Guild Wars 2

Hey guys,

It is legally gambling only if you can cash out. With actual money, not virtual skins.

Since all virtual items in-game are legally owned by Anet, so no, legally these chests are not gambling.

Hm… I dunno if it can be trivialised to always say no this isn’t legally gambling just because the end result isn’t real cash. Also because the game is avalable in more than one country and the very nature of the questions raised are very murky and often without precedents.

I tried googling terms like “rng gambling mmo laws” w/e but it’s quite hard to find definite texts on the subject. I did find this article from 2011 however, which I found interesting. It doesn’t say much about the laws involved but it does indicate that it may not be so easy to always say without a doubt this doesn’t go against anti-gambing laws. At least in South Korea.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/09/22/nexon-ncsoft-refuse-to-fully-cooperate-with-south-korean-mmo-ga/

Again, I just find the situation pertaining to law behind this fascinating.
I think it’s a good discussion to have. Nothing more…

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Black_Lion_Chest

Just to be clear, when you purchase a key to open the BLC, you are guaranteed a return on your investment. There is no gamble (in the sense of the typical win/loss outcome of a traditional gamble) involved.

There is a random component to the outcome, which, truth be told, is the likely desired objective. However, there is no doubt that a player will always be rewarded with some item.

As I argued before, the issue comes with the expectation of the consumer. Poor expectation management is the culprit. And this really is the onus of consumer.

I fully understand the argument that the only way to acquire certain items is via the BLC. However, I think it has to be equally understood that it’s the responsibility of the consumer to acknowledge the likelihood of an undesirable outcome, and that it is their free choice and accept the risk involved.

And as Ursan pointed out, being that the items in question in this discussion have zero transaction value as they’re account bound, and further property of ANet, there is no way to derive any convertible value for these items. A technicality yes, but a very important one with respect to the GRB reference above.

There is no poor expectation management, and – speaking as a lawyer – there are no legal issues involved here. None. Please drop it, it’s futile. Even if it went to court, what would you claim? And how would that weigh up against the cost of litigation? It’s a non-discussion, any way you look at it.

Ursan.7846:

Hey guys,

It is legally gambling only if you can cash out. With actual money, not virtual skins.

Since all virtual items in-game are legally owned by Anet, so no, legally these chests are not gambling.

It is not so simple. In a earlier case where virtual property was stolen from someone in an MMO called Runescape, the judge ruled that virtual goods are equal to actual property.

Now I’m not sure what the EULA of Runescape looks like and whether it states that all items remain property of its publisher, but it could very well be the case. If so, then it could mean that items in GW2 should also be treated as property, which changes the issue. The property then may also represent actual value.

That the key is a guaranteed return on your investment is true, but the same could be said about a lottery ticket. If it’s sole purpose is to engage in gambling, then it really is a means rather than an end. However, you do get guaranteed stuff out of BLTC chests (boosters etc) so there is some return on investment.

Finally, no one is thinking of taking things to a court Buttercup. It’s just a theoretical discussion to which you unfortunately didn’t contribute even though you have a background in law. So please share your insights on why there is no issue rather than state that it’s practically not feasible. Also, be aware that different laws apply to different countries.

Buttercup.5871:

There is no poor expectation management, and – speaking as a lawyer – there are no legal issues involved here. None. Please drop it, it’s futile. Even if it went to court, what would you claim? And how would that weigh up against the cost of litigation? It’s a non-discussion, any way you look at it.

Just out of curiosity, since you said “speaking as a lawyer” – is that to be taken literally, i.e. are you a lawyer with expertise on the subject of virtual goods and online gambling?
If you don’t mind me asking…

I understand of course if you don’t want to disclose personal information.

It’s a good and valid question. No, in fact my specialty lies in criminal law. But in order to get to anything that requires specialized knowlege, you first need to pass some very general, basic hurdles. We’re not even close to getting there in this case. Heck, we’re not even in a “gray” area of the law yet. But let me expand just a tiny bit on the runescape case, cited above. This case was against the backdrop of physical violence against a person. They abused a kid, and threatened him with knives, in order for him to give them his virtual goods (an amulet and a mask). The problem there was, can theft of a virtual good also constitute theft in the sense of article 310 of the Dutch criminal code (which normally deals with physical goods)? In order to answer that question, they needed to know if a virtual good in an MMO could also be interpreted as a physical good, which has value in the real world. Now, while the court found that it did (in that case), that was not the central issue in the case. The central issue was theft.

Now, getting back to fused skins, if you can formulate a proper question that refers to an actual problem, I’ll get back to you. I have seen nothing thus far – including the gambling argument (although only remotely relevant at this stage, let’s not forget you can convert gold to gems) – that comes close to a court case, either of a criminal or civil nature.

The very instance this becomes tradeable, people will complain “WTF?! 300-500g just for a skin?! <insert rant to anet here>”

Virtual property you “own” is not your own personal property, and if you want to accuse Anet of allowing players to “gamble,” you have to legally prove that this virtual property on the account you licensed (Note, I said licensed now owned. We do not own our accounts) is indeed your personal property and has a real-life value tied to them. There is little legal precedence for that though.

The most pertinent part to this is in the User Agreement that you agree when playing the game.

You acknowledge that Gems are digital material with no cash value, that no interest is paid or earned with respect to Gems, that Gems are not personal property

So you agreed that when you bought Gems, they will be purchased with the knowledge that they are not your personal property and that they have no cash value.

On the legal issue though, here’s a pretty interesting article I found.

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_19167421

Some interesting samples of quotes:

For example, online role-playing gamer Geoff Lurrs, a former Blaine resident, was so attached to the virtual coins, jewels and clothing accumulated by his avatar that when he suspected a fellow gamer of stealing them from him in 2008, he tried to file a theft complaint with Blaine police.
Lurrs claimed the virtual items could be sold for about $3,800, but the police decided that game tchotchkes are valueless so no crime occurred.

Kwong wrote in his law review article that virtual items “may look and act like real things, but there is nothing truly real about them.”
“At their core, virtual items are lines of software code that exist within larger computer programs,”

“Many scholars and authors have attempted to paint virtual items or virtual land as a new form of property,” according to Kwong. “To date, no online environment has expressly acknowledged any such right to items within their world and no U.S. court or legislature has recognized a right to virtual-world assets.”

Lastowka said virtual items don’t fit the traditional legal definition of real property like land or a moveable item of personal property, and it’s unlikely that you could make an exclusive claim of ownership to an item created in an online game.

“I think we’ll see a day – it might not be next year, it may be five or 10 years from now – where a court will recognize some form of virtual currency or virtual property as legal property,” Lastowka said.
But Kwong said that for now, when you purchase a virtual item in an online environment, you are really buying a license, not a piece of property. It’s a license to access a certain feature in a particular online environment, he said.

While, again, I believe there is no legal issue involved here, I do have to correct the above poster (ursan) that the Supreme Court of the Netherlands begs to differ with your conclusion. Within the game, they said, you have exclusive decisive powers over the items you have, and since the items had real monetary value to the defendants and the plaintiff, they were goods in the traditional sense of the word. Moreover, I’d like to point out that any contract you sign which contains clauses that are not in line with the law or the case law, those clauses will be declared null and void in any court – for the purposes of determining that case. No contract can change the law, so to say.
However, again, a discussion on whether virtual goods are “goods” in the traditional sense of the word dilutes the issue at hand. Namely, Anet didn’t do anything wrong on the legal front.

Buttercup.5871:

the Supreme Court of the Netherlands begs to differ with your conclusion.

I said “little precedence,” not “no precedence.”

My conclusion is that the majority of the courts in the world hold the view that virtual property is not personal property. Obviously there’s always going to be a few dissenting opinions. Obviously, changes in attitude towards virtual property can cause changes with this train thought in the future. But for now, the “virtual property is personal property” line of argumentation will not fly in the majority of the world.

So if I have a hard disk with detailed schematics of how to make the most efficient petrol processing engine in the world, that’s worth nothing?

Btw, your article refers to talks of the police deciding an issue; in other words, it never went to court. It (2011) also predates the actual Supreme Court case by a year (2012). Moreover, no case law is cited in that article. One professor is alluding to existing case law in the US, although those never made it to a higher court. The other person, Kwong, is someone who “attended college” (ie. a law student), wrote an article in a law review I’ve never heard of, but it was on a hot topic so he got some media attention.

You gotta enlighten me though, “the majority of the world”? Where did you get that from? That article you cited is even talking how the trend at that time in South Korea was going in the direction of virtual property being equated with real property.

Buttercup.5871:

There is no poor expectation management …

Would you mind elaborating a bit more on this, for my own understanding?

Thanks

Buttercup.5871:

So if I have a hard disk with detailed schematics of how to make the most efficient petrol processing engine in the world, that’s worth nothing?

You miss the point. These items are not your property because they are “code.” Anet owns the software and the game is hosted on their servers. The virtual property you “own” on your account are virtual items hosted on their servers. You don’t own your account, you’re licensed to access their system through your account. In the legal world, that is a big difference. Hence any virtual items your account “owns,” you don’t actually own.

Buttercup.5871:

You gotta enlighten me though, “the majority of the world”? Where did you get that from?

To date, no online environment has expressly acknowledged any such right to items within their world

That’s every single gaming company. I’m pretty confident in saying that they have a pretty solid legal basis for the things they do.

Again, this is not to say that this topic may get reformed and such in the future. That is very well possible as online games become more and more popular and governments move to clarify the laws related to these cases. But using the legal definitions and interpretations of today, the accusation that “Anet is allowing users to illegally gamble” will not stick.

I think you’re missing my point, or not reading it entirely. Your claims related to virtual property ownership and court rulings thereon. Now you’re moving to the area where I stated 3 times that, legally, there is no issue. And again, whether or not a company acknowledges a right to a user is, as I explained before, irrelevant. A court ultimately decides what rights you have, based on the law which defines your basic rights – not a company, whatever the contract says.

Buttercup.5871:

A court ultimately decides what rights you have, based on the law which defines your basic rights – not a company, whatever the contract says.

No one is arguing that somehow a company’s contract is somehow above the law.

These companies all built their User Agreements within constraints placed by the law. So again, I am very confident in saying that these companies understand laws relating to this topic very thoroughly.

I have posted about this on other similar topics. I’ll add to the conversation wherever I can because I want ArenaNet to keep their word so I can return to GW2. I have loved this game more than any other in my life, but I have now quit the game. I followed the development of this game and possibly read every blog ArenaNet put out regarding it. I spread so much hype about this game and this company. Several friends bought it just because of my sharing on and on about it. One of the most important aspects to me was ArenaNet’s statements regarding micro-transactions. I will structure this as a formal argument to make it very clear why ArenaNet has acted in a morally reprehensible way and therefore lost my patronage until such time as this such gambling is done away with and an apology issued.

1. ArenaNet stated that micro-transactions would allow players to purchase additional content such as cosmetic and convenience items. Here are quotes to make the meaning of this premise VERY clear.

“If you want something, whether it’s an in-game item or a microtransaction, you ultimately have two ways to get it: you can play to earn gold or you can use money to buy gems. We think that’s important, because it lets more players participate on a level playing field, whether they use their free time or their disposable income to do it.”

—(I’m not positive on the source of this one…ignore it if you have doubts)

“Punch number two is that there’s now an equivalence between time and money. If I’m a player who can play the game a lot and there’s something I want, I don’t need to pay for it. If I’m a player who can’t play the game a lot, but I want things in the game also, I can spend money on microtransactions.”

—ArenaNet President, Mike O’Brien

One really important thing to note is, we don’t ever sell anything in there that makes your character more powerful. That’s really important to us.

We like to do the – we like to call it the Is it Evil? test. Every micro-transaction that we do in the game, we have everyone in the company look at it and say Is it Evil? Is it really something we should be selling?

Generally, the stuff in our store is purely cosmetic; it’s bonus stuff, it’s extra stuff you can get if you want to, but it’s not stuff you have to buy to play the game.

—Colin Johanson

It is now important to carefully examine all of these statements. There is a very clear, common element. ArenaNet stated that player would be able to BUY this additional content. It is stated three different ways above and the meaning of each is certainly that a player can trade real life money (or some amount of gold) for some item. There is no logical way to interject that these words can be taken to imply gambling. This would suggest that ArenaNet stated that players could trade gems for the CHANCE at getting items. This was not stated. One last time: ArenaNet stated that players could GET cosmetic items if they wanted to, via money or a gold equivalent.

2. Fused Weapon Skins (as well as any other RnG or gamble-like prize) bring about a situation where the player can spend real life money (or gold equivalent) in exchange for NOTHING. If one would counter-argue that each chest will offer some rewards, I would reply that this also falls outside the terms of premise 1, in that ArenaNet stated that the player could GET the items that they were willing to trade money for. This gamble forces the player to get undesired items in an attempt to trade for the item he truly wants to purchase. There is no logical way this scenario can be derived from ArenaNet’s statements as I have quoted above. It is also important to note the completeness of ArenaNet’s statements. There is no mention that SOME items will be for purchase and some for a gamble. The clear meaning of ArenaNet’s statements is that ALL micro-transaction items should be obtainable via real life money (or gold equivalent). The conclusion for premise 2 is that in regards to certain items, players are NOT able to trade real life money for a desired micro-transaction purchase.

ArenaNet stated that player could purchase additional content with real life money (or gold equivalent (premise 1). Players are not able to purchase all additional content with real life money (premise 2). Conclusion: ArenaNet lied.

To each his own, but I am not ok with being lied to. I invested in this game specifically because I believed in ArenaNet’s heart and honesty. I got others involved and have been a good and appreciate customer for them. I now regret the thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars I have given to this company. I desperately hope they see the error they have made and publicly apologize. If they are willing to change this behavior, I will gladly rejoin this community and my passionate support for the company.

I agree, ANet is not fulfilling their promises which has left a very bitter taste in my mouth. If things don’t turn around I don’t think I’ll be getting another ANet game on principle.

It doesn’t surprise me that a thread like this would sprout up. A similar thread like this opened up during Halloween and the Karka Event, but they ended up being deleted by a moderator. I’m guessing this thread is still here because the gambling-like nature of these Black Lion Chest seasonal rewards have become more alarming that deleting the thread would cause even more problems on the level of community relations.

I honestly think that if it involves real-life money in any way shape or form (even if in-game money could be used as an alternative), and one has to take a shot for a chance at something, then there’s always the case of using “online gambling” as a basis to it. I’m pretty sure that online gambling can be prohibited in certain locales of the world and an alternative would have to be made for those players who play in those areas.

Personally, I’d like to know my chances. If I buy a lottery ticket, at least the back of the ticket will tell me in fine print “Chances of winning the grand prize is 1:500,000” or something like that. Unfortunately, ArenaNet hasn’t told us what the chances are in getting a Fused Weapon Token.

Another side note someone brought up is a reclassification from the ESRB. For most games, the ESRB generally don’t rate online interactions. My suggestion to that is to email someone in charge of the organization and bring up the act of “gambling” into the argument. I’m pretty sure someone at ArenaNet could freak out if they found out GW2 turned into an M-rated game because the Gem Store encourages gambling. It seems like a far-fetched idea, but I’ve seen some strange stuff before.

@peacemaker, I had to Google up those quotes you mentioned just to be sure they weren’t invented out of thin air since you didn’t link the sources. In the order of your quotes listed, they came from the following links:

• Mike O’Brien on Microtransactions in Guild Wars 2
• ArenaNet president talks microtransactions and the risks of going subscription-free
• Guild Wars 2 Is it Evil? test revealed

It’s interesting to see what kind of visions they had about the Gem Store and compare it to the situation we have now; especially when it comes to the “Is it Evil?” test. Gambling that involves the use of real-life money is usually evil if you ask most religious folks. I’m no bible-thumper (in fact, I’m more of an Athiest if you ask me), but the use of the word “evil” carries a lot of meaning.

First of i just like to say i enjoy buying items of the Gem store when i know what im getting or there is a FARE change to getting said item. I have brought many Gems far too many to list here and i don’t mind gambling with my RL money/gold on lottery rewards every now and then if i feel the chances are good.

But I’m sick of this crap now! this style of business practices Anet is using to screw its customers out of money It’s immoral and downright disgraceful.

To say you have a RARE change of get a said item from a cash shop lottery without clearly stating the change of get that said item is not right. I mean what dose RARE even mean? are we talking 10%, 1% what are, are chances here? Well let be honest here it’s more likely to be 0.00000001% and this is why the percentage are not openly told to us. Using terms such as “a rare change” is far too of a bought statement to be interpreted correctly and that why they use it. it’s then are fault if we interpret the information we are giving incorrectly not Anets their backs are covered.

So why dose Anet feeling this is a fair and just way of giving a costumer a fair chance in an item? Of the top of my head i can name three other FREE online rpgs that have cash shop which also sell lottery box’s with different items in them. The difference here is each and EVER items available in these box’s has a percentage chance to win each item listed and available for their paying costumer to see before buying them.

So my question to you is if these other games can do it and sell their lottery box’s without any trouble. Why can’t Anet do the same?

just in case you where wonder what i was talking about here is an example of how spiral knight RPG dose its biasness this information is send to you in game and is also found on the forum room posted up by admin a list of each items and more importantly the percentage change of them dropping.

Items and Odds

70% for one of the following:
- Green Antique Bench
- Purple Antique Bench
- Purple Antique Chair
- Green Antique Chair
- Antique Table
- Antique Bookcase
- Moldy Tome Stack
- Musty Tome Stack
- Antique Luggage
- Antique Suitcases
- Skull Pile
- Bone Stack
28% for one of the following:
- Ancient Tome Stand
- Orange Tall Gaslamp
- Orange Short Gaslamp
- Blue Tall Gaslamp
- Blue Short Gaslamp
- Green Tall Gaslamp
- Green Short Gaslamp
- Purple Tall Gaslamp
- Purple Short Gaslamp
2% for one of the following:
- Cursed Tome Stand
- Mystical Tome Stand
- Curious Mewkat
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Winterfest Prize Box Items and Odds

62% for one of the following:
- Snow Block (a furnishing perfect for building snow forts)
- Crest of Winter accessory
- Red Holiday Presents (furnishing)
- Green Holiday Presents (furnishing)
- White Holiday Presents (furnishing)

21% for one of the following:
- Red Candles (furnishing)
- Green Candles (furnishing)
- White Candles (furnishing)

15% for one of the following:
- Red Winterfest Tree (furnishing)
- Green Winterfest Tree (furnishing)
- White Winterfest Tree (furnishing)
- Snowfall Aura accessory
- Crown of Winter accessory

So why i ask you dose Anet not list its percentage change freely to see i can not be sure but I’m guessing it due to how low the percentage chance are which if this is the case they should be ashamed of themselves.

I for one want them to change the way they handle lottery box’s by list the percentage chance of get each item. I believe this would quickly silence most of their critics, unless they are too afraid to let their paying customers know just how low your chances really are.

Ursan.7846:

You miss the point. These items are not your property because they are “code.” Anet owns the software and the game is hosted on their servers. The virtual property you “own” on your account are virtual items hosted on their servers. You don’t own your account, you’re licensed to access their system through your account. In the legal world, that is a big difference. Hence any virtual items your account “owns,” you don’t actually own.

Ursan, I’m just gonna quote you here and provide you a link to the material which led the Dutch the Supreme Court to its conclusion.

http://jure.nl/ecli:nl:hr:2012:bq9251

It’s in Dutch, but translate it using google translate or something.

They were very aware of the attention this case was getting from abroad (which is even stated), so the reasoning was very extensive.

To your argument regarding ultimate ownership of virtual items by the mmo company (and that of the defense, one of the best paid lawyers in Europe), the court made the analogy that your passport isn’t yours either (it’s property of the state), but it can certainly be stolen, the act of which constitutes theft.

peacemaker.5634:

I have posted about this on other similar topics. I’ll add to the conversation wherever I can because I want ArenaNet to keep their word so I can return to GW2. I have loved this game more than any other in my life, but I have now quit the game. I followed the development of this game and possibly read every blog ArenaNet put out regarding it. I spread so much hype about this game and this company. Several friends bought it just because of my sharing on and on about it. One of the most important aspects to me was ArenaNet’s statements regarding micro-transactions. I will structure this as a formal argument to make it very clear why ArenaNet has acted in a morally reprehensible and therefore lost my patronage until such time as this such gambling is done away with and an apology issued.

Fantastic post, good sir.

Thanks for the support, guys.

grayskull, you are right in that it would be better if there was information available regarding the chances to get the items, but this would not get ArenaNet off the hook as far as carrying out the business dishonestly. To keep true to their word, players must be able to purchase items, not just gamble on them and possibly win. To that end, there is an obvious solution that should work. They could guarantee the item will drop from a chest at a certain cap, let’s say even 100. In other words, you get a weapon skin ticket buy purchasing 100 keys (and then opening 100 chests), and there is a slight chance of getting it early or getting more than one along the way. On this model, the most unlucky people could get a skin for every 100 chests and luckier people will get several additional tickets along the way. This should help justify a high price on the ticket (the purchase of 100 chests), since you get other rewards and a chance at extra desired weapon skins (or just getting them for much cheaper…say 1st chest you open). This makes gambling secondary to the actual agreement – that the player spends a certain amount of money in return for a certain product. I would gladly keep earning in game gold to trade for gems as well and buy whatever gems I can afford in order to keep trying for the weapon skin until I get it at 100 chests opened. That would possibly be $100 per skin, but at least it is honest.

^ It would be nice if it scaled on failed attempts like that, I don’t know if it’s possible. It’s still dirty in my eyes, but less dirty. 10% base chance, 1% chance each failed attempt. 10 failed attempts, 20% chance. When you get a ticket it reverts back to original percentage. Obviously they can add whatever original percentage and scaling percentage, but following the same guidelines.

TheAngryLuddite.1834:

I mean, let’s be honest. I love this game. Why else would I keep playing it?

(Besides addiction – those dailies sure have worked a number on me)

But seriously. I’ve been a strong proponent of Guild Wars 2 from the start, and that won’t change any time soon, despite the little paper wings I give my little digital dollar bills, as I abandon them to Abaddon’s Maw (see: the TP).

It actually reminds me a bit of Facebook. You know how everyone loves to hate on Facebook (but keeps using it anyway, warning everyone they’re going to delete their account a bunch of times, instead of actually doing so)?

Well, every time Facebook changes their design, or adds some shady new privacy feature (or lack thereof), there’s a mass rumbling, threatening a mass exodus. And what happens?

Not much. A few groups pop up (which is a deprecated feature in Facebook, actually – tinfoil hat material, that) boycotting it. A few websites publish angry articles (often Gawker – at least, back in the day). And then, people forget. The fifteen minutes of fame and anger have passed, and the internet is off searching for the next big shame pinata.

Pretty similar here, I think.

Before long we’ll forget how bad the drop rates were for Fused weapons (until the next chest-skin-drop event, where we need to reference past chest-skin-drop events), and will find something else to complain about.

And to some things, the team will (graciously) listen. To some things, they won’t.

That, as a consumer, is our lot in life.

And, as Good Riddance reminds, “Just learn to be a good consumer – you’re now a number, you’ve no longer got a face.”

Seriously though. Kittens and fluffy bits of fur aside, great game. Love it.

My luck with RNG? Not so much…

tl;dr: Drugs are bad, Beer is Great, RNG is Bad (except when it’s good).

Your post perfectly describe and answer me why this kind of gambling RNG new items are kept released as much thousand posts was calling this company greedy, a shame, etc. Instead of quit and log once in a month at best (as i did , pretty disgusted), most of them is perfectly online. And keeps posting their disgust, lol
So far, Anet saw (and perfectly know) how thing works: your post explained it perfectly. A sheep will remain a sheep. It will never learn to drive a car

There is one element to rng that is by some overlooked. I do not think a solution lies in somehow capping the max number of keys required or any such mechanic. (1) You cannot cap it at a hundred keys because that would guarantee ‘rich’ people to obtain the item solely (i mean: they are the only ones that are GUARANTEED to get the item).(2) But you also cannot simply sell them (‘cap them at 10’), for I guess arena.net wants to keep them really rare. So the question is: how, through a rng mechanic, can you still keep items rare without getting the fuss we are now seeing?

A possible solution would be the following.. Cap the number of items you can buy per day/week/total that give you a chance of getting an item. In this way people wanting to spend a lot of money will not spend way to much (you protect them from themselves, and to this arena.net is morally obliged in my opinion) while still allowing other players ‘to take chance’. The nature of rng is that there simply is no guarantee you get the item. If you do it like this, the gambling can remain fun and remains transparant with respect to the fact that quite possibly, you will not get anything.

This ofc only applies to rng ‘events’, not to permanent rng-gambling mechanics.

it’s like APB : Reloaded from Gamerfirst, you buy Joker Boxes and have a tiny tiny chance to get a rare (and overpowered) weapon.
You also get powerful weapons. But at least it’s permanent.

Also, note that this game is mainly Pay 2 Win unlike Guild Wars 2 but still the system with the shop is quite similar.

The solution would be for arena net to provide its customers the probabilities of winning the lottery. In addition; they should educate their audience about how statistics and probabilities work.

You may not be able to see this but; I’m actually laughing out loud.

The ‘gamble’ is that there are no published odds as to the relative outcomes, so you have no way of knowing what risk you are taking and what the possible ‘reward’ might be as a result of you partaking of the gamble box known as the black lion chest. In other words it’s a ‘blind punt’, i.e. a complete gamble with no way of knowing the outcome.

Many countries would consider that gambling, on which they have fairly strict views.

Rising Dusk.2408:

I would sacrifice gold to the TP taxes to acquire Fused weapon skins, I would spend gems in the gem store if they were listed like Wintersday weapons, but I will not purchase keys for an RNG chance to acquire them. If I am spending my money on something, I’ll spend it on something I know I am getting.

This, as I’ve stated before IMHO this gambling box system is unethical.

I would gladly use gems to buy an armor or weapon skin, but I do not wish to gamble my gems away on chance.

I have to wonder if people would be so quick to say “I’d buy it if it were on sale” if the gem asking price were say 7,500 gems per ticket? Because that’s proably a bit BELOW the average amount ANet is making on these.

Nike.2631:

I have to wonder if people would be so quick to say “I’d buy it if it were on sale” if the gem asking price were say 7,500 gems per ticket? Because that’s proably a bit BELOW the average amount ANet is making on these.

7,500 gems for a weapon skin is absurd and the developers would be flamed on the forums. The moderators wouldn’t be able to keep up with deleting posts.

Making it random and not posting the drop chance tends to work better. Especially on people who don’t understand statistics. Remember, the game is rated T for teen.

How many teenagers do you know are studying statistics?

I bought keys, both with G and with real currency. I’m sadden by the extremely low drop chance on the tickets. I realistically assumed if i bought a stack of chests and a stack of keys i’d be kitten certain to get one, but that’s simply not the case. Luxury item or not, that’s a lot of bucks to shell out for a skin that only has a very slight chance to drop. Basically disproving any faith i might have had in the system of these chests. This is gambling really in every sense of the word and it’s definitely not something i want to be doing with my money.

John Smith.4610:

A durable good is a good that isn’t destroyed on use, Weapon Skins are closer to luxury goods I believe.

luxury goods should be random to get ?
weapon skin, armor skin = fashion

so i guess if i want a new t-shirt or a new pants to look cool i need to gamble in the store ?
yeah let me buy 50 tickets and see if i can get the t shirt i want
oh i didnt get it but i spent 100 bucks on the tickets …. well i guess i wont buy in your store anymore

It’s amazing to me with with all of the threads about this and all the people posting on them that aNet isn’t responding. ArenaNet, you lied about your ethical approach to micro-transactions. You owe us an apology.

peacemaker.5634:

It’s amazing to me with with all of the threads about this and all the people posting on them that aNet isn’t responding. ArenaNet, you lied about your ethical approach to micro-transactions. You owe us an apology.

It…Amazes me that people would demand an apology for this.

Going back to your previous post and reading the quotes from Anet, Anet has not lied at all.

1. Anet is saying that you can purchase things with either real money or in-game gold. Not a lie.
2. Anet is again, saying that you can purchase things with either real money (Time spent outside the game) or in-game gold (time spent inside the game). Again, Anet is not lying.
3. Anet is saying all micro-transaction items are purely cosmetic/bonus stuff. Which…Is again, true. They’re not lying. Fused Skins are purely cosmetic.

Feel free to twist their words and get angry at your own interpretation of what they said. But just going by what they said, no, they definitely did not lie. Using real money or with in-game money, you are purchasing the same chance at getting these Fused Skins. What you’re having a problem is that you are purchasing a chance, instead of a guarenteed item. But no where does Anet mentions this, and the first portion (real money vs in-game gold) is what the quotes you provided mainly touches upon.

Ursan.7846:

Feel free to twist their words and get angry at your own interpretation of what they said. But just going by what they said, no, they definitely did not lie. Using real money or with in-game money, you are purchasing the same chance at getting these Fused Skins. What you’re having a problem is that you are purchasing a chance, instead of a guarenteed item. But no where does Anet mentions this, and the first portion (real money vs in-game gold) is what the quotes you provided mainly touches upon.

It’s a shame that you can rationalize in your mind what you have stated. Let me try to make it more clear. If you WANT a THING, you can GET the THING, by PURCHASING that THING. You do not find the word CHANCE in that statement. If you did, you would be presenting a different model: If you WANT a THING, you MIGHT GET the THING by PURCHASING a CHANGE at getting that THING. ArenaNet probably uses this same kind of mental gymnastics to justify their behavior.

peacemaker.5634:

It’s a shame that you can rationalize in your mind what you have stated. Let me try to make it more clear. If you WANT a THING, you can GET the THING, by PURCHASING that THING. You do not find the word CHANCE in that statement. If you did, you would be presenting a different model: If you WANT a THING, you MIGHT GET the THING by PURCHASING a CHANGE at getting that THING. ArenaNet probably uses this same kind of mental gymnastics to justify their behavior.

Sure. This still doesn’t mean they “lied” like you try to claim in your original post.

It’s okay to not like the gambling nature of these boxes. I don’t like them myself. However, going around demanding apologies because they “Lied” in your mind is exceeding silly. Because they didn’t.

For the record, I love the RNG nature of certain items in game. It keeps super rare items “rare”, because there’s no guaranteed way to get them. And if it’s super rare, it’s more desirable, thus more status in having it.

Right now, there’s a lot of people with Twilight. At first, it was awesome to see. But when you see it so often, on so many different players, it loses it’s “awe” factor. It’s making me change my mind about having a Precursor Scavenger Hunt.

Ursan.7846:

peacemaker.5634:

It’s amazing to me with with all of the threads about this and all the people posting on them that aNet isn’t responding. ArenaNet, you lied about your ethical approach to micro-transactions. You owe us an apology.

It…Amazes me that people would demand an apology for this.

Going back to your previous post and reading the quotes from Anet, Anet has not lied at all.

1. Anet is saying that you can purchase things with either real money or in-game gold. Not a lie.
2. Anet is again, saying that you can purchase things with either real money (Time spent outside the game) or in-game gold (time spent inside the game). Again, Anet is not lying.
3. Anet is saying all micro-transaction items are purely cosmetic/bonus stuff. Which…Is again, true. They’re not lying. Fused Skins are purely cosmetic.

Feel free to twist their words and get angry at your own interpretation of what they said. But just going by what they said, no, they definitely did not lie. Using real money or with in-game money, you are purchasing the same chance at getting these Fused Skins. What you’re having a problem is that you are purchasing a chance, instead of a guarenteed item. But no where does Anet mentions this, and the first portion (real money vs in-game gold) is what the quotes you provided mainly touches upon.

I think you dont get it and you need to open your fan boy eyes……
fused items is pure comestic but is it fair for people who dedicate hours and hours of play and cant buy the skins they want
is it fair when people have to spend real money (in game money) to get “a” chance for the skins?
if they keep this policy its bye bye for me i wont support this game anymore

Delusion.6854:

I think you dont get it and you need to open your fan boy eyes……
fused items is pure comestic but is it fair for people who dedicate hours and hours of play and cant buy the skins they want
is it fair when people have to spend real money (in game money) to get “a” chance for the skins?
if they keep this policy its bye bye for me i wont support this game anymore

Seems completely fair.

Play 1 hour a week or play 80+ hours a week, use cash, or use gold – acquire a key, same chance.

Don’t see how having abundant time to “dedicate” to the game equates to more entitlement to the items than does disposable income to “dedicate” to the game.

Delusion.6854:

I think you dont get it and you need to open your fan boy eyes……
fused items is pure comestic but is it fair for people who dedicate hours and hours of play and cant buy the skins they want
is it fair when people have to spend real money (in game money) to get “a” chance for the skins?
if they keep this policy its bye bye for me i wont support this game anymore

Whooooooooooosh.

That is the sound of you completely missing the point of my post.

I don’t care if you like/dislike gambling. As I’ve stated before, I don’t like it either, which if why I choose not to support it.

However, by quoting Anet 3 times and trying to claim they lied? Completely and utterly silly, especially when quotes 1/2 talks about the ability for in-game gold/real money to purchase the same things and quote 3 talks about how whatever you get in the gem store are cosmetic/bonuses. All of which are true.

Mourningcry.9428:

Delusion.6854:

I think you dont get it and you need to open your fan boy eyes……
fused items is pure comestic but is it fair for people who dedicate hours and hours of play and cant buy the skins they want
is it fair when people have to spend real money (in game money) to get “a” chance for the skins?
if they keep this policy its bye bye for me i wont support this game anymore

Seems completely fair.

Play 1 hour a week or play 80+ hours a week, use cash, or use gold – acquire a key, same chance.

Don’t see how having abundant time to “dedicate” to the game equates to more entitlement to the items than does disposable income to “dedicate” to the game.

example:
some players came back after some month for SAB only , got some keys left , used them and got skins
players who spend time everyday and try to get the skins but cant
yeah that’s fair you’re right

Well, they are for sure making money off me… I’ve spent more than 3 years of WoW sub fees in the gem shop since release. All really based off the assumption that i get what i pay for. Sad really, i want to support this game too.

The tickets should be tradable IMHO, this way i can buy it on the TP for gems i traded for G, win win. They way they cripple players earnings in this game is laughable.

Delusion.6854:

Mourningcry.9428:

Seems completely fair.

Play 1 hour a week or play 80+ hours a week, use cash, or use gold – acquire a key, same chance.

Don’t see how having abundant time to “dedicate” to the game equates to more entitlement to the items than does disposable income to “dedicate” to the game.

example:
some players came back after some month for SAB only , got some keys left , used them and got skins
players who spend time everyday and try to get the skins but cant
yeah that’s fair you’re right

I would consider that unfortunate.

But still perfectly fair.

What it seems you’re trying to argue is there should be some sort of credit, or priority given for time spent in game, no? Well, fine, suppose there should be. I ask you how are you going to define “time in game”? What in game actions are more deserving than others? WvW, PvP, Dungeons, TP, crafting. Doesn’t matter, all equal? So, just logging in? How about AFKers? At least make an attempt to provide a “fair” metric.

In fact, spending time in game inherently gives you an advantage over those who don’t – gold. That means, not only do you get to enjoy playing the game, but by using pure in game funds, you don’t have to use cash to have at chance at those items. Now, if you spent the gold elsewhere, well, that’s another matter. Where as infrequent players either have to use previously earned gold, or spend cash.

So, yes. The current system seems pretty fair.

Mourningcry.9428:

Delusion.6854:

Mourningcry.9428:

Seems completely fair.

Play 1 hour a week or play 80+ hours a week, use cash, or use gold – acquire a key, same chance.

Don’t see how having abundant time to “dedicate” to the game equates to more entitlement to the items than does disposable income to “dedicate” to the game.

example:
some players came back after some month for SAB only , got some keys left , used them and got skins
players who spend time everyday and try to get the skins but cant
yeah that’s fair you’re right

I would consider that unfortunate.

But still perfectly fair.

What it seems you’re trying to argue is there should be some sort of credit, or priority given for time spent in game, no? Well, fine, suppose there should be. I ask you how are you going to define “time in game”? What in game actions are more deserving than others? WvW, PvP, Dungeons, TP, crafting. Doesn’t matter, all equal? So, just logging in? How about AFKers? At least make an attempt to provide a “fair” metric.

In fact, spending time in game inherently gives you an advantage over those who don’t – gold. That means, not only do you get to enjoy playing the game, but by using pure in game funds, you don’t have to use cash to have at chance at those items. Now, if you spent the gold elsewhere, well, that’s another matter. Where as infrequent players either have to use previously earned gold, or spend cash.

So, yes. The current system seems pretty fair.

i’m not saying people who spend time in game should have a reward
they added new skins wich is nice but randomly?? seriously??
they just reward players who have luck
by doing this of course a lot of players will try to buy keys and pray to get the skins they want
one player could spend 100 bucks and get nothing while another would spend 10 bucks and get the skin
is it still fair?
its a greedy move and i wont support this

Delusion.6854:

i’m not saying people who spend time in game should have a reward

No, that is exactly what you were arguing up until this point. Otherwise, your example would have been more along the lines of :

“Two players play the game everyday, for four hours a day. One player spends $100 on gems and doesn’t get a skin, the other player spends $10 and gets one. Fair?”

Changing the basis of your arguement, claiming not to, and expecting not to be called out on it, is just arrogant. At least be consistent.

Delusion.6854:

they added new skins wich is nice but randomly?? seriously??
they just reward players who have luck
by doing this of course a lot of players will try to buy keys and pray to get the skins they want
one player could spend 100 bucks and get nothing while another would spend 10 bucks and get the skin
is it still fair?
its a greedy move and i wont support this

That being said, your new argument is really against RNG. Plenty of those threads exist, and even posts in this one. I don’t think you’ll find too many people liking it being the only method. But it is a very fair and indiscriminate method.

So, fair? Yes. Favorable? Not in my opinion.

Mourningcry.9428:

Delusion.6854:

i’m not saying people who spend time in game should have a reward

No, that is exactly what you were arguing up until this point. Otherwise, your example would have been more along the lines of :

“Two players play the game everyday, for four hours a day. One player spends $100 on gems and doesn’t get a skin, the other player spends $10 and gets one. Fair?”

Changing the basis of your arguement, claiming not to, and expecting not to be called out on it, is just arrogant. At least be consistent.

Delusion.6854:

they added new skins wich is nice but randomly?? seriously??
they just reward players who have luck
by doing this of course a lot of players will try to buy keys and pray to get the skins they want
one player could spend 100 bucks and get nothing while another would spend 10 bucks and get the skin
is it still fair?
its a greedy move and i wont support this

That being said, your new argument is really against RNG. Plenty of those threads exist, and even posts in this one. I don’t think you’ll find too many people liking it being the only method. But it is a very fair and indiscriminate method.

So, fair? Yes. Favorable? Not in my opinion.

You use words that you dont even understand the meaning where is my arrogance here?
dont twist my words around
for players who spend time and players who play occasionally , they should treat them the same way
explain how its fair and what is indiscriminate method is?

Delusion.6854:

dont twist my words around

Are the below not your posts explicitly mentioned game time and dedication?

Here-

……
fused items is pure comestic but is it fair for people who dedicate hours and hours of play and cant buy the skins they want
…

and here-

example:
some players came back after some month for SAB only , got some keys left , used them and got skins
players who spend time everyday and try to get the skins but cant
yeah that’s fair you’re right

Not until your penultimate post do you discard the argument of play time, and instead talk about random distribution.

Next, out of the blue, you propose-

for players who spend time and players who play occasionally , they should treat them the same way
explain how its fair and what is indiscriminate method is?

Which, I explicity stated earlier-

Seems completely fair.

Play 1 hour a week or play 80+ hours a week, use cash, or use gold – acquire a key, same chance.

Don’t see how having abundant time to “dedicate” to the game equates to more entitlement to the items than does disposable income to “dedicate” to the game.

To which you responded with examples of infrequent players apparently getting better results than frequent players?

Delusion.6854:

example:
some players came back after some month for SAB only , got some keys left , used them and got skins
players who spend time everyday and try to get the skins but cant
yeah that’s fair you’re right

Unless I’m misreading, your bias is that the frequent players should be shown some prefrential treatment.

Further, RNG is completely indiscriminate in the way it assigns loot as each event is an independent event. It doesn’t take into account any previous history (as far I understand the mechanics).