Guild Wars 2

Calae.1738:

Usually, when I walk into a store and want to buy something; I exchange my money for what I want to buy.

Why is it that they design a system that makes the customer roll dice for a chance to get what they want? The store keeps our money even if we don’t get what we want.

Why would anyone want to shop in this store?

Because customers are foolish enough to think that the odds will magically be in their favor.

Once people see that this gambling is an issue, they’ll stop gambling, and ANet will have to find something else to make money that doesn’t involve RNG.

FourthVariety.5463:

European GW2 Servers are in Germany:

Relevant Legal Passage #1

Legal Text
§ 3 Abs. 1 des Glücksspielstaatsvertrages (GlüStV)
Ein Glücksspiel liegt vor, wenn im Rahmen eines Spiels für den Erwerb einer Gewinnchance ein Entgelt verlangt wird und die Entscheidung über den Gewinn ganz oder überwiegend vom Zufall abhängt.

English Translation:
Gambling is defined when money is being charged for the chance to win something and the decision over what is won being subject to a totally or partially randomized process.

Google translate gives me something slightly different, but I won’t argue the point as legal interpretation is an area where lawyers make their money. Where the BLCs may fall short of this definition is that money is not always being charged to open them. You can obtain keys in-game, or use in-game gold to buy them, so strictly speaking, money is not required to take part.

FourthVariety.5463:

European GW2 Servers are in Germany:

Relevant Legal Passage #1

Legal Text
§ 3 Abs. 1 des Glücksspielstaatsvertrages (GlüStV)
Ein Glücksspiel liegt vor, wenn im Rahmen eines Spiels für den Erwerb einer Gewinnchance ein Entgelt verlangt wird und die Entscheidung über den Gewinn ganz oder überwiegend vom Zufall abhängt.

English Translation:
Gambling is defined when money is being charged for the chance to win something and the decision over what is won being subject to a totally or partially randomized process.

Important Detail:
It does not matter if the thing you win has any value. In the eyes of the German law gambling happens when access is being sold, not when earnings are given back to the gambler. This is to accommodate certain local varieties of gambling under this law and how the one armed bandit industry killed arcades at the height of their popularity.

Relevant Legal Passage #2

§ 284 StGB
(1) Wer ohne behördliche Erlaubnis öffentlich ein Glücksspiel veranstaltet oder hält oder die Einrichtungen hierzu bereitstellt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu zwei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

English Translation
Anybody operating or providing a venue for gambling without license shall be punished with two years in prison or a fine.

No, you cannot simply get a license. The EU has criticized Germany for its strict way of clinging to all gambling being a state-run monopoly. But apart from loophole remnants originating in former East Germany, there is little to no chance of getting a gambling license. If you are an NGO, such as the Red Cross, you might get the right to operate a lottery booth at the Oktoberfest, but that is about the extend of leeway you can expect.

As long as nobody sues you, chances are good you will remain under the radar, but it is not a good situation.

There’s a term I’ve heard before. It’s called Armchair Quarterback. It means that someone thinks they are an expert because they watch football (real football, not soccer) every Sunday from their chair.

Now to take what legal background I have, I’ll negate your arguments with one sentence:

Black Lion Chests and BL Keys don’t require money

It will crack me up without end if someone wins their gambling argument legally – and ANet just pulls the whole game from that country as being too much of a pain in the rump to bother doing business there at all.

Nike.2631:

It will crack me up without end if someone wins their gambling argument legally – and ANet just pulls the whole game from that country as being too much of a pain in the rump to bother doing business there at all.

That’s exactly what I was thinking….

Would be all too funny if they just said: “We’re sorry to inform those people that would like to play Guild Wars 2 in <insert country name>, but we are unable to legally sell, or allow you to play, our game in <country name>. All IP addresses originating from <country name> will not be supported, will be tracked and those accounts banned. Thank you for your understanding.”

The good thing is that they wouldn’t be able to complain on the forums though…because their account would be banned. A few less complainers wouldn’t hurt the game, or the community.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

There’s a term I’ve heard before. It’s called Armchair Quarterback. It means that someone thinks they are an expert because they watch football (real football, not soccer) every Sunday from their chair.

No, what you mean is american football. What you call soccer is what the rest of the world calls football.

Ooshi.8607:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

There’s a term I’ve heard before. It’s called Armchair Quarterback. It means that someone thinks they are an expert because they watch football (real football, not soccer) every Sunday from their chair.

No, what you mean is american football. What you call soccer is what the rest of the world calls football.

I prefer to classify them all as types of football. There’s soccer football, rugby football, and American football.

I’m Australian, for the record.

The entire topic came to my attention after I recently made a video about Black Lion Key Speedruns and a lawyer friend brought it up after I told him how the keys work. I found this thread afterwards.

Talk to my armchair all you want, I provided the legal text in question for further reference.

Ooshi.8607:

No, what you mean is american football. What you call soccer is what the rest of the world calls football.

American football is the only football. Besides, I think we invented soccer in the 1800’s (like baseball, basketball, football, and golf), so I’m not sure why everyone else wants to call it “football”.

FourthVariety.5463:

The entire topic came to my attention after I recently made a video about Black Lion Key Speedruns and a lawyer friend brought it up after I told him how the keys work. I found this thread afterwards.

Talk to my armchair all you want, I provided the legal text in question for further reference.

No problem. You’re free to make claims, just like the rest of us. But when you do, it becomes open for debate. I simply ended the debate quickly.

To sum up and kill of the quasi legal debate here.

1. In-game, virtual goods, can be considered goods in the traditional sense of the words, even if the gaming company is the ultimate owner of that good (see my last post on page 3 of this thread) – this is similar to the state owning your passport. Your passport is a good that can be stolen, despite ultimate ownership by the state, because you have exclusive “user control” over.
Another key component to whether a virtual good can be considered a good in the traditional sense of the word is that it has monetary value to the persons playing it. Whether the user agreement specifies that in-game items have no real life value is irrelevant in this context.

2. Acquiring fused weapons through BL chests cannot be labelled online gambling, because you can buy the necessary keys to open those chests with in-game money, acquired through in-game means. Other than that, the monetary value of the keys do not meet most national thresholds (ie. how much $$ would you need for 1 ticket) to receive the label of “online gambling”. I see that one player quoted what gambling is; however, he failed to include the other provisions on gambling. As a result, we’ll all filling our prisons with old ladies that tried to organize a community raffle (1st prize: a gin rummy card deck! wohoo, bring it on!). Also note that the enforcement of gambling in most European countries is practically non-existent. The Netherlands is a good example; legally speaking, only 1 casino has the right to operate (“Holland Casino”) because they’re the only one who was granted a permit to do so. Nonentheless, I can assure you that Holland Casino is not the only casino to operate in the Netherlands; other casinos have done so for years, and they are able to operate publicly. Enforcement against online gambling has been dependent on law suits by the permit holder (I believe until now, only 1 company received such a permit), arguing that their business is harmed by the competitor that holds no permit.

3. Anet doesn’t spam you with adds to use money to buy keys. Anet doesn’t add an incentive to use real life money over in-game money to get the necessary keys, either.

In other words: the responsiblity is on you. The odds are against you, and you know it. So act accordingly.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

No problem. You’re free to make claims, just like the rest of us. But when you do, it becomes open for debate. I simply ended the debate quickly.

You claimed “Black Lion Chests and BL Keys don’t require money” invalidated my legal passage quotes.

Even if money is but one option among many to participate, the German’s law of seeing it still applies. Money does not have to be the only option of participation before something is labeled gambling. Else one could “legalize” every gambling game by handing out a few invitational spots, or by staking players in the game in exchange for something else.

If you refer to gemstones being technically the currency of exchange, then rest assured, your private casino will not be legal because you made your own pokerchips and have people play with them instead of real money..

FourthVariety.5463:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

No problem. You’re free to make claims, just like the rest of us. But when you do, it becomes open for debate. I simply ended the debate quickly.

You claimed “Black Lion Chests and BL Keys don’t require money” invalidated my legal passage quotes.

Even if money is but one option among many to participate, the German’s law of seeing it still applies. Money does not have to be the only option of participation before something is labeled gambling. Else one could “legalize” every gambling game by handing out a few invitational spots, or by staking players in the game in exchange for something else.

If you refer to gemstones being technically the currency of exchange, then rest assured, your private casino will not be legal because you made your own pokerchips and have people play with them instead of real money..

I’m not an expert on EU law, but I’m certain you have no specialized knowledge in that area either. However, Anet’s cadre of lawyers that everything like this passes through are experts in that regard.

Essentially, the Black Lion Chests are less gambling than McDonald’s Monopoly game, or any other fast food restaurant contest. Those contests aren’t gambling because there is no purchase necessary to win. If you send a self-addressed stamped envelop to the proper address, they’ll send you a game piece for free. In Guild Wars 2 you can create a new character and do the first section of their personal story to nab a free key, no purchase necessary.

Syeria.4812:

I’m not an expert on EU law, but I’m certain you have no specialized knowledge in that area either. However, Anet’s cadre of lawyers that everything like this passes through are experts in that regard.

Essentially, the Black Lion Chests are less gambling than McDonald’s Monopoly game, or any other fast food restaurant contest. Those contests aren’t gambling because there is no purchase necessary to win. If you send a self-addressed stamped envelop to the proper address, they’ll send you a game piece for free. In Guild Wars 2 you can create a new character and do the first section of their personal story to nab a free key, no purchase necessary.

Actually it’s a little different – you will always get something from a BLC, it just may not be what you wanted to get from it.You aren’t paying for a chance to win something, you’re paying for a box with unknown contents that has a chance of having something rare in it, but will never be empty. It’s more like the folks that bid on abandoned shipping containers without knowing their contents. They’re gambling that there’s something in there that will be worth more than they paid for it, but they aren’t legally engaged in a game of chance… Well at least I don’t think so here in my Groklaw armchair. The law is never clear until it has been tried in court.

^this^

Which doesn’t change the fact that no matter how many people complain about the mechanic and thinks it’s a poor one, they continue to use it. Which basically tells me that it’s a big seller and it caters to a poor population of gamers wanting to win it big. In this case, getting one of those skins won’t do anything for your wallet anyway. It’s sad really.

Regardless of the legalities, mystery boxes like this are on shaky ethical ground. At the very least, they’re a dishonest business practice. We aren’t informed of the actual chance that any given item might drop; we’re just told that the most desirable, limited-time items are “rare.” How rare is rare? The only way to find out is for a whole bunch of people to blow money on these purchases and collect the results amongst themselves.

And while most of us are adults with freedom of choice, mystery boxes are a conscious choice on a company’s part to make money off of a more vulnerable portion of its customer base. That a company chooses to take advantage of a small number of large purchases by compulsive personalities rather than a larger number of small purchases by ordinary customers is frankly distasteful.

Sure, ArenaNet can say, “Oh, games of chance are fun, and we don’t expect you to buy more than a few keys to see if you happen to pull a Weapon Ticket,” but that’s frankly dishonest. Anybody who is a professional with a background in free-to-play gaming and game-related purchases knows that the bulk of these kinds of purchases are from a small number of “whales.” Adding the gambling element into things just makes it worse, targeting people who are either ignorant mathematically or have a pre-existing tendency towards gambling/compulsive spending. This is especially true when consumers don’t have all the information they need to make an educated purchase, i.e. knowing the precentage chance that they’ll get the item they actually desire.

Those of us who aren’t vulnerable to this kind of sales pitch aren’t spending any actual money on it. We just get grumpy because there’s cool stuff that we can’t buy even if we want to do so. Those who are vulnerable to the sales pitch and spend too much money obtaining the item lose whether or not they finally get lucky and get it. Either way, it’s a shady deal that leads to more grumpy customers than happy ones. What makes me sad is that whoever is making the decision to put these limited-time skins in the Mystery Boxes doesn’t seem to care.

SwashbucklerXX.4328:

Regardless of the legalities, mystery boxes like this are on shaky ethical ground. …
…

…

Those who are vulnerable to the sales pitch and spend too much money obtaining the item lose whether or not they finally get lucky and get it. Either way, it’s a shady deal that leads to more grumpy customers than happy ones. What makes me sad is that whoever is making the decision to put these limited-time skins in the Mystery Boxes doesn’t seem to care.

If some users are truely that injured, or are otherwise incapable of making rational decisions regarding how they approach their online gaming practices, perhaps coming to these forums is the wrong solution.

If their condition is as serious as you propose, might I suggest

Edit: link to behavioral disorder treatment website of choice

I only say that half jokingly. I would hope that anyone complaining about how much they “lost” trying to get a BLC item really is doing so more out of disappointment, rather than from a position of destitution from acting so.

I can’t speak for some of the other posters here, but when I lay into someone for complaining and blaming a system for their poor dicision making, I’m doing so from the perspective that they knowlingly, and wilfully (if foolishly) acted as such. If they’re acting so out of uncontrollable compulsion, then really, the kind of help they may need is beyond the scope of what these forums can provide.

Regardless, the system Anet has put in place is perfectly viable for those who understand what their getting into. For those who don’t, or can’t, perhaps removing themselves from the situation is the best method for both parties. I personally don’t believe it’s ANet’s responsibility to make accomodations.

Edit: Link removed

You know, i was thinking about the whole EA DLC disaster and how players are tired of their excessive use of DLC to access content, but just imagine if they said “pay us 20 bucks at the chance to get this weapon” that backlash would be stellar. Pretty much what ANET is doing with these chests and all the skins are completely tied to the content they provide. If you look at it that way, wouldn’t you rather just pay the 20 bucks?

munkiman.3068:

You know, i was thinking about the whole EA DLC disaster and how players are tired of their excessive use of DLC to access content, but just imagine if they said “pay us 20 bucks at the chance to get this weapon” that backlash would be stellar. Pretty much what ANET is doing with these chests and all the skins are completely tied to the content they provide. If you look at it that way, wouldn’t you rather just pay the 20 bucks?

Let’s not get off on the (giant, but off-topic) topic of DLC. But one thing worth mentioning there is that the backlash against and distaste for DLC is generally grossly misplaced and simply a result of the average gamer’s ignorance of basic economics.

Syeria.4812:

Let’s not get off on the (giant, but off-topic) topic of DLC. But one thing worth mentioning there is that the backlash against and distaste for DLC is generally grossly misplaced and simply a result of the average gamer’s ignorance of basic economics.

Mind PMing your views on this? I am not a fan for “pay for more content” model they have for Mass Effect, for example.

Don’t mind “pay for more skins/weapons” like in GW2, but “pay to do Arah dungeon?” Nope.

Ursan.7846:

Syeria.4812:

Let’s not get off on the (giant, but off-topic) topic of DLC. But one thing worth mentioning there is that the backlash against and distaste for DLC is generally grossly misplaced and simply a result of the average gamer’s ignorance of basic economics.

Mind PMing your views on this? I am not a fan for “pay for more content” model they have for Mass Effect, for example.

Don’t mind “pay for more skins/weapons” like in GW2, but “pay to do Arah dungeon?” Nope.

Sent!

Syeria.4812:

munkiman.3068:

You know, i was thinking about the whole EA DLC disaster and how players are tired of their excessive use of DLC to access content, but just imagine if they said “pay us 20 bucks at the chance to get this weapon” that backlash would be stellar. Pretty much what ANET is doing with these chests and all the skins are completely tied to the content they provide. If you look at it that way, wouldn’t you rather just pay the 20 bucks?

Let’s not get off on the (giant, but off-topic) topic of DLC. But one thing worth mentioning there is that the backlash against and distaste for DLC is generally grossly misplaced and simply a result of the average gamer’s ignorance of basic economics.

I’m actually trying to use it as an example, not to go down the EA DLC issue.

Arguably Guild Wars made plenty of money off boxed sales and at one time so did EA, Regardless, the feeling on it isn’t misplaced, consumers often feel duped when they have to pay for already built content that was intentionally left out of the game only to be offered as DLC later, especially when that content deals directly to the content already included in the game. Granted that not the case here, but it is the same concept.

The nay sayers to the people that might be flustered by this practice could put it in a different light assuming some game company offered a chance at an in game item for a cost. It wouldn’t be received well and this is a hot button topic all over the industry, which in this case is even worse than anything companies have been practicing in the past.

I guess i’m trying to highlight this as much as possible, I want to support anet as a company, but these kind of mistakes makes me feel less supportive. I get they are trying to work it out and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but i won’t do it forever. I spend my disposable income in the gem shop.

If we want to talk about the DLC topic, I’d like to say for the record that I’m almost drowning in the free content that Anet has bestowed on us and has been promised to continue being provided to us in the future.

Ursan.7846:

If we want to talk about the DLC topic, I’d like to say for the record that I’m almost drowning in the free content that Anet has bestowed on us and has been promised to continue being provided to us in the future.

Sure, we can talk free content… Sims has tons of free content… that’s not the point at all. The hot button topic mentioned (DLC) was in the hope that people would look at it in a different light. DLC is exactly the same as in-game stores (i’m not talking about map packs, i’m talking about items for sale, advantage or cosmetic) the only REAL difference is when you purchase DLC is it get’s incorporated in your client data on download (and not even in all cases) versus it’s already in your client you just need to unlock it.

I’m totally willing to support the game for that simple fact, yes they continue to pump out “free” content, but i’m also willing to conclude, in order to do that they need to pay people a working wage to create it. I have no issue buying gems and taking advantage of sales in the store. The entire issue (even the topic of this post) is “a chance at a rare skin” for god-knows-how-much in-game gold or RW money.

munkiman.3068:

Ursan.7846:

If we want to talk about the DLC topic, I’d like to say for the record that I’m almost drowning in the free content that Anet has bestowed on us and has been promised to continue being provided to us in the future.

Sure, we can talk free content… Sims has tons of free content… that’s not the point at all. The hot button topic mentioned (DLC) was in the hope that people would look at it in a different light. DLC is exactly the same as in-game stores (i’m not talking about map packs, i’m talking about items for sale, advantage or cosmetic) the only REAL difference is when you purchase DLC is it get’s incorporated in your client data on download (and not even in all cases) versus it’s already in your client you just need to unlock it.

I’m totally willing to support the game for that simple fact, yes they continue to pump out “free” content, but i’m also willing to conclude, in order to do that they need to pay people a working wage to create it. I have no issue buying gems and taking advantage of sales in the store. The entire issue (even the topic of this post) is “a chance at a rare skin” for god-knows-how-much in-game gold or RW money.

I’m not going to respond to your earlier DLC comment because I am confident I’d end up derailing the thread, but suffice it to say I disagree with some of the things you take for granted as fact.

Anyway, back to what I’m quoting here:

DLC and micro-transactions are similar things, but they’re certainly very very different. To use a quick EA example, card packs in NHL 13’s HUT game mode (the card trading mode) are micro transactions. People “pay to win” or gain items or boosts to advance faster, or otherwise augment their normal gameplay. That is in a similar vein as what GW2 has, and what Black Lion chests specifically represent. However, “DLC” is typically things like additional courses in Tiger Woods, new songs in Rock Band, or extended storylines in Dragon Age 2. DLC is generally actual content that isn’t otherwise accessible, and not boosts/cosmetics/flair/etc like is found in GW2.

I think that’s a very important distinction to make when having this sort of discussion because otherwise the flaws or features of one end up being erroneously attributed to the whole, when that’s not really an accurate assessment.

John Smith.4610:

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

This is correct.

I have to ask the same question Ursan asked, though- why can’t players be allowed to buy off the TP? I get that it would possibly be less profitable for ANet, on the one hand… On the other hand, the ability to suddenly own 100+ gold via selling a rare skin might- of all things- actually increase sales of BL Chests.

NCSOFT needs some of that gem store money

Syeria.4812:

munkiman.3068:

Ursan.7846:

If we want to talk about the DLC topic, I’d like to say for the record that I’m almost drowning in the free content that Anet has bestowed on us and has been promised to continue being provided to us in the future.

Sure, we can talk free content… Sims has tons of free content… that’s not the point at all. The hot button topic mentioned (DLC) was in the hope that people would look at it in a different light. DLC is exactly the same as in-game stores (i’m not talking about map packs, i’m talking about items for sale, advantage or cosmetic) the only REAL difference is when you purchase DLC is it get’s incorporated in your client data on download (and not even in all cases) versus it’s already in your client you just need to unlock it.

I’m totally willing to support the game for that simple fact, yes they continue to pump out “free” content, but i’m also willing to conclude, in order to do that they need to pay people a working wage to create it. I have no issue buying gems and taking advantage of sales in the store. The entire issue (even the topic of this post) is “a chance at a rare skin” for god-knows-how-much in-game gold or RW money.

I’m not going to respond to your earlier DLC comment because I am confident I’d end up derailing the thread, but suffice it to say I disagree with some of the things you take for granted as fact.

Anyway, back to what I’m quoting here:

DLC and micro-transactions are similar things, but they’re certainly very very different. To use a quick EA example, card packs in NHL 13’s HUT game mode (the card trading mode) are micro transactions. People “pay to win” or gain items or boosts to advance faster, or otherwise augment their normal gameplay. That is in a similar vein as what GW2 has, and what Black Lion chests specifically represent. However, “DLC” is typically things like additional courses in Tiger Woods, new songs in Rock Band, or extended storylines in Dragon Age 2. DLC is generally actual content that isn’t otherwise accessible, and not boosts/cosmetics/flair/etc like is found in GW2.

I think that’s a very important distinction to make when having this sort of discussion because otherwise the flaws or features of one end up being erroneously attributed to the whole, when that’s not really an accurate assessment.

Let’s except what you say is true for gw2, lets say it takes a ticket to enter arah at a chance at wining uber loot you can no other way gain besides buying a ticket. Do you accept that as the status qou? Seriously, we are talking about the same things when “winning” means lucrative loot, regardless if it gives you an advantage or not. This game is entirely based not only on BiS, but the best look in slot that’s actually x2 of any other game. Forget the addition of ascended gear, think prada versus target. It’s zero difference in the grand scheme of a GAME. It makes me think people can actually differentiate between the kitten of a look over best gear even if the advantage is minimal. What does WoW gear actually look like? Who cares it’s BiS…

Forget what you know about anet, i trust them to make a positive decision on the direction of the game. Yet, regardless, as a consumer do you think it’s not in my rights to protest this practice regardless that i spent the money already to purchase a chance for the product, knowing full well that i might not receive it. I’m not even complaining, i knew the risks to some extent (some random number between 0 and whatever), fine i accept it.. Does it make it a fair ethical practice? Not even remotely.

I guess what i’m saying is that even though i know the semi transparent risks ( i.e. rare chance) do you not think i have no rights as a consumer to say this isn’t ok?

If not you better reathink the rights of consumers across the globe to complain that this practice isn’t ok, regardless of past indiscretions.

We can both make comparisons all day, but i’ve invested time and money into this game, if they continue this practice, I simple cannot continue this path of destruction, aimed at my wallet. Say what you will about it, it’s not going to change the ethics or the practice by defending it.

munkiman.3068:

…
Does it make it a fair ethical practice? Not even remotely.

I guess what i’m saying is that even though i know the semi transparent risks ( i.e. rare chance) do you not think i have no rights as a consumer to say this isn’t ok?

If not you better reathink the rights of consumers across the globe to complain that this practice isn’t ok, regardless of past indiscretions.
…

. Say what you will about it, it’s not going to change the ethics or the practice by defending it.

I’ve made a number of posts refuting claims like this, so, not gonna restate them here. Feel free to check my posting history if you have any interest at all.

I will say, I don’t feel there is anything unethical about it. The fact that it’s purely optional alone protects the consumer from any potential exposure to any abusive practices which they feel they may be subjected to. Edit: In addition, the practices are fully disclosed, so, there is little ambiguity as to how it works. While the exact odds are unknown, the nature of the practice is not inherently deceptive or unethical.

As far as fair goes, I also commented on that, and as it’s based on a pure random event, and takes nothing about the consumer into account (playtime, investment, location, etc) it’s about as fair as it gets. All tries are equally fair.

Whether the practice is favorable, or enjoyable, to the consumer is for each consumer to decide. And they participation should reflect their opinion.

So Anet is selling a box with random cosmetic/luxury items. They clearly stated that this was random. A consenting customer purchased this box with random goodies.

If you think this is unethical, by gods I hope you don’t play Magic the Gathering.

FourthVariety.5463:

Smooth Penguin.5294:

No problem. You’re free to make claims, just like the rest of us. But when you do, it becomes open for debate. I simply ended the debate quickly.

You claimed “Black Lion Chests and BL Keys don’t require money” invalidated my legal passage quotes.

Exactly.

Google is a fascinating tool. With it, anyone can become an expert in anything with a click of a mouse. Recently, I became a 5 star Dessert Chef, because I looked up how to bake Pfeffernüsse.

Smooth Penguin.5294:

Exactly.

Google is a fascinating tool. With it, anyone can become an expert in anything with a click of a mouse. Recently, I became a 5 star Dessert Chef, because I looked up how to bake Pfeffernüsse.

Two of my best friends are lawyers, one of them is a devoted GW2 player with whom I play multiple times a week. Before you start assuming anything about how I get my information and attack me based on those assumptions, take a look at the facts I provided instead.

Again, the German legal text as handed down from the government, to the public, to my lawyer friend, to me.

(1) Defines gambling as a game of chance with an entry fee.
(2) Defines when gambling is to be called public.
(3) Defines all gambling resulting in money and real world prices as lottery, everything else is still gambling
(4) Defines that if you can participate in Germany the gambling happens in Germany no matter which offshore server you use. Anet uses server in Frankfurt, so go figure.

§ 3 GlüStV
Begriffsbestimmungen
(1) Ein Glücksspiel liegt vor, wenn im Rahmen eines Spiels für den Erwerb einer Gewinnchance
ein Entgelt verlangt wird und die Entscheidung über den Gewinn ganz oder
überwiegend vom Zufall abhängt. Die Entscheidung über den Gewinn hängt in jedem
Fall vom Zufall ab, wenn dafür der ungewisse Eintritt oder Ausgang zukünftiger
Ereignisse maßgeblich ist. Auch Wetten gegen Entgelt auf den Eintritt oder Ausgang
eines zukünftigen Ereignisses sind Glücksspiele.
- 3 -
(2) Ein öffentliches Glücksspiel liegt vor, wenn für einen größeren, nicht geschlossenen
Personenkreis eine Teilnahmemöglichkeit besteht oder es sich um gewohnheitsmäßig
veranstaltete Glücksspiele in Vereinen oder sonstigen geschlossenen Gesellschaften
handelt.
(3) Ein Glücksspiel im Sinne des Absatzes 1, bei dem einer Mehrzahl von Personen
die Möglichkeit eröffnet wird, nach einem bestimmten Plan gegen ein bestimmtes Entgelt
die Chance auf einen Geldgewinn zu erlangen, ist eine Lotterie. Die Vorschriften
über Lotterien gelten auch, wenn anstelle von Geld Sachen oder andere geldwerte
Vorteile gewonnen werden können (Ausspielung).
(4) Veranstaltet und vermittelt wird ein Glücksspiel dort, wo dem Spieler die Möglichkeit
zur Teilnahme eröffnet wird.
——————————————————-

munkiman.3068:

Forget what you know about anet, i trust them to make a positive decision on the direction of the game. Yet, regardless, as a consumer do you think it’s not in my rights to protest this practice regardless that i spent the money already to purchase a chance for the product, knowing full well that i might not receive it. I’m not even complaining, i knew the risks to some extent (some random number between 0 and whatever), fine i accept it.. Does it make it a fair ethical practice? Not even remotely.

I guess what i’m saying is that even though i know the semi transparent risks ( i.e. rare chance) do you not think i have no rights as a consumer to say this isn’t ok?

If not you better reathink the rights of consumers across the globe to complain that this practice isn’t ok, regardless of past indiscretions.

We can both make comparisons all day, but i’ve invested time and money into this game, if they continue this practice, I simple cannot continue this path of destruction, aimed at my wallet. Say what you will about it, it’s not going to change the ethics or the practice by defending it.

As a consumer I have essentially two rights:

I have the right to not be overtly deceived (truth in advertising). Anet has clearly stated these are rare items that could be attained by chance. While others have tried to claim there’s some sort of deception on Anet’s part here, I think the vast majority of us can all agree those arguments fall short (at least by American standards, which I will use as an American, if I were from one of those random countries with extremely different standards, I would probably judge by those). Therefore Anet has not violated this right.

The only other right that I have in regards to Anet (as we can all agree that video games are luxury goods and not some sort of necessity) is the right to make my own purchase decisions. Anet has provided goods in a non-discriminatory manner, and therefore have not violated anyone’s rights as a consumer in this regard.

Honestly, if you actually believe the claims you’re making, I think you need to seriously rethink and reeducate yourself about the relationship between consumers and suppliers.

FourthVariety.5463:

Again, the German legal text as handed down from the government, to the public, to my lawyer friend, to me.

(1) Defines gambling as a game of chance with an entry fee.
(2) Defines when gambling is to be called public.
(3) Defines all gambling resulting in money and real world prices as lottery, everything else is still gambling
(4) Defines that if you can participate in Germany the gambling happens in Germany no matter which offshore server you use. Anet uses server in Frankfurt, so go figure.

The thing about the law is that the devil is in the details. Edit – I did try to translate the German that you included, but the translation was too mangled by Google for legal discussion. My German is poor – I know my numbers, how to politely order a beer, and a song about ducks swimming over a dam I learned in 2nd grade when we lived in Ramstein and that’s about it

First you have to get opening a BLC judged to be a game of chance. Without the German legal definition of a game of chance, we can’t even speculate. The chests always contain something, so my guess is that they wouldn’t be classified as a game of chance.

Second you have to judge whether a video game that you have to pay to get access to constitutes a public venue. Yes there’s no subscription fee, but you do have to buy the game, and you agreed in the TOS to keep your login credentials private, so there’s an argument to be made that it isn’t public.

Also while it seems reasonable that ANet having a game server in Frankfurt would mean it takes place in Germany, I’m sure if it went to court there might be an argument that the actual act takes place on the client machine, and therefore doesn’t happen in Germany unless the client is also in Germany.

Citing the text of the law is uninformative. Ask your friends if there is any precendents that might apply.

Pandemoniac.4739:

FourthVariety.5463:

Again, the German legal text as handed down from the government, to the public, to my lawyer friend, to me.

(1) Defines gambling as a game of chance with an entry fee.
(2) Defines when gambling is to be called public.
(3) Defines all gambling resulting in money and real world prices as lottery, everything else is still gambling
(4) Defines that if you can participate in Germany the gambling happens in Germany no matter which offshore server you use. Anet uses server in Frankfurt, so go figure.

The thing about the law is that the devil is in the details.

First you have to get opening a BLC judged to be a game of chance. Without the German legal definition of a game of chance, we can’t even speculate. The chests always contain something, so my guess is that they wouldn’t be classified as a game of chance.

Second you have to judge whether a video game that you have to pay to get access to constitutes a public venue. Yes there’s no subscription fee, but you do have to buy the game, and you agreed in the TOS to keep your login credentials private, so there’s an argument to be made that it isn’t public.

Also while it seems reasonable that ANet having a game server in Frankfurt would mean it takes place in Germany, I’m sure if it went to court there might be an argument that the actual act takes place on the client machine, and therefore doesn’t happen in Germany unless the client is also in Germany.

Citing the text of the law is uninformative. Ask your friends if there is any precendents that might apply.

To go even further on this, this section would have to be expanded upon as well.

FourthVariety.5463”

English Translation:
Gambling is defined when money is being charged for the chance to win something and the decision over what is won being subject to a totally or partially randomized process.

Since there is no purchase necessary to win, money isn’t being charged for the chance to win something. Rather, money is being charged to increase the likelihood of winning something. That may seem like a small distinction, but from a legal perspective it’s huge.

It’s plausible that a court might find this to be gambling (and ultimately, sometimes judges come up with some crazy rulings) but without precedent established by other similar cases coming to that conclusion, the legal text is not sufficient to state as a fact that this would be considered gambling.

Syeria.4812:

munkiman.3068:

We can both make comparisons all day, but i’ve invested time and money into this game, if they continue this practice, I simple cannot continue this path of destruction, aimed at my wallet. Say what you will about it, it’s not going to change the ethics or the practice by defending it.

Honestly, if you actually believe the claims you’re making, I think you need to seriously rethink and reeducate yourself about the relationship between consumers and suppliers.

Well you’re both a little bit right and a little bit wrong. I don’t think that ANet has crossed the line into being unethical, but I’m big on personal responsibility. I also think that part of the relationship between consumers and suppliers is “good will” and not just rights and obligations. It’s not wrong for a consumer to complain when some practice by the supplier leaves a bad taste in his mouth.

The company I work for values the customer that tells us calmly and without name calling when there’s something that they don’t like. It doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll change what we’re doing, but it definitely starts an internal discussion on how we can serve that client better.

ANet has a great deal of good will built up with me, so while I’m not thrilled about this situation, I don’t believe there was malicious intent. I think they really care about their players and are passionate about making GW2 the best game it can be, so accusing them of being unethical and of trying to take advantage of their players probably cuts them pretty deep. Can we complain without assuming bad intent?

Syeria.4812:

munkiman.3068:

Forget what you know about anet, i trust them to make a positive decision on the direction of the game. Yet, regardless, as a consumer do you think it’s not in my rights to protest this practice regardless that i spent the money already to purchase a chance for the product, knowing full well that i might not receive it. I’m not even complaining, i knew the risks to some extent (some random number between 0 and whatever), fine i accept it.. Does it make it a fair ethical practice? Not even remotely.

I guess what i’m saying is that even though i know the semi transparent risks ( i.e. rare chance) do you not think i have no rights as a consumer to say this isn’t ok?

If not you better reathink the rights of consumers across the globe to complain that this practice isn’t ok, regardless of past indiscretions.

We can both make comparisons all day, but i’ve invested time and money into this game, if they continue this practice, I simple cannot continue this path of destruction, aimed at my wallet. Say what you will about it, it’s not going to change the ethics or the practice by defending it.

As a consumer I have essentially two rights:

I have the right to not be overtly deceived (truth in advertising). Anet has clearly stated these are rare items that could be attained by chance. While others have tried to claim there’s some sort of deception on Anet’s part here, I think the vast majority of us can all agree those arguments fall short (at least by American standards, which I will use as an American, if I were from one of those random countries with extremely different standards, I would probably judge by those). Therefore Anet has not violated this right.

The only other right that I have in regards to Anet (as we can all agree that video games are luxury goods and not some sort of necessity) is the right to make my own purchase decisions. Anet has provided goods in a non-discriminatory manner, and therefore have not violated anyone’s rights as a consumer in this regard.

Honestly, if you actually believe the claims you’re making, I think you need to seriously rethink and reeducate yourself about the relationship between consumers and suppliers.

You might need to learn how to read then, seriously. Let’s play the American card, and rephrase that, I as an American have the right to say this practice is not ok, regardless of my past indiscretions. Better? Furthermore, I as a person have the right to contest any behavior I do not need deem as fair or ethical, of which i have multiple options in which to protest. Saying as a consumer doesn’t lower my basic rights down to 2…

As far as fair practices go, no people actually don’t have a fair shot at participating in this game of chance. Let alone the pure fact that the participants don’t even know the odds. Interestingly enough, 5 pages later, we are still on track for the original post by Mr. Smith about it being impossible (or practically impossible) to gauge the odds. But yet here we are still debating fairness…

So let’s talk fair, When was the last time you got a key as a drop? Never? When the participation in this fair event (which is still up for debate, we really have no idea how the system chooses anything) is based on a random occurrence, it’s no longer equal or fair. And please don’t bring the “make a new toon and do some personal story missions at a chance at a key as a reward” there is no way that, that is an intended practice by anet.

Let’s talk ethics. First and foremost, this is a game, everything about it is optional. Regardless, if i choose to play this game and want to participate in this random event at a chance for a reward, is it ethical to ask me to pay for it? Since that is the ONLY way to participate. The answer is a resounding no. Sure i might get lucky and get both a chest and a key sometime in the window of opportunity to participate in this event, but the odds are pretty much not stacked in my favor.

Pandemoniac.4739:

….
ANet has a great deal of good will built up with me, so while I’m not thrilled about this situation, I don’t believe there was malicious intent. I think they really care about their players and are passionate about making GW2 the best game it can be, so accusing them of being unethical and of trying to take advantage of their players probably cuts them pretty deep. Can we complain without assuming bad intent?

They have with me as well, I applaud them for many risks they took and benefits of playing this game brings to my life. But it really does teeter on ethics bounds when you get a stack of chest over the course of your playing time and less than 10 keys. It basically screams spend money to open me! Look at the disparity between Gold to Gem conversions (yet another thing anet can control) it too actually begs at the fact that they only logical way to get keys it to spend real cash.

Cash shops are alone a touchy subject, but i think they’ve done really well with it overall. Yet they seem to continue this practice with these chests, regardless of the ridiculous amount of complaints and debates over it. So i ask, why continue with it? Obviously, to make more money… Regardless that there are people willing to toss money at them because they made a great game with healthy options to purchase things in their shop. It stinks of an unethical practice.

munkiman.3068:

They have with me as well, I applaud them for many risks they took and benefits of playing this game brings to my life. But it really does teeter on ethics bounds when you get a stack of chest over the course of your playing time and less than 10 keys. It basically screams spend money to open me! Look at the disparity between Gold to Gem conversions (yet another thing anet can control) it too actually begs at the fact that they only logical way to get keys it to spend real cash.

Well the way I see it, it’s just business to offer something that folks want to get them to pay you for it. As long as you aren’t gouging folks for necessities, I don’t see it as unethical. For example, if they only way you could use a way point was to have a stash of portal stones that were equivalent in cost to the keys, that would be unethical strong-arming of your players.

I also think that saying ANet controls the gold->gem conversion is a little bit of a red herring. They set up the system and could change it if they wanted to, but it’s really player demand for gems that’s driving the price up, not ANet. Keys being expensive isn’t the problem. The problem is that there is no sure way to get what you want or something close to what you want.

I think it was a bad decision that angered a lot of their customers, but I don’t think it was unethical. I think the thought behind it was to add something really rare and special to the game, but they failed to anticipate how obsessed some folks can be with obtaining a purely cosmetic skin. It’s completely the player’s responsibility how much money they throw away chasing that skin, even though it stinks that we can’t buy it, or something like it out right.

So now they’re stuck. If they make the skins purchasable or tradeable now, how are the players that threw hundreds of gold at black lion keys going to respond? The only thing they can do now is chalk it up as a mistake and move forward.

I’m certainly willing to admit tossing around ethics is actually a bit silly in this case, it is a game after all and one i’m pretty passionate about. But sometimes you need to cross the line of silly to swing people around to compromise, it can actually almost fit in with political debates by now.

Not having a price tag however is, and you’re completely right in my view, is pretty much bad business.

munkiman.3068:

You might need to learn how to read then, seriously. Let’s play the American card, and rephrase that, I as an American have the right to say this practice is not ok, regardless of my past indiscretions. Better? Furthermore, I as a person have the right to contest any behavior I do not need deem as fair or ethical, of which i have multiple options in which to protest. Saying as a consumer doesn’t lower my basic rights down to 2…

That’s not even close to being true. As an American, you have the right not to have your speech stifled by the government. That right extends to (non-violating) speech in public spaces, as well as any speech upon your own personal private property. Here, on Anet’s forums, you do not have any rights to speech, except those explicitly granted by the owner of the property (Anet). That’s why moderators are free to delete your posts, and the operators of the forum may ban you from utilizing them at their own discretion.

Furthermore, even within your “rights” to speech, having a right to espouse an opinion does not validate that opinion, nor does it protect you from the consequences of holding or sharing that opinion. If you don’t like a product, you have the right to choose not to purchase it. You have the right to, on your own private property, or within public property, share accurate, factual information about a product as well as non-libel opinions about such a thing. But that’s it. You are not entitled to anything, nor any special treatment from ArenaNet. They are not obligated to provide you with anything outside of the terms of the any agreements (i.e. EULA, ToS, etc) that have been reached. Put simply, you have no rights which could possibly be violated here.

munkiman.3068:

As far as fair practices go, no people actually don’t have a fair shot at participating in this game of chance. Let alone the pure fact that the participants don’t even know the odds. Interestingly enough, 5 pages later, we are still on track for the original post by Mr. Smith about it being impossible (or practically impossible) to gauge the odds. But yet here we are still debating fairness…

Let’s stop begging the question here. Your argument is literally “chests aren’t fair because chests are not fair” with absolutely no rationale or argument put into it. All you’re saying is that you have unilaterally decided this is unfair and are presenting that baseless opinion as unalterable fact. It’s not.

/size limit exceeded, post 1 of 2

munkiman.3068:

So let’s talk fair, When was the last time you got a key as a drop? Never?

Last open world key drop I had was in January, from a dredge mob south of the “battle arena” event in northeast Gendarren Fields. Sorry that that doesn’t fit into your little narrative.

munkiman.3068:

When the participation in this fair event (which is still up for debate, we really have no idea how the system chooses anything) is based on a random occurrence, it’s no longer equal or fair. And please don’t bring the “make a new toon and do some personal story missions at a chance at a key as a reward” there is no way that, that is an intended practice by anet.

“No way that, that is an intended practice by anet?” Then why have they explicitly granted their blessing to that behavior when asked about it on the forum? They’re asked about hundreds of different specific behaviors a day and respond to far fewer than 1% of them, but that one was answered promptly and without any ambiguity.

munkiman.3068:

Let’s talk ethics. First and foremost, this is a game, everything about it is optional. Regardless, if i choose to play this game and want to participate in this random event at a chance for a reward, is it ethical to ask me to pay for it?

Yes.

munkiman.3068:

Since that is the ONLY way to participate. The answer is a resounding no.

Obviously the answer isn’t “a resounding no” since the answer is yes.

munkiman.3068:

Sure i might get lucky and get both a chest and a key sometime in the window of opportunity to participate in this event, but the odds are pretty much not stacked in my favor.

So ultimately we come to this point, where your true argument is, and has always stemmed from: “I’m not going to get what I want, therefore this is unfair and unethical.” If you think this is unethical, I’d be amazed to hear your reaction to the exclusive in game items games like WoW, FFXI, or many others have had where you need to buy an expensive ticket to an exclusive event (which for many people isn’t even in the same country) which has extremely limited ticket availability. Weren’t able to sneak an order in during the 15 second window when tickets were available? Guess you can’t have a Murkablo ever (except by engaging in illicit third party real money transactions which are direct violations of the EULA and ToS and are liable to get your entire account banned).

German Gambling F.A.Q.:

Why can you buy BLKs? As long as nobody sues, you can pretty much do what you want in Germany.

Does the BLC constitute gambling as defined by German law: YES.

Does it matter in Germany whether you win real money or pixels: NO

Does it matter that buying a chance to win with money is but one chance among others? No

When does “gambling” trigger in Germany? The moment you pay more than 50 cent for a ticket to win something.

So what if BLCs cost 50cent? People tried with, people were shut down: Beschluss des VG Münster vom 14.06.2010, Az.: 1 L 155/10.

What is the deal with German law being split into gambling for money and gambling? If you “gamble for money” it is called lottery that’s all. Semantics.

Is GW2 a public venue? German gambling legislation also applies to non-public venues and membership-only environments.

When does gambling take place in Germany in the eyes of the law? Whenever you can participate in any type of gambling while your body is in Germany. Playing poker on a Chinese sever while sitting in Berlin still means you are gambling.

Do you need a legal precedent in Germany to start legal battle over this? No.

What other risks are involved in case of a legal battle? For players, it is the police securing evidence, i.e. bagging and tagging servers.

Anything else? All advertisements aiming at participation at gambling (make no mistake, there is a giant state monopoly on gambling in Germany) must declare the chances of winning.

So what if I challenged for a game of dice in the pub? Devil may care.

Who is in the crossfire the most? German government running lottery and sports bets is huge business, they will defend this market aggressively. f2p and video games are just below the radar.

What has the EU to say about it? They are in a tug of war with das Merkel about the German state monopoly on gambling.

What do the heads of the federal states of Germany say? Do you want to be the governor explaining why gave away millions in revenue by opening up gambling schemes to companies?

@Syeria

I feel it only fair to respond with, i’m done with trying to give you any feedback for your arguments. Your comprehension of my statements are faulty at best.

It sounds to me like ArenaNet should stop selling GW2 in Germany and block all German IP addresses….just to be safe.

FourthVariety.5463:

Does the BLC constitute gambling as defined by German law: YES.

What’s your source for this? Is there a court case?

FourthVariety.5463:

Does the BLC constitute gambling as defined by German law: YES.

Does Magic: The Gathering constitute gambling as defined by German law too?

munkiman.3068:

@Syeria

I feel it only fair to respond with, i’m done with trying to give you any feedback for your arguments. Your comprehension of my statements are faulty at best.

Lol.

He broke down your posts and answered them point by point. He’s definitely reading it pretty thoroughly. If his comprehension and what you’re actually trying to say is so different that you want to make a point of it, perhaps you should work on your communication?

You sure have a right to your opinion. But it won’t change the fact that your opinion is quite silly.

Why are BLT chests unethical? Because their rewards are randomized? Do you think lotteries are unethical? Coin slot machines? Games of poker? Most card games, like Magic/Yugioh/Pokemon? Are they all unethical too for having randomized rewards?

Are they unethical for attempting to artificially inflate prices? What about Gucci, or every brand-name goods out there? Sodas companies, and their ridiculous mark-ups?

When you paint a transaction in which a consenting customer purchases a chance at a purely cosmetic/luxury product and are fully aware that the product is random as “unethical….” you end up sounding quite silly.

Lockboxes are such a disaster that almost every game this side of Warcraft has them in some form or another.

Ursan.7846:

FourthVariety.5463:

Does the BLC constitute gambling as defined by German law: YES.

Does Magic: The Gathering constitute gambling as defined by German law too?

munkiman.3068:

@Syeria

I feel it only fair to respond with, i’m done with trying to give you any feedback for your arguments. Your comprehension of my statements are faulty at best.

Lol.

He broke down your posts and answered them point by point. He’s definitely reading it pretty thoroughly. If his comprehension and what you’re actually trying to say is so different that you want to make a point of it, perhaps you should work on your communication?

You sure have a right to your opinion. But it won’t change the fact that your opinion is quite silly.

Why are BLT chests unethical? Because their rewards are randomized? Do you think lotteries are unethical? Coin slot machines? Games of poker? Most card games, like Magic/Yugioh/Pokemon? Are they all unethical too for having randomized rewards?

Are they unethical for attempting to artificially inflate prices? What about Gucci, or every brand-name goods out there? Sodas companies, and their ridiculous mark-ups?

When you paint a transaction in which a consenting customer purchases a chance at a purely cosmetic/luxury product and are fully aware that the product is random as “unethical….” you end up sounding quite silly.

I won’t comment on the comprehension/communication thing, it adds nothing. I already admitted to bringing up ethics was silly in this case in a previous post.

But yes, i do think that if any of those products mentioned were only available for some random amount of money for a chance of actually getting said product, then yes i would say it was an unethical practice. Especially if it was the only one of it’s kind and was a necessity rather than a luxury. You can’t use gambling here as a valid argument, if i buy in, i know what my odds are and the possible return on my bid. Nether are the case in this situation. I put in my bid with the chests, not knowing my odds and not knowing what i would get back. Is that my bad? Absolutely. Do i have any other way to get a skin? Nope.

When you compare competing products (Gucci versus some cheaper look alike) it simply makes sense to not bring up ethics or fairness, i can buy a lesser valued, similar enough for my desires item, from someone else. There is no other option to acquire these skins, luxury item or not.

I do a guild lottery where i give away 20g for a winning number, with all proceeds going to the guild bank. I have no problem with the gambling aspect.

But….but….aren’t the odds 100% that you’ll get something from the Black Lion Chest? So, you ALWAYS win. Every single time, you win. You never lose.

You may not get what YOU want….but you ALWAYS get something.

There’s actually no gambling involved at all when you win every time.

munkiman.3068:

I won’t comment on the comprehension/communication thing, it adds nothing.

Then don’t bring it up.

munkiman.3068:

You can’t use gambling here as a valid argument, if i buy in, i know what my odds are and the possible return on my bid.

Do you know what are the odds of a Booster Pack in Yugioh containing a rare card?

Man, those vendors were sure unethical.