You forgot they'd also have to give everyone an easy way to get money to put in the slot machine... but yet again, the point is not to define what gambling is; the point is simply to explain that buying a loot box is not the same as playing slot machines.Originally Posted by vishimtar1982 Go to original post
In terms of games a "bet" is to get an item that provides a random item and risk CHANCE in order to obtain something you want. It is a randomised roll of items (or something alike). Gambling isn't about money. It can involve money but it's not about money. If I bet my house on a roll of a dice that's still a gamble. It would still be a gambled if the bet was "I can name what's under that cardboard box". If I spend money on random loot boxes with a 1% chance to give me an epic item with money only that's still gambling. At least as far as I'm concerned.
People already know this though. No one is going to take actions against it seriously. I'll believe there's laws against it once I actually SEE it. There's also laws being made going against net neutrality, but the people won't stand for it. given the current state of the world and the larger issues at hand "In game random rolls brought with real money" is the least of most peoples concerns. So people tend to just overlook it, provided it doesn't get out of hand. It's like the littering law, basically. Everyone knows, few really care.
Course, with how Shadow of War And Battlefront 2 handled microtransactions that can give cause for concern. And in the case of the later something was done about it (the former is honestly more of a none issue). But those are exceptions to the rule.
Hmmm well it definitely needs attention in terms of the pay to win scenarios.
Side note: I actually like the cosmetic system in Division. You can pay if you want but also earn the key frags in game needed to get said items, just by playing. I like that I can choose to support a developer I feel is going the right direction. ( 1.8 is great btw)
Imo there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing forced, no advantage over others.
I has posted a little while back about these crates and just gave up as the vast majority comments were nonsense.
The big thing for me with these specific crates was the addition of the 'Key Fragment' item. Not getting fragments due to receiving a duplicate reward, but an actual item added to the loot pool that will take the place of an actual reward you might have been hoping to receive.
There were actual people defending this! It's a poor practice if it just uses in-game currency, but to have a situation where real money is used to purchase a crate and all they get is part of a chance to open a crate is immoral and filthily greedy.
I can't disagree with this. Bottom line with the vanity items is the whole catalogue should be available on the Vendor. You should be able to buy individual items or sets at your pleasure. This in terms of Premium Credits. Sure, let the Cypher Key freebies have the long odds, but if someone opens their wallet, which the company has been so eager to accept, they should have access to what they'd like to purchase directly, no bundles, no B.S.. Have bundled items sure, but not JUST so you can fleece a customer for a chunk of change and only give him/her half or less than what they want... I'm looking at you Hades Bundle.Originally Posted by TCs_LCD_Dave Go to original post
Because the system is what it is, there is no other reasoning to arrive at other than filthily greedy. I really should take a video of me opening 40 caches at a stretch, people would probably be disgusted at how often the algorithm throws the same item at you that you already have, countless times within a given 'session' with the Vendor.
Opened 40 the other day, saw the same weapon skin that I received about two weeks ago, that are still on the Vendor as a series the Majuer. So I get that skin, which I already have/had, nit just once, but thrice out of those 40, and still have yet to see the item I want.
CM's promise me that the item isn't evading me purposely... no, no it isn't, the CODE is doing all that for me.
That you would code something like this and not have the entire catalogue available says greed. We get an Alpha Bridge fix patch in less than a week of its release, but this can't be fixed and/or isn't given priority? The patch screwed up the Vendor's offering list, no response about it reverting to a list that up three weeks ago.
Yep, I was a sucker and they got me, but good... and what's really screwed up is I hope they enjoy it, because this company won't see a dollar more from me after this game... been buying Ubisoft games since they were wee lads, but there's no excuse for the Vendor system in this game. They might as well have just called it video poker and added two more items. Then we could see how great a hand we could make from all the duplicates!
They won't post odds, it would be so laughable as to be insulting.
If you're buying caches with real money you're the fuel that makes the system go.Originally Posted by KhalVarys Go to original post
Oh to be sure, I'm wearing the dunce cap. I have bought them, plenty. But it's not so much that they offer in-game micro transactions, it's the underlying system/app that's driving the anger.Originally Posted by Mad-Cap Go to original post
I barely paid any attention to Cypher keys when first introduced. Collected dozens before ever opening anything, and all for nothing at that point. Got some great stuff along the way, and because I had so few of the items, there was plenty of early returns, it's the late stage that leaves the system's limitations, which are all related back to design, where its flaws are extremely highlighted.
Again, no problem with the idea on the whole but it should've simply been, Cypher keys and their related caches should have been separate from the monetary function of the Premium Vendor. The items being sold should've been purchasable from their respective theme list, but the entire catalogue available as released and added to. In this way, people spending cash could buy what they want directly instead of this system of psuedo semi-exclusivity and limited time only tactics for some items while others never leave the list, like Spectrum Core/Compact.
What it suggests is the system was developed with that specific goal in kind which then leads one to the conclusion that THAT is underhanded and just greedy.
The statement around the Premium Vendor says that artists involved need to be paid and so that constitutes their justification for charging real currency, however the artists are likely already paid and don't get paid when the image is used/bought.
But think of the irony... artists don't want their work unseen! Which is a lot of what happens with these skins... unseen. Heck the 3rd party site devoted to this game's field guide only has a PTS version of the skin I'm after, and placards with no image for tons of other skins. It's asinine.
Yes, I was suckered, but now that I see the functionality of the system, won't buy anymore and Ubi cost themselves future purchases as a result of this decision. Was it worth the greed? You have no idea how much my future purchases might total, but have a ball with a couple hundred.
Practice fair business, see customers respect your brand... pull this crap, see yourselves become the next EA in the eyes of gamers.
Not that big a deal to me to throw a few bucks out, but when the issues are related to greed and greed only, that deserves remembering for the future.