "incurs a time sink" and a "new gamble" by playing the GTN which could be viewed as annoying by people that don't like to play the GTN mini-game.

I don't like lock boxes and never will. I don't even "buy" lotto "scratchers" for similar reasons, nor would I ever go to Los Vegas or any similar destination to "gamble" as a form of entertainment.

I can get "all the rush" I need PvPing ( I do PvP from time to time contrary to popular belief).
So you are stating that it is gambling because the purchaser decides that the intent of the item is something other than what is clearly stated?

GnatB's Avatar


GnatB
10.24.2012 , 01:32 PM | #95
Quote: Originally Posted by lklinga View Post
Off topic.
Gambling is only regulated so the the government gets their cut. No moral in there just to get paid. And since they are going to have it filed as income and taxed it is perfectly fine. All they need to follow is to state there is a 30 % chance or whatever for the drop and have that correctly set up in the code and there is nothing immoral about it.
Morality and Legality aren't always in sync. You're right in that regulation of gambling has nothing to do with morality, however gambling is frequently illegal on moral grounds. Not regulated, simply flat-out illegal.

Also, the reason why it's regulated is because there is usually some significant negative impact from gambling. So the "regular income tax" doesn't cover it. Especially since this is online, and thus said income tax isn't likely going to be going to the governments of the communities being negatively affected.

DarthBuckets's Avatar


DarthBuckets
10.24.2012 , 01:34 PM | #96
Anyone who has ever played a trading card game knows how this works.

There is some inherent risk of making some things exceptionally rare if the drop rates are not tuned correctly, but it looks like a fun scavenger hunt / trade / swap metagame to collect the stuff, and a good source of revenue for the company with little to no negative impacts on gameplay.

GnatB's Avatar


GnatB
10.24.2012 , 01:36 PM | #97
Quote: Originally Posted by CelCawdro View Post
I could also buy a billion bags of chips trying to find one shaped like Abraham Lincoln. It doesn't mean I'm gambling.
Actually, it does.

Norsalith's Avatar


Norsalith
10.24.2012 , 01:39 PM | #98
Quote: Originally Posted by Urael View Post
Disagree. If the items are "worthless" to the person that obtained them then it is a loss.

Now before you argue that the person could wait till the bind timer expiers and then sell them, I counter with then the person "incurs a time sink" and a "new gamble" by playing the GTN which could be viewed as annoying by people that don't like to play the GTN mini-game.

I don't like lock boxes and never will. I don't even "buy" lotto "scratchers" for similar reasons, nor would I ever go to Los Vegas or any similar destination to "gamble" as a form of entertainment.

I can get "all the rush" I need PvPing ( I do PvP from time to time contrary to popular belief).
Alright, so in this situation your definition of gambling is paying real currency for a 'chance' at an item you want.

We pay 15$ a month for a 'chance' at a particular item we want from HMs, raids, and REing items. By your standards the game itself should be a gamble. The RNG involved means we are paying 15$ but are not guaranteed the drops we desire.

The loot bags have a loot table. Some items are undoubtedly going to have a lower chance of spawning than others. But the bag is no different than a player buying a Flashpoint Loot pass. In fact it is the exact same due to the above statement that our subscription could 'technically' be considered gambling due tot he RNG nature of loot drops.

I guess if we are going to consider the loot bags as gambling, we need to consider every other RNG aspect of the game in the same light so long as we have to pay.
3/1/2015 - Reinstalled SW:TOR

Arlon_Nabarlly's Avatar


Arlon_Nabarlly
10.24.2012 , 01:43 PM | #99
Quote: Originally Posted by CelCawdro View Post
I could also buy a billion bags of chips trying to find one shaped like Abraham Lincoln. It doesn't mean I'm gambling.
I think it does, I think it also means you're insane, GET HELP! lol jk

Urael's Avatar


Urael
10.24.2012 , 01:44 PM | #100
Quote: Originally Posted by CelCawdro View Post
So you are stating that it is gambling because the purchaser decides that the intent of the item is something other than what is clearly stated?
No it's gambling buy the mechanism in which it is implemented. Randomization implies a form of gambeling. In this case it really IS gambeling as you are trading IRL cash specifically for the randomized mechanism and the items they contain.

Quote: Originally Posted by Norsalith View Post
Alright, so in this situation your definition of gambling is paying real currency for a 'chance' at an item you want.

We pay 15$ a month for a 'chance' at a particular item we want from HMs, raids, and REing items. By your standards the game itself should be a gamble. The RNG involved means we are paying 15$ but are not guaranteed the drops we desire.

The loot bags have a loot table. Some items are undoubtedly going to have a lower chance of spawning than others. But the bag is no different than a player buying a Flashpoint Loot pass. In fact it is the exact same due to the above statement that our subscription could 'technically' be considered gambling due tot he RNG nature of loot drops.

I guess if we are going to consider the loot bags as gambling, we need to consider every other RNG aspect of the game in the same light so long as we have to pay.
No we pay $15 a month for a "service" that is an MMORPG. The IRL cash clearly goes to paying for the service not a specific "randomization" mechanism INSIDE the service. In the case of lock boxes you are paying IRL cash for the Lock box. The rest of my reasoning is above in my responce to CelCawdro. You are making inferences and conflating those with what I actually stated.