Gem store problems? (Belgian players not able to buy/redeem gems?)

[Sariel.2143]

@Scratchpaw.1069 said:

@"Sariel.2143" said:

First of all its about lootboxes that give an advantage over other players.

Second, gambling is legal above 21years.

Final point, there isnt a new "law" everyone is talking about. They are just looking into it. (And to be honest, everyones busy with the upcoming elections)

Just get an age restriction on it or something.

You say it only concerns lootboxes that give an advantage over other players. Last time I read about the law, it was ANY form of gambling (i.e. any type of lootboxes). Counter-Strike weapon crates do not give you an advantage because it's just a skin. However, you can't buy any keys for the crates anymore either.

Anet is taking the 'better safe than sorry' approach and wants GW2 to comply with the new law before it gets approved. And yes, it WILL get approved, only a matter of time.

Age restriction is a bad idea and would just be another loophole to a shady practice. Gaming companies should be aware that lootboxes is a toxic in the current gaming industry and I really hope the rest of the EU and hopefully US will follow, so game developers will think twice before implementing such maleficent and 'cheap' ways to generate income.

@"Sariel.2143" said:It isnt considered gambling when there is no advantage to gain. It needs to meet this criteria:"a bet that can lead to a loss or profit".

What would you call, for example the mount adoption license, if it isn't considered gambling in your book?

You could sell those cs go skins for real money. Mount adaptation liscences arent gambling. They said so themselves.

Keep on reading or mail them yourself.Can find the mail when you type "kansspelcommisie contact" in google.

[Sariel.2143]

@Imba.9451 said:

@Turk.5460 said:

So then surely you'd like a subscription like World of Warcraft.

No.

@Sariel.2143 said:

@Imba.9451 said:

@Sariel.2143 said:It isnt considered gambling when there is no advantage to gain. It needs to meet this criteria:"a bet that can lead to a loss or profit".

Semantics.There is a game of chance involved, and THATS what people are sick off. I I really don't know why people wuld prefer a game of chance over a straightforward, honest purchase.

The only thing they have to do is put the chance % to get certain items, problem solved.

Now Im forced to spend 3times as much for a skin I want. Which I wont.

Then blame Anet. Blame them for the pricing, blame them to set upso high, in order to make lootboxes look more attractive, instead of just offering a complete bundle.They designed it that way. They could also decide to play fair.

Also, put the chance % behind the categories still doesn't take away from it being a game of chance.

I do blame them, like in my first post.Belgium players now miss content.Or they disable it in general or they figure a way out how we can get the same skins.

While its still a game of chance, putting the chance rate on it allows it in Belgium.

[BillC.4521]

I wonder if gold/gem exchange will be affected by this or not. This is the only way for real money to enter the game now and can still be used for ecto gambling or mystic forge for mystic clovers and etc(probably considered gambling since some t6 you get is randomised). Some people i know did this so i wonder about that

[yann.1946]

@Imba.9451 said:

@Turk.5460 said:

So then surely you'd like a subscription like World of Warcraft.

No.

@Sariel.2143 said:

@Imba.9451 said:

@Sariel.2143 said:It isnt considered gambling when there is no advantage to gain. It needs to meet this criteria:"a bet that can lead to a loss or profit".

Semantics.There is a game of chance involved, and THATS what people are sick off. I I really don't know why people wuld prefer a game of chance over a straightforward, honest purchase.

The only thing they have to do is put the chance % to get certain items, problem solved.

Now Im forced to spend 3times as much for a skin I want. Which I wont.

Then blame Anet. Blame them for the pricing, blame them to set upso high, in order to make lootboxes look more attractive, instead of just offering a complete bundle.They designed it that way. They could also decide to play fair.

Also, put the chance % behind the categories still doesn't take away from it being a game of chance.

@yann.1946 said:

@Imba.9451 said:

@Sariel.2143 said:It isnt considered gambling when there is no advantage to gain. It needs to meet this criteria:"a bet that can lead to a loss or profit".

Semantics.There is a game of chance involved, and THATS what people are sick off. I I really don't know why people wuld prefer a game of chance over a straightforward, honest purchase.

You probably should try to understand the why before judging then. :)

Enlighten me then. Change my mind, brig arguments, and don't try to belittle me.

We'll it's like alcohol, a little can be fun and make a good night while to much will leave you in the gutter.

And it was more a friendly suggestion because the sentence I don't get why people would do this is a bad idea in every debate.

[Teratus.2859]

We all know who's truly to blame for this mess..

Sucks for our fellow players in Belgium but I doubt it'll be for long.Anet has one of the best and most fair in game stores in any game i've ever played and i'm sure they'll find a way to work something out for Gw2 in Belgium.Chances are a lot of us are going to have to deal with this same situation eventually and it sucks that good companies like Anet will take a small hit thanks to the greedy, slimey practices of certain other companies who for a long time now have been nothing but a disgrace to this industry.

It's a crappy situation but unfortunately a neccessary one.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I'd much rather pay a little for a chance than a lot for a sure thing. Mainly because I can't afford the 'a lot'. But, I can, occasionally afford the 'a little'.

[Turin.6921]

@yann.1946 said:

@Turin.6921 said:

@yann.1946 said:

@Turin.6921 said:

@Astraea.6075 said:For those cheering on this change, are you also advocating that MTG or similar games should also be banned from sale in Belgium?

These are physical products that have intrinsic value. The discussion about them has been done a long time ago and are already not considered to be gambling. The digital version of those games though needs to find a different monetization strategy.

This is such a ridiculous argument. In a casino you also get physical chips which have intrinsic value so by you're argument that is also no gambling.

If you are against loot boxes that's fine but please stay consistent with the reasoning

Casino tokens are not products that you own. They are just a different form of money. That is how the legal system sees it. On MTG you get the value you would expect on a physical product thus not gambling. On lootboxes you get digital goods that most is worth nothing and once in a while sth that you consider valuable and none are physical goods. In many countries that is an important aspect for sth to be considered gambling. It is widely accepted in western legal systems that there is a differentiation between gambling and collectibles like MTG that are socially acceptable as non gambling activities.

If you want more professional take on how the legal system sees things here it is (@ about 30.00 min mark):

It honestly feels like a lot of lobbying has been going on, or people who don't know what their talking about(the judges not the podcast) Because something is virtual doesn't mean it has no value. Except if they are talking about the material but no mtg card his word his pack value in paper.

The issue is that the product is not physical. It does not have material value (indeed this is one reason ) and cannot be considered a collectible cause its basically just source code that can be replicated indefinitely and you do not really own it. You do not own anything in your account in the legal sense. The moment GW2 shuts down the purchased items are gone. You do not even own the game itself. You just have a license to play it. The cards you just have and none can take them from you even if the company shuts down. Thus it is highly unlikely that a judge will consider digital goods from a lootbox as having objective value.

There is also an additional reason. The booster packs on card games begun as just packs of normal cards. They were randomized but when they came to the market you know that they would have a specific number of randomized cards but of equal value. The price point was for those cards. The rare "chaser card" was added later and it was considered a bonus promotional feature. The price was the same, you still paid the same price for the normal cards but just with a bonus chance of sth rare. In most lootboxes most things are trash and the main incentive to buy are the rare drops. That is very important for many judges to consider sth gambling.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

Folks --

This thread is, as the subject clearly indicates, about a specific situation involving purchase blocks for our friends in Belgium. It is not about loot boxes, gambling addiction, a desire to acquire items for free, gem purchase pricing, or anything else. It's about Belgium, purchase blocks, and how we were able to reinstate the option to initiate some purchases -- done freely and at will, when chosen -- as opposed to blocking every purchase. It's an elegant solution and I applaud the developer who made it possible.

Now, as for this thread: I'm going to close this thread, with apologies for those who'd like to discuss the actual topic ;) -- while the moderators take the time that will be required to remove the off-topic comments. We're not trying to silence any opinions you may have about other issues, but other issues are covered in other threads, and you can find those threads by using the search engine, after which you are more than welcome to post your thoughts there. Please do not create a new thread about an old topic, when the old topic already has a lively thread that you can join.

Thanks for understanding.