Guild Wars 2

Gambling preys on the basic human nature to be highly motivated by random positive reinforcement. While this behavior might have served humanity well in surviving nature, it is now used to perpetuate poverty by criminal organizations that seek to leech profit from people instead of providing equitable value.

In the past, fixed-odds based gambling has been justified mainly by the promise of at least equal or greater return on investment or at least clarity in the odds of stated rewards. Yet this gem store has neither, only vague promises that lead to misperceptions on the odds of specific rewards and a majority of outcomes that are significantly less valuable than the investment.

The gem store is insidiously preying on people’s trust of the developers to give them equitable value for their money. Using Southsun Supply Crates, roughly one US dollar most often turns into materials of less than 20 silver in value instead of the 2-3 gold value it has on the general market. This often results in people feeling like they have to keep spending more money to feel as though their previous investments have not been wasted.

While I’m sure this is a monetarily successful short term marketing strategy, it is immoral and deceptive. Before realizing the results of lock boxes, I was happy to buy from the store based on my trust of GW2 and my eagerness to support such a great game. And now that I see what they are doing, I will never trust the charlatans of the Black Lion Trading Co to do anything other than con money out of honest people.

I understand that you are upset. You are welcome to your opinion, and you are welcome to attempt to convince others that your opinion is correct. On the other hand…

As far as I can tell, they will continue to put highly desirable items on BLTC as long as it is significantly profitable. Some people, even knowing the terrible odds, find it worth their money to take the chance to get those items. You have no right to speak for them and their values.

A new thread like this shows up seemingly every day. I’ve never seen a thread like this make forward progress. Every time someone posts something like this, there is a counter post that says, in essence “Don’t gamble if you don’t know the odds.” It’s not clear to me adding more posts like this is going to make the information more readily accessible than it already is. Anyone who is concerned about the odds is going to quickly find this information, and anyone who is not isn’t going to seek it out.

So at the end, let me say that I’m sorry that you were burned. This happens to many people, but I, and many people (as determined by my informal survey of the forums), don’t see it as immoral.

In terms of what you should buy from the store, many people who want to support the game buy things in which they find value. If you only find value in things in which you know you will get what you want, then that’s what you should buy. I wouldn’t say “I’ll never buy from the BLTC again!” over being burned like this, especially if there was something I really want.

It’s still legal for them to do this. It will probably always be legal. The cost of ignorance is quite steep I agree. Although I wished we lived in a world where all humans weren’t ignorant; keep in mind that most people are willfully ignorant.

Taking advantage of that is way too easy.

“it is now used to perpetuate poverty by criminal organizations that seek to leech profit from people instead of providing equitable value.”

Your whole post is invalidated by this claim

And if you want to claim the BLTC is unethical, how about the attitudees perpetuated by this game?

How about the slaughtering of endangered species like the Karka? How about destroying the habitats of innocent races simply because some random person told you to? Poor grawl, poor ettins.

How about killing innocent critters like rabbits and deer? And for what? Food?

No, achievements!

THAT is unethical.

Selling lock boxes without telling the purchasers the odds of “winning” is unethical.
Buying lock boxes without knowing the odds of “winning” is stupidity in action.

One statement does not negate the other.

It appears there is some misunderstanding about the purpose and point of my argument. I start with a commonly held belief that exploiting people through gambling is unethical. The discussion should start in if or how this applies to lock-boxes.

This is not about:
The emotional pain of being “burned”
Trying to get something out of the store that I want
Whether or not it’s the gambler’s fault for allowing himself to be exploited
How state law against gambling applies to this game
Slippery slopes leading to “everything is bad to someone”

I would hope that it’s possible to have an economics discussion on the ethical practices of marketing and trading, which include a duty of honesty and fairness to the customer.

As a side note, I happily support many elements of the store.

If you want to promote academic discussion, you need a more clearly worded introduction, and you also need to remove things like
“Before realizing the results of lock boxes, I was happy to buy from the store based on my trust of GW2 and my eagerness to support such a great game. And now that I see what they are doing, I will never trust the charlatans of the Black Lion Trading Co to do anything other than con money out of honest people.”

You also need to reword your post to remove a lot of the hyperbole and emotion out of it. E.g. This statement has little place in a such a discussion: "The gem store is insidiously preying on people’s trust of the developers to give them equitable value for their money. "

Aye.8392:

Selling lock boxes without telling the purchasers the odds of “winning” is unethical.
Buying lock boxes without knowing the odds of “winning” is stupidity in action.

One statement does not negate the other.

This is very well stated, and may get the point across in a way that I was unable.

Maybe this discussion breaks down into those who think fair trade should be regulated by people not being stupid and those who think it should be regulated by sellers not being unethical.

If I could turn this into a poll, I would.

This is a forum for public debate, not a dry academic discussion. My words may be laden with emotion, but I mean them literally and with no exaggeration.

Vizeroth.1295:

Gambling preys on the basic human nature to be highly motivated by random positive reinforcement. While this behavior might have served humanity well in surviving nature, it is now used to perpetuate poverty by criminal organizations that seek to leech profit from people instead of providing equitable value.

Such as “The State”, is that the criminal organization you are referring to? Lotteries, percentage of slots income even hotel taxes all directly or indirectly act as an income source for various governments in the US (local, state) and Canada through gambling. Someone somewhere in government has decided that gambling isn’t unethical.

ANet can make more money selling chances for something that is statistically rare through an RNG than simply offering it up directly at the TP. To keep it actually rare they would have to price it at such a ridiculous amount the negative press alone would dissuade them. It would be like EVE’s monocle-gate where their price for a cosmetic monocle for your character render was priced in real currency as $70.

Now $70 here is 5600 gems. That’s 62 BLC keys or 46 Southsun crates. Doesn’t sound as bad does it? Now if they put up a skin for 4800 gems would it sell as well as making it say a 1 in 40 chance to get it in a box costing only 120? It’s all perception. Charging 4800 Gems, $60, smacks up elitism while making it a chance at 120 gems puts everyone, moneyed and poor on the same footing.

It’s all about maximizing gem purchases in the end. And as long as their analysis says they will make more money this way than offering it straight up for sale, this will persist. However if they keep making less and less each time they do it this way, then maybe they will reconsider.

Vizeroth.1295:

Aye.8392:

Selling lock boxes without telling the purchasers the odds of “winning” is unethical.
Buying lock boxes without knowing the odds of “winning” is stupidity in action.

One statement does not negate the other.

This is very well stated, and may get the point across in a way that I was unable.

Maybe this discussion breaks down into those who think fair trade should be regulated by people not being stupid and those who think it should be regulated by sellers not being unethical.

If I could turn this into a poll, I would.

So, just to whittle out some ambiguity – If ANet were to disclose the odds for each item, this would then make the practice ethical? Even if the odds were 1 in a billion? No?

Oh, so, then it’s not just a matter of disclosure, but rather of disclosure plus offering “fair” odds. Ok. So, what’s fair?

Regardless, just go ahead and offer both full disclosure, and “fair” odds. Now, you presume that every consumer can make an educated, and rational decision? How optimistic.

So, that one poor soul who dumps what amounts to a very significant sum of money for them, and despite the “fair odds” and full disclosure, comes up short, and comes here to complain. Do you blame him? Or is it still unethical because this poor soul simply is incapable of understanding what the situation is?

It can be easily be argued that there are consumers that will act, rationally or not, regardless of any disclosures provided to them. The corporation cannot be held responsible for the consequences resulting from poor judgment of irrational consumers.

Where is the line drawn? At what point is it no longer the seller’s responsibility, and shifts to the buyer’s? Where does corporate responsibility end and consumer responsibility begin?

As an alternative to trying to change what the OP and others may deem as “unethical” practices, why not spend the energy trying to instruct your fellow consumers on how to make rational purchases? Arguably, if they then stop making purchases, the corporation would have to change their practices to satisfy the educated consumer, no?

There’s one giant elephant in the room no one ever seems to consider, the items being used that are in question are account bound/soul bound items, meaning they have no value beyond your personal worth for them. You cannot compare that to anything in RL. Not to mention the fact that this “worth” versus what it might actually cost to get one is very out of balance. You’re also talking about digital pixel that you can never actually own, so even in that sense it’s very much a sham. It’s basically selling a chance at a snake oil cure that does nothing but look pretty on your shelf. When looking at it that way it’s a very different scenario than simply gambling.

Mourningcry.9428:

Vizeroth.1295:

Aye.8392:

Selling lock boxes without telling the purchasers the odds of “winning” is unethical.
Buying lock boxes without knowing the odds of “winning” is stupidity in action.

One statement does not negate the other.

This is very well stated, and may get the point across in a way that I was unable.

Maybe this discussion breaks down into those who think fair trade should be regulated by people not being stupid and those who think it should be regulated by sellers not being unethical.

If I could turn this into a poll, I would.

So, just to whittle out some ambiguity – If ANet were to disclose the odds for each item, this would then make the practice ethical? Even if the odds were 1 in a billion? No?

Oh, so, then it’s not just a matter of disclosure, but rather of disclosure plus offering “fair” odds. Ok. So, what’s fair?

Regardless, just go ahead and offer both full disclosure, and “fair” odds. Now, you presume that every consumer can make an educated, and rational decision? How optimistic.

So, that one poor soul who dumps what amounts to a very significant sum of money for them, and despite the “fair odds” and full disclosure, comes up short, and comes here to complain. Do you blame him? Or is it still unethical because this poor soul simply is incapable of understanding what the situation is?

It can be easily be argued that there are consumers that will act, rationally or not, regardless of any disclosures provided to them. The corporation cannot be held responsible for the consequences resulting from poor judgment of irrational consumers.

Where is the line drawn? At what point is it no longer the seller’s responsibility, and shifts to the buyer’s? Where does corporate responsibility end and consumer responsibility begin?

As an alternative to trying to change what the OP and others may deem as “unethical” practices, why not spend the energy trying to instruct your fellow consumers on how to make rational purchases? Arguably, if they then stop making purchases, the corporation would have to change their practices to satisfy the educated consumer, no?

Everything you just said is borderline accurate. There are thousands of court cases proving otherwise, that in fact the company selling a product absolutely must disclose the very nature of that product, there can’t be a chance this product might contain asbestos or it might contain gold for example. Sure they say what they might contain… No consumer is required to know everything about the product and be held liable for just being ignorant at their own expense. Regardless, this is still only a “chance” at the purchase and not the actual purchase, so they absolutely should be required to state the odds. Gambling throughout all games of chance have calculated odds and in many cases even state them directly on the game itself, so yes, it for sure feels unethical to have this sort of practice of undisclosed odds, if not unethical, at least slimy. I really just don’t see how anyone can state otherwise, especially based on real life examples versus virtual ones.

munkiman.3068:

There’s one giant elephant in the room no one ever seems to consider, the items being used that are in question are account bound/soul bound items, meaning they have no value beyond your personal worth for them. You cannot compare that to anything in RL. Not to mention the fact that this “worth” versus what it might actually cost to get one is very out of balance. You’re also talking about digital pixel that you can never actually own, so even in that sense it’s very much a sham. It’s basically selling a chance at a snake oil cure that does nothing but look pretty on your shelf. When looking at it that way it’s a very different scenario than simply gambling.

Well there are things with sentimental value over whatever actual value it has. That old concert T-shirt. That bad poem from your first love. Things like that. And it’s that sentimental value that makes it priceless to you. Even limited editions of things, their value may fade over time but it’s still has meaning to you.

Every time you buy a key to open a BL chest, you do get something. It’s called boosters and service items. You are always guaranteed to get these items and that is exactly what you are paying for. These items are worth something even if you do not care about them. Just because you open a chest and consider it empty if it doesn’t have a skin in it doesn’t mean that you were cheated.

If you made a profit every time you gambled, so many things would go wrong.

Vol.5241:

How about killing innocent critters like rabbits and deer? And for what? Food?

No, achievements!

THAT is unethical.

Ahhh, if one could feed off pixels…what a wonderful world this would be… :-P

munkiman.3068:

Mourningcry.9428:

Vizeroth.1295:

Aye.8392:

Selling lock boxes without telling the purchasers the odds of “winning” is unethical.
Buying lock boxes without knowing the odds of “winning” is stupidity in action.

One statement does not negate the other.

This is very well stated, and may get the point across in a way that I was unable.

Maybe this discussion breaks down into those who think fair trade should be regulated by people not being stupid and those who think it should be regulated by sellers not being unethical.

If I could turn this into a poll, I would.

So, just to whittle out some ambiguity – If ANet were to disclose the odds for each item, this would then make the practice ethical? Even if the odds were 1 in a billion? No?

Oh, so, then it’s not just a matter of disclosure, but rather of disclosure plus offering “fair” odds. Ok. So, what’s fair?

Regardless, just go ahead and offer both full disclosure, and “fair” odds. Now, you presume that every consumer can make an educated, and rational decision? How optimistic.

So, that one poor soul who dumps what amounts to a very significant sum of money for them, and despite the “fair odds” and full disclosure, comes up short, and comes here to complain. Do you blame him? Or is it still unethical because this poor soul simply is incapable of understanding what the situation is?

It can be easily be argued that there are consumers that will act, rationally or not, regardless of any disclosures provided to them. The corporation cannot be held responsible for the consequences resulting from poor judgment of irrational consumers.

Where is the line drawn? At what point is it no longer the seller’s responsibility, and shifts to the buyer’s? Where does corporate responsibility end and consumer responsibility begin?

As an alternative to trying to change what the OP and others may deem as “unethical” practices, why not spend the energy trying to instruct your fellow consumers on how to make rational purchases? Arguably, if they then stop making purchases, the corporation would have to change their practices to satisfy the educated consumer, no?

Everything you just said is borderline accurate. There are thousands of court cases proving otherwise, that in fact the company selling a product absolutely must disclose the very nature of that product, there can’t be a chance this product might contain asbestos or it might contain gold for example. Sure they say what they might contain… No consumer is required to know everything about the product and be held liable for just being ignorant at their own expense. Regardless, this is still only a “chance” at the purchase and not the actual purchase, so they absolutely should be required to state the odds. Gambling throughout all games of chance have calculated odds and in many cases even state them directly on the game itself, so yes, it for sure feels unethical to have this sort of practice of undisclosed odds, if not unethical, at least slimy. I really just don’t see how anyone can state otherwise, especially based on real life examples versus virtual ones.

sorry but right now i can think of a few things that makes your argument invalied completly atleast from where i live, stuff like a gift pond, or anything equelant where you dont know what you get, and you dont know the chances for what you want, and given that is not illegal(atleast here) then what the anet is doing is also legit and the real world one is used alot.
but given that you see it as wrong and i dont and proberly never will we cant come to an agreemnet there

Some people in this thread are simply rehashing what they said in other threads… without reading the point of the OP.

The OP is not discussing the legality of this business concept, but challenging it’s morality. I, for one, strongly agree with the OP. These lockboxes incite gambling and exploit weakness. And don’t get me started on the legal definition of gambling; I purposefully won’t elaborate on this in this thread – because it is irrelevant to it.

I’d like to add when Anet said they would provide an alternative, namely, lockboxes as drops from monsters – that their attempt was not genuine. I have, just for the sake of seeing whether this alternative was genuine, farmed for five hours or so spread over 3 evenings to see whether any box would drop. None have dropped thus far. Yes I had magic find, and yes mobs drop like flies because i know what i’m doing. And no, that shouldn’t even matter, at least 1 box should have dropped during that time. The “alternative” offered is, therefore, not genuine. Moreover, you get hit with DR pretty quickly so the whole concept is self defeating.

Another observation: people always think that anyone who posts about the immorality of this concept got “burned”, like the first poster said. I have 3 fused skins, foostivoo, you name it, I have it all. I was always “lucky”. Does that matter for this discussion? Not one bit.

Discussion over morality is pretty silly. Everyone has different definitions of “morality.” In the end, these lockboxes are for purely cosmetic luxury items. Some people are strictly against all forms of gambling, in general. That’s fine, but I’m pretty confident in saying that they are in the minority.

Again, they’re selling random cosmetic luxuries that doesn’t significantly affect the gameplay. Many people fully understand the rare chances, and participate. Now, if Anet made more functional items (bank slots, content) as RNG, you’d have a larger number of upset people. But luxury items? You’re going to be in the minority if you say you’re upset over this.

You can judge those who participate in this action, but by what right do you force upon your own views of morality on others? You think it’s immoral. I don’t think so. And that’s pretty much the end of discussion.

munkiman.3068:

Everything you just said is borderline accurate.

/snip

Gambling throughout all games of chance have calculated odds and in many cases even state them directly on the game itself, so yes, it for sure feels unethical to have this sort of practice of undisclosed odds, if not unethical, at least slimy. I really just don’t see how anyone can state otherwise, especially based on real life examples versus virtual ones.

We can do this dance again if you really like.

As Buttercup said, many are just rehashing the same positions posed elsewhere. The question of ethics has been raised, and discussed before. So, I’ll also pass on rehashing much of what I’ve said before.

No one complains that they don’t state the odds for the types of boosters, mats or tonics that they’ll receive. Why not? Because their thinking is inherently biased exclusively towards the “shiny”. Where, if not from their own expectations does this bias stem?

Do you really think that stating the odds will result in a significant change in behavior? Here’s a little experiment in human behavior, next time you’re at your locale convenience store, watch to see how people buy lottery tickets. How many, if any of them ever ask to see the ticket before purchasing to check the stated odds? How about after they’ve scratched it off?

How many players do you think would bother to check odds provided from Anet before making a purchase? Would the availability affect their bias to take a chance for a new shiny?

Even with fully disclosed odds, I would take a bet (without even wanting to know the odds) that we’d see the same kind of disgruntled posts.

And for the record, and as stated before, I don’t find the practice unethical. That being said, I’ve never even hinted that it was at all favorable in the least for the consumer. Would I rather it otherwise? Perhaps. But does lack of understanding, when there is sufficient information available to make a personal judgement call, from the participants inherently make it an unethical practice?

munkiman.3068:

There’s one giant elephant in the room no one ever seems to consider, the items being used that are in question are account bound/soul bound items, meaning they have no value beyond your personal worth for them. You cannot compare that to anything in RL. Not to mention the fact that this “worth” versus what it might actually cost to get one is very out of balance. You’re also talking about digital pixel that you can never actually own, so even in that sense it’s very much a sham. It’s basically selling a chance at a snake oil cure that does nothing but look pretty on your shelf. When looking at it that way it’s a very different scenario than simply gambling.

You summed it up perfectly. Its a GAME, some people really need to get out and smell the roses.

P.S I love the game and play on average 5 hours a day. I have spend real money on gems in the past, on bank slots, etc But it astounds me that people will spend RL money on a rare chance to obtain pixels of no real value and complain.

“Lock box gambling is unethical”

Unethical – not conforming to a high moral standard; morally unacceptable

Moral – of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

So really this is a discussion about morality and who decided this type of behavior is good or bad. So the question is now who gets to classify this behavior as bad?

As I’ve stated in the past items like capsule toys, CCG packs, heck even old time baseball cards, included a chance of getting a desirable “rare” card and society didn’t blink twice over giving our kids a couple of bucks or allow them to spend their allowance on these things. It’s a grab bag, you will always get something, sometimes it’s really good.

And that’s the thing, it’s society at large that deems whether an activity is good or bad, usually codified by law. Now you may think a politician accepting campaign contributions from a corporation unethical but the law of the land says it’s alright.

Looking at just MMOs, is ANet doing something that nobody else is doing? No, other games from other companies have included “rare” items in their cash shop grab bags.

So society at large doesn’t have a problem with “rare” items in grab bags and the MMO industry doesn’t either. With that I’m going answer your question with a resounding NO. It’s not unethical. Now that doesn’t mean as individuals we may not think that it’s ethical, but that’s left to the individual.

If you truly think it’s unethical, don’t participate. The crates do drop, very rarely, on the isle but they do drop.

Company’s must disclose the very nature of their product?!? munkiman, I think you’re confused about what thousands of court cases say: Company secrets stay secret UNLESS there is legal action. Sure they have to list the ingredients, but not all of them (natural flavorings). And even if they happened to, you have no idea where they got those ingredients from (genetic engineered chocolate from corporate farms in Brazil) nor how they might have been processed/combined/etc (flash pasteurized). There is variability in how every product comes off the assembly line—that’s not disclosed in the package (contains 48 upwards of 49 oz of cookies with 30 +/-0.5g of sugar per serving). Besides, consumers barely read the ingredients that are provided, you think they’d read a 10 page document describing it unless & until it nearly kills them?

If you never attempted to research the answer to your question outside of reading the sunstone crate description, maybe you should start. If you opened crates—post your results: otherwise, you’re contributing to the very problem you’re complaining about.

This topic has been beaten to death far too many times already. But I would like to give credit to the OP for not dragging this into a silly “illegal gambling” debate again.

We can do this dance again if you really like.

As Buttercup said, many are just rehashing the same positions posed elsewhere. The question of ethics has been raised, and discussed before. So, I’ll also pass on rehashing much of what I’ve said before.

No one complains that they don’t state the odds for the types of boosters, mats or tonics that they’ll receive. Why not? Because their thinking is inherently biased exclusively towards the “shiny”. Where, if not from their own expectations does this bias stem?

It’s really one in the same, they complain about the nearly impossible to guess chance at getting the “rare” or “very rare” items, if you know those odds, you know the odds for the rest. Apparently the quoting system is broken now

Do you really think that stating the odds will result in a significant change in behavior? Here’s a little experiment in human behavior, next time you’re at your locale convenience store, watch to see how people buy lottery tickets. How many, if any of them ever ask to see the ticket before purchasing to check the stated odds? How about after they’ve scratched it off?

I’m not interested in the behavior of the gambler, this isn’t about that at all, this is about getting duped. It started way back on Halloween (i think) and people put up a huge stink then which actually anet tried to rectify using the forge. The fact is it kitten es people off, a lot of people, but they keep doing it. It really smells rotten at this point.

And for the record, and as stated before, I don’t find the practice unethical. That being said, I’ve never even hinted that it was at all favorable in the least for the consumer. Would I rather it otherwise? Perhaps. But does lack of understanding, when there is sufficient information available to make a personal judgement call, from the participants inherently make it an unethical practice?

The issue isn’t about me particularly, i simply won’t buy them, but I sit on this forum and read the almost constant flood of new or newer players that think that they have a decent chance at getting one, since maybe there buddy got one out of a random drop and the cycle continues. At this point, based on the history and player outrage, I do believe they are doing it simply to soak players, meaning they simply earn more out of the store by doing it this way than just selling the item. I find that unethical, yes, I find a lot of companies practices unethical as well and simply avoid buying the products or services they sell. If you want to talk about the lottery, really the only reason it still exists is that part of the profits goto public services, like schools and it’s also a pooled payout that often has several ways to win. Odds on getting 5 bucks for your 2 dollar ticket are far better than what we see in this scenario. Not that i play the lotto either.

munkiman.3068:

I’m not interested in the behavior of the gambler, this isn’t about that at all, this is about getting duped. It started way back on Halloween (i think) and people put up a huge stink then which actually anet tried to rectify using the forge. The fact is it kitten es people off, a lot of people, but they keep doing it. It really smells rotten at this point.

I think you either missed the point of my analogy, or are simply choosing to ignore it.

But seriously, if buying these items is, or at the very least perceived as, a gamble, then what are the people who buy them if not gamblers? Are they not in, in the words of the OP, and numerous others, gambling?

Forget that for a minute. Lets assume it is as you put it a straight up dupe. My point still stands that disclosing the odds isn’t going to dissuade someone intent on trying to get a new shiney. They either won’t care, can’t comprehend the odds, or otherwise won’t even bother to view them.

You make the point yourself. If people have come to realize how incredibly “unfair” and “unethical” the practice is, then why do they persist and keep at it? Because, as the OP pointed out, it’s part of human behavior that is just too powerful for some to resist. Will providing statisitcs really going to be a deterent to their behavior?

Edit: For clarification, I think your “they” refers to ANet, and my “they” refers to the players who continually engage in the purchasing of these contentious items.

munkiman.3068:

It’s really one in the same, they complain about the nearly impossible to guess chance at getting the “rare” or “very rare” items, if you know those odds, you know the odds for the rest. Apparently the quoting system is broken now

Again, my point is either being ignored, or misunderstood. Why is RNG perceived ok in some instances and not in others? As another pointed out, the same crowd should be up in arms about mob drops. And not to the extent that drop rates have been nerfed, but rather that the RNG for a precursor, or like items, is not disclosed. It’s all the same, or it isn’t; not in some cases the same, and some cases not.

You last point is your opinion, as was mine. So, respectfully, to each their own.

Mourningcry.9428:

I think you either missed the point of my analogy, or are simply choosing to ignore it.

But seriously, if buying these items is, or at the very least perceived as, a gamble, then what are the people who buy them if not gamblers? Are they not in, in the words of the OP, and numerous others, gambling?

Forget that for a minute. Lets assume it is as you put it a straight up dupe. My point still stands that disclosing the odds isn’t going to dissuade someone intent on trying to get a new shiney. They either won’t care, can’t comprehend the odds, or otherwise won’t even bother to view them.

You make the point yourself. If people have come to realize how incredibly “unfair” and “unethical” the practice is, then why do they persist and keep at it? Because, as the OP pointed out, it’s part of human behavior that is just too powerful for some to resist. Will providing statisitcs really going to be a deterent to their behavior?

Edit: For clarification, I think your “they” refers to ANet, and my “they” refers to the players who continually engage in the purchasing of these contentious items.

My point was the odds being presented doesn’t stop a gamblers behavior, although it would prevent most people (at least the cash paying type) from bothering with it and definitely not be as shady as it is. The mentality of a gambler has to do more with risk versus reward, in most every case it’s money and the rush over a win at a nice payout. Once a gambler mentality wins (in this case) the game is up, there’s no reward to continue. So while it’s a gamble, it’s not a pay out over the long haul. Not to mention the extreme rarity the actual win is. If i go to a blackjack table, i have a far better chance at the rush of a win than opening these boxes. This isn’t a gamblers game, this is a suckers bet.

I have no proof one way or the other that people continue doing this, as a matter of fact, i was pointing to the new “suckers” that come here and complain about it. Which makes the fact that they (anet) keep doing it will ultimately end up with far less income than if they would have sold the items in the first place. The people that got duped thinking they had a decent chance, most likely won’t do it again, since the odds seem to be far worse than most gambles.

Mourningcry.9428:

Again, my point is either being ignored, or misunderstood. Why is RNG perceived ok in some instances and not in others? As another pointed out, the same crowd should be up in arms about mob drops. And not to the extent that drop rates have been nerfed, but rather that the RNG for a precursor, or like items, is not disclosed. It’s all the same, or it isn’t; not in some cases the same, and some cases not.

You last point is your opinion, as was mine. So, respectfully, to each their own.

Simply because in this case it’s clearly about getting the player to cough up cash. Sure people will and most likely do buy gems with gold, but how much gold does it take to win? Somewhere down the line anets betting you’re going to toss money at them, so this just saps a players earnings one way or the other. Apparently you haven’t seen the numerous threads about the RNG in general, there are plenty of complaints, but none of them are about being scammed since the items in question aren’t gated behind cash+RNG and are attainable by just playing the game.

The reason i keep rehashing this is because it feels like ANet is out to make a quick buck moreso than simply selling the items in question. Why they keep risking looking like this to their player base is beyond me.

bluemonkey.1762:

Company’s must disclose the very nature of their product?!? munkiman, I think you’re confused about what thousands of court cases say: Company secrets stay secret UNLESS there is legal action. Sure they have to list the ingredients, but not all of them (natural flavorings). And even if they happened to, you have no idea where they got those ingredients from (genetic engineered chocolate from corporate farms in Brazil) nor how they might have been processed/combined/etc (flash pasteurized). There is variability in how every product comes off the assembly line—that’s not disclosed in the package (contains 48 upwards of 49 oz of cookies with 30 +/-0.5g of sugar per serving). Besides, consumers barely read the ingredients that are provided, you think they’d read a 10 page document describing it unless & until it nearly kills them?

If you never attempted to research the answer to your question outside of reading the sunstone crate description, maybe you should start. If you opened crates—post your results: otherwise, you’re contributing to the very problem you’re complaining about.

Long gone are the day that a company can tout the benefits of a product without specifying the risk involved with using said product. I’m not opening crates due to the fact that i got suckered into the fused claim tickets. I’m well aware of the risk versus reward now, even though it’s not clearly stated.

You get exactly what you pay for, a chance at a select group of items. We get it though, its random which means some people are gonna get mad because they can’t just get what they want without risk. However, random rewards the casual guy who doesn’t have the money for gems.

How cool is it to get a Black Lion Key from a drop and open it to gain a rare skin? But those guys that just gotta have it and spend $40 on gems with expectations to buy keys sometimes walk away disappointed and upset.

munkiman.3068:

My point was the odds being presented doesn’t stop a gamblers behavior, although it would prevent most people (at least the cash paying type) from bothering with it and definitely not be as shady as it is. The mentality of a gambler has to do more with risk versus reward, in most every case it’s money and the rush over a win at a nice payout. Once a gambler mentality wins (in this case) the game is up, there’s no reward to continue. So while it’s a gamble, it’s not a pay out over the long haul. Not to mention the extreme rarity the actual win is. If i go to a blackjack table, i have a far better chance at the rush of a win than opening these boxes. This isn’t a gamblers game, this is a suckers bet.

Sucker’s bet or not, it’s still a bet.. And if you’re going to classify it as such, then it’s a gamble, and those who partake in it are gamblers. That being the case, as you said, their behavior is unliekly to change regardless if odds are disclosed. No?

Further, if they’re not gamblers who are concerend with “risk versus reward”, then how would you define them? If these people have no concept of risk, or choose not to take it into consideration (therfore not gamblers) then what good is it to declare the odds? They’re not going to take them into account anyway.

I think you’re being highly optimistic in the sense that by just delcaring odds, suddenly the market is going to become so risk aware that they will no longer partake in the practice, or at least reduce the amount they partake. I think it’s fair to say that the people concerned with the odds are all very well that they’re not at all favorable. Yet, despite that, they still partake.

How do you conclude that actually pinning a number to them will actually dissuade them? I can tell you now, that I have such a low estimation of what the odds are, that if they actually published them it would likely look more favorable to me then it is now.

And to the second point fine, I’m reasonable, and can appreciate that this RNG should be considered separately because of the cash component.

munkiman.3068:

The reason i keep rehashing this is because it feels like ANet is out to make a quick buck moreso than simply selling the items in question. Why they keep risking looking like this to their player base is beyond me.

How a person feels about these practices and how they perceive the practices themselves is really a matter of opinion. It simply may not make that much of impact to some (most?) of the player base. And let’s not rehash the selling items directly discussion in this thread.

Mourningcry.9428:

Sucker’s bet or not, it’s still a bet.. And if you’re going to classify it as such, then it’s a gamble, and those who partake in it are gamblers. That being the case, as you said, their behavior is unliekly to change regardless if odds are disclosed. No?

Further, if they’re not gamblers who are concerend with “risk versus reward”, then how would you define them? If these people have no concept of risk, or choose not to take it into consideration (therfore not gamblers) then what good is it to declare the odds? They’re not going to take them into account anyway.

I think you’re being highly optimistic in the sense that by just delcaring odds, suddenly the market is going to become so risk aware that they will no longer partake in the practice, or at least reduce the amount they partake. I think it’s fair to say that the people concerned with the odds are all very well that they’re not at all favorable. Yet, despite that, they still partake.

How do you conclude that actually pinning a number to them will actually dissuade them? I can tell you now, that I have such a low estimation of what the odds are, that if they actually published them it would likely look more favorable to me then it is now.

And to the second point fine, I’m reasonable, and can appreciate that this RNG should be considered separately because of the cash component.

It really irks me that people bring in an argument without realizing that there are huge discrepancies between things. A gambler isn’t going to take huge risks versus rewards, gamblers that play to win, do so at much smaller risks, it’s simply how the mentality works. Suckers play the big payouts at the higher risk games (this is why Vegas makes so much money) the massive influx of first time players will be attracted to playing the games that offer the highest rewards. It’s like a child on his first birthday wanting to grab that lit candle. This is a suckers game, we all know it, the odds are so stacked against you, you’d have to be a sucker to continue to play it. Sure the average person might give it a shot once, but once you know how bad it is you don’t continue doing it. So what i’m saying is we see a sucker born every minute and that’s whakitten feels like anet is catering to, just to make the quick extra cash. A gamble isn’t just a gamble. If the average person (some, most?) knew how crappy the odds were, i’m pretty sure they wouldn’t even bother, which is why they aren’t published. That’s how i see it, and typically how things are done across games of chance.

There are also finer details to these sucker games, when we talk about Vegas gambling, many people will sit in front of these machines because they enjoy it and why not play something you might win big on if you like doing it? So the experience there is much richer, more “rewarding” to those players, but i would never lump them into a gamblers mentality. So yes, maybe i’m being optimistic and maybe there is this rather large amount of people that keep doing this over and over (i actually think it’s far less than you seem to think however), but i really think if people knew what they were up against, they wouldn’t bother. Let’s face it, it’s just a virtual skin and one you can’t even sell…

I think you are being far too liberal in painting this as “gambling”. When you gamble for cash you are trying to turn money into more money, with the chance at losing you money with nothing in return.

Having items that are guaranteed to give you something for your money, even if your item is taken at random from the set group, is always giving you exactly what you paid for.

As others have stated its just like baseball cards, blind box collectables, and even those quarter vending machines where you get a little prize but everyone hopes for the really cool one they feature front and center. Heck, by your logic every enemy I kill could be considered a gamble with my time investment since drops are random.

This is much, much different than actually “gambling” as you are referencing.

munkiman.3068:

It really irks me that people bring in an argument without realizing that there are huge discrepancies between things. A gambler isn’t going to take huge risks versus rewards, gamblers that play to win, do so at much smaller risks, it’s simply how the mentality works. Suckers play the big payouts at the higher risk games (this is why Vegas makes so much money) the massive influx of first time players will be attracted to playing the games that offer the highest rewards. It’s like a child on his first birthday wanting to grab that lit candle. This is a suckers game, we all know it, the odds are so stacked against you, you’d have to be a sucker to continue to play it. Sure the average person might give it a shot once, but once you know how bad it is you don’t continue doing it. So what I’m saying is we see a sucker born every minute and that’s whakitten feels like anet is catering to, just to make the quick extra cash. A gamble isn’t just a gamble. If the average person (some, most?) knew how crappy the odds were, i’m pretty sure they wouldn’t even bother, which is why they aren’t published. That’s how i see it, and typically how things are done across games of chance.

What really irks me is when people present the ideal as the norm. The type of gambler described above is the golden child of gamblers, hollywood’s depiction of the hero gambler. They always know the odds and they never play unless they have the edge. They’ve never had to get even, and their only losses are bad beats and they have the discipline and self control of a drill instructor to back it all up. Anyone else playing games of chance, or taking the long odds, has to be a sucker, or a naive innocent, a first timer, you’re average Joe just looking for a little fun and excitement, or is soon to be just another deadbeat sucker. I’ve personally seen a few “gamblers” go on tilt, and make plays even a “sucker” wouldn’t consider. The distinction, or discrepancy, between the two is often vague, circumstantial, and not as huge as it may seem.

munkiman.3068:

This is a suckers game, we all know it, the odds are so stacked against you, you’d have to be a sucker to continue to play it.

I’d say you’d have to be a sucker to even play it once. And yes, that’d make me a sucker as well.

But forget about that, if you believe that we all know it’s a sucker’s game, then why the necessity to even bother disclosing the odds? Because, as you continue, the average joe doesn’t actually know. So which is it? Do they know or don’t they know.Or do they indeed know it’s a sucker’s game, but until someone lets them know exactly how big of a sucker they are, they’re cool with it?

You perhaps consider them "suckers’, or naive children who ANet is taking advantage of. But, perhaps I’m the optimist, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t suckers, and they aren’t guppies swimming with the sharks, rather, they are aware the odds are stacked against them (even if they don’t know how much), or that they don’t even care what the odds are, and that knowing this, they still, of their own free will, and own judgement, choose to partake. What I won’t do, is back them up and join in condemning ANet for providing them the opportunity to do so when they come here to complain about how unfair or unethical they now find the whole deal to be after not having things turn out as they thought it should.

Stone.6751:

I think you are being far too liberal in painting this as “gambling”. When you gamble for cash you are trying to turn money into more money, with the chance at losing you money with nothing in return.

Having items that are guaranteed to give you something for your money, even if your item is taken at random from the set group, is always giving you exactly what you paid for.

As others have stated its just like baseball cards, blind box collectables, and even those quarter vending machines where you get a little prize but everyone hopes for the really cool one they feature front and center. Heck, by your logic every enemy I kill could be considered a gamble with my time investment since drops are random.

This is much, much different than actually “gambling” as you are referencing.

Point taken. However I would say the use of the term “gambling” with respect to the BLTC has devloved, for a nnumber of reasons, into a very broad definition. There was a whole discussion a while back debating if it was gambling.

Seems that if the community is going to continue to refer to the current practices as a form of gambling, I’m not going to fight it, and just use it accordingly. The OP chose to use it, and because the intent of his post was clear, it’s just easier to accept the practice as a form of gambling for discussion purposes.

Mourningcry.9428:

munkiman.3068:

This is a suckers game, we all know it, the odds are so stacked against you, you’d have to be a sucker to continue to play it.

I’d say you’d have to be a sucker to even play it once. And yes, that’d make me a sucker as well.

But forget about that, if you believe that we all know it’s a sucker’s game, then why the necessity to even bother disclosing the odds? Because, as you continue, the average joe doesn’t actually know. So which is it? Do they know or don’t they know.Or do they indeed know it’s a sucker’s game, but until someone lets them know exactly how big of a sucker they are, they’re cool with it?

I said if they knew the odds, they wouldn’t, you say they would based on a gamblers mentality, or human nature or some other such thing. I’m also stating they don’t post those odds for the very reason that it doesn’t benefit them in the least and would most likely cut into sales. It’s like the old way the drug companies would tell you about all the good stuff but leave out their product might actually kill you. Anyway, I know a lot of gamblers, maybe to many, i’ve studied their habits, many of them tend to make money more often than lose. Is that the norm for all gamblers, absolutely not, but i’m really not trying to paint a picture of the players that might fit into this window. I’m just stating there’s a pretty large discrepancy and this isn’t a gamblers game.

- I have issue with the presentation, as i mentioned.
- I have issue with posts being made that dissuade people from trying to spread the word that this game has horrible odds or even any attempt at calculating them. (i.e. a couple anet posts about this)
- I have issues with the reward, both being not tradable and not worth the outlay of earnings, either with gold or with cash, since the price tag is impossible to calculate.

These may simply be my issues, but it doesn’t seem that way given the sample of people taking issues with it (here, reddit, guru, etc.). My question still remains though, why with all the backlash, why do they continue this? Is it really to just make more money?

I also wonder why people continue to stick up for this thing? It’s not beneficial to them in any way… At some point you have to wonder about this. i’ve heard a fair share of defense for it, yet even though they don’t like a person presentation (ie calling it unethical or immoral or a scam, etc), most seem to agree that it’s a money grab.

So here take this example as a possibly more fun, more rewarding way to play this game. Sell me an unlimited use key to crack open these crates for 1000 gems, hell make it 2000gems and make me by those boxes with karma. Keep the drop rate, same junk and everything. At least then i have to actually play the game and earn the karma to get a chance to win the grand prize. The whole things just seems so counter intuitive the way it stands now.

Mourningcry.9428:

You perhaps consider them "suckers’, or naive children who ANet is taking advantage of. But, perhaps I’m the optimist, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t suckers, and they aren’t guppies swimming with the sharks, rather, they are aware the odds are stacked against them (even if they don’t know how much), or that they don’t even care what the odds are, and that knowing this, they still, of their own free will, and own judgement, choose to partake. What I won’t do, is back them up and join in condemning ANet for providing them the opportunity to do so when they come here to complain about how unfair or unethical they now find the whole deal to be after not having things turn out as they thought it should.

By stating we’ve both been suckered into this game of chance says a lot about it. On one hand you would like to side with anet, so would i, after the first time, maybe even the second, but this is at least the third installment of this type of box o chance game and i’m losing hope. Arguably the worst one yet, since you just get mats if you lose, not even rare mats at that. It just makes them look pretty crappy to me and that’s really not how i want to feel about them.

munkiman.3068:

Long gone are the day that a company can tout the benefits of a product without specifying the risk involved with using said product.

Companies do this daily: it’s called advertising.

Specific examples of unstated factors not related to advertising: trans-unsaturated fats: they’ve been added to food for decades, but it wasn’t until the 90s that SOME government decided it was important enough to list separately from unsaturated fats. Companies don’t disclose the risk that you might get Salmonella from eating raw eggs, instead they recommend you cook it before eating it. In fact, it wasn’t until Pepsi & Coke went to court with each other over formulation disputes that “high fructose corn syrup” had to be listed separately from “sugar” in the US. I got thousands more examples to highlight that you don’t know as much as you think you know about the things you buy.

But to stick to the larger question: putting valuables into chests & not posting the odds of receiving any given item is a design decision. They aren’t obligated to tell you and probably won’t. Your very best chance of forcing the issue is with a lawyer and a court case. And while you’re at it, lots of people want to find out the drop rate for the precursors.

If you define this as gambling, and gambling as unethical, so be it—it’s an unethical practice according to your definition. I don’t agree, but that’s the thing about ethics—each person sees things differently. If you truly valued open & honest warning on this point, you’d post your drop frequencies & crate quantity.

munkiman.3068:

I also wonder why people continue to stick up for this thing? It’s not beneficial to them in any way… At some point you have to wonder about this. i’ve heard a fair share of defense for it, yet even though they don’t like a person presentation (ie calling it unethical or immoral or a scam, etc), most seem to agree that it’s a money grab.

People defend it, despite not liking it, for the same reason that people defend free speech or freedom of association. In principle, they have a right to make their own decisions, no matter how foolish those decisions seem/are. A general theme is: people buying gems with real money supports the game. Therefore the more $$ everyone else puts in, the better the game will be without my personal monetary contribution.

YOU bought crate willingly.
YOU knew that there is very low chance to get item you want from crate.
YOU knew what can you get from crates. Just because you want only one of those items doesn’t mean you didn’t get anything from crate.
YOU opened crates by yourself.
Now its SOMEONE ELSE’S fault that you didn’t get what YOU wanted.

People just don’t want to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Its clear case of: “I’m not a fool, they tricked me!” because its easier to blame someone else then to accept the truth.

bluemonkey.1762:

munkiman.3068:

Long gone are the day that a company can tout the benefits of a product without specifying the risk involved with using said product.

Companies do this daily: it’s called advertising.

Specific examples of unstated factors not related to advertising: trans-unsaturated fats: they’ve been added to food for decades, but it wasn’t until the 90s that SOME government decided it was important enough to list separately from unsaturated fats. Companies don’t disclose the risk that you might get Salmonella from eating raw eggs, instead they recommend you cook it before eating it. In fact, it wasn’t until Pepsi & Coke went to court with each other over formulation disputes that “high fructose corn syrup” had to be listed separately from “sugar” in the US. I got thousands more examples to highlight that you don’t know as much as you think you know about the things you buy.

But to stick to the larger question: putting valuables into chests & not posting the odds of receiving any given item is a design decision. They aren’t obligated to tell you and probably won’t. Your very best chance of forcing the issue is with a lawyer and a court case. And while you’re at it, lots of people want to find out the drop rate for the precursors.

If you define this as gambling, and gambling as unethical, so be it—it’s an unethical practice according to your definition. I don’t agree, but that’s the thing about ethics—each person sees things differently. If you truly valued open & honest warning on this point, you’d post your drop frequencies & crate quantity.

Correct, it’s a design decision and it’s a bad one to me. It make ANet look like they are milking a long dead cash cow.

If you read what i wrote, numerous times, i don’t have an issue with gambling, nor am i trying to define it as such, i actually call it a scam, much in the way a snake oil salesman might be defined. I personally don’t gamble often, i got scammed once with the fused weapons, i posted my data in the same thread where John Smith gave us this lovely tidbit:

John Smith.4610:

Gasoline.2570:

Let’s see what the average will be

Statistically inaccurate

Surveying forums leads to massive biases including Sample Bias and Response Bias. In this case there are at least 3 other biases not being accounted for off the top of my head.

Basically saying it’s not going to give you accurate enough data, which i can agree with, however I did open 270 chests (including the keys i got for opening them) before i got my ticket. So there’s that. I also said i wouldn’t get suckered in again and have not bought a single crate, again if you read my post you’d know that.

I also gave an example of a possibly more acceptable way at this gambling game. So i’m at least trying to offer alternatives to paying to play. I buy gems, i bought 3 mining picks, tons of kits and just as many keys in the past. However i’m not even convinced ANet even sees as much profit off the store as some people might think. It could very well be going into NCSofts pockets to fund other titles i don’t even play. I really have no way of knowing either.

I personally believe (based on guilds i’ve been in and run) that the game is bleeding it’s player base at a large rate for an MMO and this frustration of using these RNG boxes, crates, chest, etc. isn’t helping. There is a pretty large group of people that take issue with it and it doesn’t make them look very good. That is what really rubs me the wrong way.

Vecanski.2016:

People just don’t want to accept responsibility for their own actions.\

That is an unreasonably simplistic response.. It completely ignores motivating factors, information asymmetry and the mechanism by which the gambling is offered.

If a hotel chain started running gambling tables by the same general rules ANET is running the gem store they’d be busted on RICO charges in a week.

There is an outrageous level of information asymmetry involved here, for one. ANET has all the rules and publishes none. Buying something like a key or crate right now is akin to playing a slot machine that doesn’t tell you how it works (which is illegal, incidentally). You are completely in the dark about what’s happening and the only promise you have that there is even ANY possibility of a reward is their word. The only information you get (if you get any) about your odds is meaningless words like “small chance”.

Second, the system is clearly designed to prey on the idea that there could be a huge reward without telling you what the chances are. This piques the interest of the victim because of the potential payout but because the RISK is not published they can’t make an intelligent evaluation. People are wired to value a potential small loss more highly than a potential large reward, but when there is no obvious risk, that doesn’t happen. Worse, some people are wired to simply focus almost exclusively on the potential reward and they will try for it endlessly no matter how much harm it brings them. This is how you wind up with gambling addicts.

Human nature doesn’t work in the way your flip response implies. Human beings are chemical factories that are capable of processing information, but ANET has specifically designed this system to prevent that from happening and that is neither fair nor moral nor, in the end, likely to be good business practice.

I will enjoy, however, when the stories start leaking out about people developing an addiction to the BLTP and losing thousands on it or somebody sues them over it.

tl;dr: gambling is gambling, but when it involves, by design, a complete withholding of information on the house’s part it becomes simply robbery

Black Regent.5897:

Vecanski.2016:

People just don’t want to accept responsibility for their own actions.\

If a hotel chain started running gambling tables by the same general rules ANET is running the gem store they’d be busted on RICO charges in a week.

Except it’s NOT. You are buying a grab bag. There is a “rare” chance that a grab bag will have something you want very, very much. You know, at least you should, that you won’t get that item in the grab bag you purchased however you will get items that are valued around the cost of the grab bag. Stores do this ALL the time, especially around the holidays as a promotion.

You, the player, made the choice that the items you are likely to get are “worthless” and only the “rare” item counts as a success.

If you bought crates without checking drop rate of the item you want then you are fool.

If you did check and didn’t understand what rare chance means and still bought it, then you are a fool again.

If you did check, understood that drop rate of desired item is extremely low and bought it anyway then you have no right to complain.

Saying that ANet made you buy item from cash shop by manipulating your urges makes you look like some uncontrollable mindless fool and someone that can be very easily manipulated by simplest methods.
If someone has no brain or willpower to think a bit before spending RL money on a chance to receive soulbound vanity item, than that someone deserves to be separated of his/her money. And there is nothing unethical about it.

Vecanski if you want to post something, post something new. Black regent wrote an elaborate response to the position you stated. At least reply to that if you firmly wish to defend the oversimplified “everyone is responsible for their own actions” view. Not a wrong view per se, but you’re cutting way too many corners in the process.

nonono. its a legid way for them to gain some money.
other mmo i know abuse this box gambling for p2w.
as long as these box aren’t the only way to get new skins, and they don’t put in p2w things and stay true to their oath of balance. I can pretend to not see this stuff if i don’t like it, and carry on.,

But box gambling IS the only way to get the special skins (Halloween, Molten alliance, Sclerite), and since by concept GW2 is all about looking good, box gambling IS pay to win (the beauty pageant)…

I do have an issue with the BLTC gambling – I have nothing to spend money on. I KNOW better than go box gambling, and thus am left with very few attractive purchases in the cash shop…

Related: Japan has banned virtual grab bag collection schemes, though not the grab bags themselves.

It seems like this is something that would have to be addressed by legislation. Corporations are notoriously bad at self-policing and they’re not going to stop a highly profitable activity just because it rubs some people the wrong way.

I doubt that I could make any better response to people’s lack of empathy for those with a weakness to gambling than Black Regent. Though I have to say many people’s callous responses to corporate capitalization on human imperfection make Ayn Rand look like a philanthropist.

It’s scary to think that this game is becoming a community where it’s more profitable to take advantage of people than to treat them fairly, yet many people think that’s fine.

Leablo.2651:

Related: Japan has banned virtual grab bag collection schemes, though not the grab bags themselves.

It seems like this is something that would have to be addressed by legislation. Corporations are notoriously bad at self-policing and they’re not going to stop a highly profitable activity just because it rubs some people the wrong way.

Actually no. What they banned was the practice of trading in a set of items collected from grab bags for an even “rarer” item.

http://andriasang.com/con12k/complete_gacha_illegal/