Why is there gambling in a game rated 13+?

[kharmin.7683]

8 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Not exactly a black-and-white topic imo. I probably have less of a problem with gambling itself being a thing, but more about not having the chances disclosed.

That's by design.  If the chances were disclosed, I'm sure that there would be less people engaging in the activity.

[IAmNotMatthew.1058]

Just now, kharmin.7683 said:

That's by design.  If the chances were disclosed, I'm sure that there would be less people engaging in the activity.

Considering how CS:GO offers some countries the ability to check what's in the cases as per law still see significant people buying keys and opening chests from said country(/ies) I'd say it won't affect it.

 

[Sobx.1758]

8 minutes ago, kharmin.7683 said:

That's by design.  If the chances were disclosed, I'm sure that there would be less people engaging in the activity.

There are (or were? Again, I don't care enough to actively look for it, it has little-to-no impact on me) laws that make it obligatory for the chances to be disclosed and in some cases those chances are disclosed. I know it's "by design", but that specific part of the design is what I'm not really ok with. That's also clearly something that can be addressed separately.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Sobx.1758

[Beast Sos.1457]

58 minutes ago, Sobx.1758 said:

Not exactly a black-and-white topic imo. I probably have less of a problem with gambling itself being a thing, but more about not having the chances disclosed.

I personally don't see how gambling for children isnt a black and white topic. What's there more to it? The younger of a age you are exposed to something, the more likely you will partake in it. 

[Silent.6137]

1 hour ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

The game is rated 13+. A 13 year old is a child... Children's don't have disposable income but their parents buy them the game....If that was the case then nothing outside of necessities would be sold for children.

Exposure to something is different than actually partaking in what you're being espoused to. No one said that if they remove them would make anyone morally well adjusted....trying to shelter children from gambling is bad? Holy kitten....You might not think your morals are lacking but I sure as hell think they are. You probably think its okay that kids are espoused to all this over sexualized content in media as well. 

You have your moral standards and I have mine. And you're trying to judge others? As I mentioned previously, it is a matter of personal perspectives. An orthodox religious society will view your standards as thoroughly lacking. So, are you wrong then?

Sheltering children from the evils of the world and leave them ignorant and unable to deal with it as they grow up. How about educating them instead?

You probably think its okay that kids are espoused (exposed?) to all this over sexualized content in media as well. - This statement is totally unwarranted and totally irrelevant. I will not debate it as it is nothing more than you grabbing for straws to try and paint those that disagree with you as evil.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Silent.6137

[DarcShriek.5829]

32 minutes ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

You can keep basing your morals on law. That is the same as any extremist group. They have a set of laws they follow and don't think for themselves. Bunch of sheeple. 

I'm an extremist because I don't agree with your opinion.  Really, your name calling is just immature.  Again, it's not gambling as there is no monetary reward. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by DarcShriek.5829

[costepj.5120]

29 minutes ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

The younger of a age you are exposed to something, the more likely you will partake in it. 

The younger of a age you are exposed to something, the less likely you will partake it.

 

My unfounded claim carries just as much weight as yours.

[Sobx.1758]

20 minutes ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

I personally don't see how gambling for children isnt a black and white topic. What's there more to it? The younger of a age you are exposed to something, the more likely you will partake in it. 

There's a difference between "being exposed to something" with intent to manipulate vs educating someone with factual information, which -to be clear- is mostly the parents' duty, where in this case it would be connected to transparency of the probability. If you want to draw the line at "completely forbid it because it can be misused/bad" then you'd need to start removing a lot more than just gambling. Things like alcohol, knives, sport equipment and even games themselves can all be misused to cause harm -a lot of which is easly accessible to anyone, including the kids. So it is not so black and white for me. Is any and all gambling automatically inherently bad? Not sure, plenty of people understand what it is and can get a lottery ticket without losing their (or their parents') whole livelyhood. I think the ability to understand actual chances to win (and subsequentially actual chances to lose) is an important part of understanding how much each "roll" is worth. Losing everything ingame can potentially be part of the lesson, losing everything from their parents' CC is still a problem of that CC being available to the kids in the first place.

[DarcShriek.5829]

39 minutes ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

I personally don't see how gambling for children isnt a black and white topic. What's there more to it? The younger of a age you are exposed to something, the more likely you will partake in it. 

The grey area is the definition of gambling.  Some people hold a definition that is so broad than any random event is considered gambling.  This is rediculous.  I simply go by the legal definition of gambling in my country.  I've been designing gambling devices for 18 years, and have had machines placed around the world.  I'm comfortable with the definition I use.  Is it gambling to buy a happy meal at mcdonalds?  What if it doesn't have the toy you wanted included?

[Lan Deathrider.5910]

Ever get a Happy Meal from McDonald's? Did you have a choice in the toy you got? No, it is whatever they person behind the counter randomly grabbed from the toy bin, so it was a random chance.

You see all the surprise toys out now? Pokemon cards?

We subject children to random chance all the time, so why is it any different in a video game?

[Tsakhi.8124]

Ok, I'm going to try and keep this short, because nobody likes a wall of text.

I play a game called Unison League, it is a gacha game. In the event you use gems to obtain items, it shows the percentiles of obtaining certain ranks of items ranging from N(Lowest) to SSR or UR depending on the flavor of the day (Highest). In the event that there are no gems expended (gems are the currency and are can be bought in packs of the predatory variety or earned.) no percentiles are given due to there being no monetary value to be had. The prior, by definition, is gambling as there is a possibility that you use real money to obtain an RNG item; in the latter case, this is not so, as there is no real life money going into that pull. 

People buying keys via the gem-shop understand that there is a risk that they may not get the item they desire. In this case, it is, indeed, gambling. On the other hand, many people don't spend money for keys and earn them by either doing key runs or converting gold to gems to obtain said keys. This, by definition, is not gambling, because you're not expending money to obtain RNG items. 

This is one of those instances that lie in limbo: they are neither wrong or right, they just are. 

I also, in good faith, believe that those kids (although 13 is considered early teens, but I'm not gonna be pedantic about it.) either ask their parents if they may spend this money to obtain an RNG item or grind for it. Do some kids use their parent's card? Absolutely and they pay the consequences for it in one way or another. (Personally my dad would've beat the kitten out of me if pulled a stunt like that.) That being said, Eco Gambling and BLC aren't as egregious as real life casinos where a great deal of money can and is lost.

Also, you standing on your soap-box and playing the holier-than-thou-art card tells me more about you than your so called morals do.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Tsakhi.8124
Bloop. Brain goes blip.

[SlayerXX.7138]

While Blacklion boxes are comparatively tame, I don't get the whole gambling is fine sentiment in the Posts here. Sure I educated my kids, but the next person who knows. The magic of online gambling is it reaches to many people to easily. I don't know why People are so happy to defend the rights of companys to prey on the vulnerable, the uneducated and the mentality ill.

Sure ecto gambling is op reaching, but Blacklion chest are just tame loot boxes.

[Raizel.1839]

Even if it was 18+ rated, it would still be an obnoxious practice, go to local slot machines or play poker if you like gambling, not videogames!

Edited October 26, 2022 by Raizel.1839

[Beast Sos.1457]

1 hour ago, Sobx.1758 said:

There's a difference between "being exposed to something" with intent to manipulate vs educating someone with factual information, which -to be clear- is mostly the parents' duty, where in this case it would be connected to transparency of the probability. If you want to draw the line at "completely forbid it because it can be misused/bad" then you'd need to start removing a lot more than just gambling. Things like alcohol, knives, sport equipment and even games themselves can all be misused to cause harm -a lot of which is easly accessible to anyone, including the kids. So it is not so black and white for me. Is any and all gambling automatically inherently bad? Not sure, plenty of people understand what it is and can get a lottery ticket without losing their (or their parents') whole livelyhood. I think the ability to understand actual chances to win (and subsequentially actual chances to lose) is an important part of understanding how much each "roll" is worth. Losing everything ingame can potentially be part of the lesson, losing everything from their parents' CC is still a problem of that CC being available to the kids in the first place.

Fair points. I can see where you're coming from. We do live in a society where theres a ease of access to pretty much anything for children. Parents need to do a better job of parenting thats for sure. I still think if you label something appropriate for a specific age group, it shouldn't have something which is clearly gambling. We can argue if gambling only matters when real life money is on the line but at the end of the day you get the same dopamine hits from gambling fake currency s you would real. I would say there is a bigger dopamine "hit" with real money of course but gambling fake currency is still a precursor to real currency gambling. 

[ArchonWing.9480]

1 hour ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:

I'm an extremist because I don't agree with your opinion.  Really, your name calling is just immature.  Again, it's not gambling as there is no monetary reward. 

The funny thing is that extremistss are usually the ones that tend to violate the law to enforce their own kind of morality because they think they're above it. So when they accuse you of your morality being based on law, it's probably consistent with a sentiment. Problem is Batman they are not.

Not that immoral should = illegal anyways. I personally disapprove of loot boxes and think they are stupid. And I would definitely share the idea with others. But it doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.

That being said, back to the main topic, if one had children, would they let them ecto gamble?

Edited October 26, 2022 by ArchonWing.9480

[Beast Sos.1457]

1 hour ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:

I'm an extremist because I don't agree with your opinion.  Really, your name calling is just immature.  Again, it's not gambling as there is no monetary reward. 

If you took that as name call then I apologize. That wasn't my intent. My point was that just because it's a law doesn't make it right. Extremists also have their laws. 

I can have some extremist thoughts without being a extremist. I wasn't trying to call you one.

[Beast Sos.1457]

1 minute ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

If you took that as name call then I apologize. That wasn't my intent. My point was that just because it's a law doesn't make it right. Extremists also have their laws. 

I can have some extremist thoughts without being a extremist. I wasn't trying to call you one.

Thats wrong. Extremists are those who follow their political/religious beliefs to a extreme. Not those who go against it. I assume you're thinking of a vigilante. 

[DarcShriek.5829]

Just now, Beast Sos.1457 said:

Thats wrong. Extremists are those who follow their political/religious beliefs to a extreme. Not those who go against it. I assume you're thinking of a vigilante. 

Stop comparing people that think differently than you to extremists.  I don't know who taught you that doing so was considered polite conversation, but whoever it was taught you wrong.  It makes your argument look weak.  You are using the word to describe people that don't agree with you.

[Beast Sos.1457]

1 minute ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:

Stop comparing people that think differently than you to extremists.  I don't know who taught you that doing so was considered polite conversation, but whoever it was taught you wrong.  It makes your argument look weak.  You are using the word to describe people that don't agree with you.

Did you not read my reply to you? Clearly not...

[DarcShriek.5829]

Just now, Beast Sos.1457 said:

Did you not read my reply to you? Clearly not...

No, I read it, did you read it?

[Beast Sos.1457]

1 minute ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:

No, I read it, did you read it?

Me telling you that I apologize if you took it that way and I wasn't trying to call you a extremist.....Yeah I wrote it...

Edited October 26, 2022 by Beast Sos.1457

[DarcShriek.5829]

2 minutes ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

Me telling you that I apologize if you took it that way and I wasn't trying to call you a extremist.....Yeah I wrote it...

Your use of the word extremist in your apology rendered it moot.  You can't apologize for calling people extremists, and then turn around and accuse people of being extremist in the same post.

[ArchonWing.9480]

14 minutes ago, Beast Sos.1457 said:

Thats wrong. Extremists are those who follow their political/religious beliefs to a extreme. Not those who go against it. I assume you're thinking of a vigilante. 

Maybe English is not your first language, but that's not how most view it.

Yes, not all people with extreme views will resort to violence  but their philosophy often leads to violence because it's just their logical conclusion that if society is so far off from what they regard is right.

There are many that are parts of groups that will call for "death to X", or want to violently overthrow the government that are not guilty of any crime. But it is no surprise that if some members end up doing that. And certainly nobody wants to be associated with them.

Edited October 26, 2022 by ArchonWing.9480

[Beast Sos.1457]

Just now, DarcShriek.5829 said:

Your use of the word extremist in your apology rendered it moot.  You can't apologize for calling people extremists, and then turn around and accuse people of being extremist in the same post.

Because I used the word extremist it doesn't matter? No matter what the context was? LMAO go sleep buddy. I called you w.e you want to think I called you.....

[SlayerXX.7138]

1 hour ago, DarcShriek.5829 said:

I simply go by the legal definition of gambling in my country

Well that seems a little pendantic. The only reason Gambling isn't in these legal definition is because loot boxes and such wasn't a thing, when these laws were writen. Also im pretty sure if Key would cost money instead of gems lootboxes have a high chance to be actuall illegal in your country too.