New Gacha Policy Discussion

[DeeJay Peapod]

7 minutes ago, Sora Cyclone said:

One could probably argue that there's a 'cash out' cycle with gacha items, too.  It takes some mental gymnastics, but selling the items for lindens and then cashing out those lindens could fall into a grey area as far as gambling goes.  If I can think of it, you know some bored and salivating regulator has.

Breedable creators should be considering their options as well, since if they fall under the new 'gacha' policy, they're in violation as well.

i totally agree with you about the breedables thing

[Innula Zenovka]

8 minutes ago, Dazashi Graves said:

****ing finally! Gacha's are and have always been literal cancer. 

No more exploitatively bad rates for rares.

No more spending 2000+L for the ONE item you wanted.

No more migraine of reselling dozens of common duplicates.

No more losing your no copy item to stupid f-ing server bugs.

No more god forsaken gacha scammers. 

 

Good riddance. 

Speaking as a survivor of cancer, I have to dispute the word "literal" there but otherwise I agree 100%.   

I've never bought anything from Gatcha machines, since I take the attitude that, when I want to gamble online, I will do  (I'm a Brit, so I can that legally if I feel like  it) and when I want to buy virtual content in SL for my own purposes, that's what I want to do. 

When I want to create environments in SL I do not want waste my time -- which is considerably more valuable to me in many ways than simply L$  -- with loot boxes.   I want to pay the creator a decent price for their creation in the first place, so we're both satisfied with the transaction, and then get on with both my second and first lives.

From what I've heard from friends who make mesh, the pressure to produce new lines with which to stuff their Gatchas at each of the increasing number of fairs is gruelling, and I think this decision will be welcomed by many of them, too.

For background on legal restrictions on Loot Boxes, the House of Commons Library has a good background report on the  situation in the UK and elsewhere

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8498/

(tl;dr, they're already banned in several European jurisdictions, legislation banning them is currently being considered by the Australian senate, and the British government will be announcing its plans by the end of the year.)

 

 

 

[Sora Cyclone]

1 minute ago, DeeJay Peapod said:

well then we should all ban, breedables, sploders, any of the fishing games where you have to buy worms, because its all based on chance that you may or may not make a profit in return ergo if you breed horses but your not getting the value of those original horses after food and all the stuff thats required to maintain them, then its technically chance. sploders should be banned simply because its more gambling.

Sploders that you have to pay into to win money are already against the rules.

And, you're right, everything else that has a 'pay for a chance', like breedables, fishing with linden-bought bait, and anything that is similar to a gacha that you use lindens to purchase a chance.  They all fall under this new rule, so they would technically not be allowed.

[Yuri Snowfield]

Glad this gambling mechanic is gone.

Now let people buy the thing they want. and not spend thousands and thousands to get the one collor they realy want to have.

[SativaStaryk]

2 minutes ago, meowmeowzer said:

In a normal gumball, you'd have equal chances of getting the blue and the red. Most of the cases, the manufacturer even does the gumballs all the same flavor, just different colors, because they KNOW that if you put a more desirable flavor people will try and take the flavor they want. With all the same flavors, even if you like a gumball that is the color blue, you would be "eh, that's okay. I have a gumball anyway" and go on with your life.

 

What we see right now with gachas, is that you'd have a machine with 70% red gumballs that taste like rotten fish, 29% blue gumballs that are Ok At Best and will last you like 10 seconds of chewing, and 1% that is The Perfect Golden Gumball.

There are few creators that really use the Gumball Analogy on their gacha machines, and I can recite them by head. But listen, I've seen gachas that you HAD to have ALL the items for the gacha to work properly, INCLUDING THE RARE. I've seen gachas that you would roll L$75 and had the chance to win A SINGLE PANTY ITEM. How is that fair to the consumer? How would you "desire" a trash item that you don't want in your inventory? Some people will roll, and roll, and roll until they get what they want. There are people that spend thousands, if not hundreds of dollars in gachas because they see the value in it. How is that not gambling??

You are telling me that a person clicking on the gacha is not aware of what they are doing and has no control over their actions? They have made a cognitive decision on clicking their mouse to obtain a random prize. They are choosing to click and spend what they want, just as they are clicking on any other thing in SL with the understanding that they are going to get something they are clicking on, weather it be random or intentional purchase. Freedom of choice is it not?

[Asadora Summers]

9 minutes ago, SativaStaryk said:

Where do we draw the line on this? What about random prize givers or lucky chairs? Its the same concept of a gacha. Will everything in fun be banned because some consider it "gambling" This is not skilled gaming, its all luck of the draw. Will we consider SL in its entirety gambling as it costs money to do anything...

When a person sits on a lucky chair with a name that matches the letter or number given, that person knows what they are getting.
'Name with the letter A' and there is a picture as to what a person with a name that starts with the letter A will get.
Lucky chairs/boards are usually free, unless you have to be a member of a group.
Random prize givers the recipient has the option to accept it or not without an transaction involved.

 

[Piper Kelly]

5 minutes ago, meowmeowzer said:

In a normal gumball, you'd have equal chances of getting the blue and the red. Most of the cases, the manufacturer even does the gumballs all the same flavor, just different colors, because they KNOW that if you put a more desirable flavor people will try and take the flavor they want. With all the same flavors, even if you like a gumball that is the color blue, you would be "eh, that's okay. I have a gumball anyway" and go on with your life.

 

What we see right now with gachas, is that you'd have a machine with 70% red gumballs that taste like rotten fish, 29% blue gumballs that are Ok At Best and will last you like 10 seconds of chewing, and 1% that is The Perfect Golden Gumball.

There are few creators that really use the Gumball Analogy on their gacha machines, and I can recite them by head. But listen, I've seen gachas that you HAD to have ALL the items for the gacha to work properly, INCLUDING THE RARE. I've seen gachas that you would roll L$75 and had the chance to win A SINGLE PANTY ITEM. How is that fair to the consumer? How would you "desire" a trash item that you don't want in your inventory? Some people will roll, and roll, and roll until they get what they want. There are people that spend hundreds of dollars in gachas because they see the value in it. How is that not gambling??

It's fair as in the player knows exactly what they are doing and the chances of getting what they want, even if they are slim chances.  And there's nothing wrong with rares, its simply the chance to have something that not everyone else has, consider designer clothing where only limited copies are made.

[s2Pandora]

8 minutes ago, SativaStaryk said:

Lucky chairs require you to join the group at times, they groups sometimes cost L's again, where is the line. Me thinks people are just sore losers and cant control themselves, thus others suffer for their lack of control

 

Well, perhaps SL will address that. However i'd never known anymore who joins groups just got the lucky chairs lol.. most lucky chairs I see are super old items not many would want anyway.

 

Edit: Actually somebody already explained it. You know what you're getting I guess.

Edited August 2, 2021 by s2Pandora

[Nikole Messmer]

Blind boxes... gumball machines.... the literal gacha machines of japan.... even trading card packs like pokemon and baseball cards.... there's not a single difference among them, ultimately, and I can't think of any place in the world that they're illegal for any age of purchaser. I get restricting literal gambling with L for L transactions like the old sploders and "slot machine" style games of original SL days... but this is a bit of a reach imo. I will say this though... gacha events have taken a sharp decline in quality over the last couple years anyway, so I suppose this is just as well. Maybe it will push designers back to creating good solid content, instead of fluff pieces no one wants. I will miss the chase though

[Chaz Longstaff]

It's nothing but gambling and it's shady as anything to your customers. If I want something in blue I should be able to buy it in blue, not have to give you 8000 lindens to get the one that I want.

Plus they were done to death. It's like one person gets an idea in SL and 9 million people ape it, and it's not like they are *improving* on the original idea or anything, which is different, but nope, just aping it.

Plus creators are feeling compelled to spend their valuable time creating things to stuff these gambling boxes with, for cheap*ss people hoping to get something for next to nothing. I would far rather pay the creator the full, fair price of it. If blue costs more, then fine, charge me more for the blue. But I feel somewhat sickened seeing their time being demeaned with gatcha giveaways.

With luck, this will inspire some new innovative business ideas that are fairer to customers and to creators.

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Chaz Longstaff

[SativaStaryk]

1 minute ago, Asadora Summers said:

When a person sits on a lucky chair with a name that matches the letter or number given, that person knows what they are getting.
'Name with the letter A' and there is a picture as to what a person with a name that starts with the letter A will get.
Lucky chairs/boards are usually free, unless you have to be a member of a group.
Random prize givers the recipient has the option to accept it or not without an transaction involved.

 

Ok what about sploders?

 

[Larree Quixote]

Well, I enjoyed gachas. Sorry to read this news. But LL gotta do what LL gotta do. It's not easy being a worldwide entity. Gotta make a whole lot of different people happy. Everything gets sanitized down to the lowest common denominator. I guess I better go play some gachas for old time's sake! 

[Cam Mode]

Next we'll have to be honest when we discuss romantic issues to avoid misrepresentations. THAT will kill the grid.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Cam Mode

[Ceejay Harvey]

59 minutes ago, Aire Xaris said:

So Kudos to the person that comes out with the Normal Vendor and sells the actual product pictured on vendor face and calls it Gotcha, I guess.

I don't understand yet how this violated gaming, I haven't read that mess since like 2011, 12 maybe but I DID enjoy Gachas and thought it was a pretty cool marketing tool in SL, but like pretty much everything else over the years, Did and use to, seem to be the most used descriptives when it comes to marketplace. 

Simple it's a form of online gambling. most people buy lidens with real currency, and while, not a cash prize its still gambling.

 companies  have been using  dirty tricks to avoid prossecution, by setting them up in places where it still remains at least not illegal. bcause while its not illegal  (yet) to advertise it in  countries where it is, the loop holes are slowly being closed.

Linden labs have seen which way the winds blowing and  are closing it down, before someone brings a law suit.

Kudos to LL

[Moira Stern]

Ultimately this likely came down to a cost/loss/benefit analysis:

Option one: Ban gachas, and perhaps lose some revenue/business through community disaffection

Option two: Ignore the legal mandates and get fined so heavily that LL goes OUT of business.

 

If it were my company, and I cared at all about it continuing to operate, I know which one I would pick.

[WereScrib]

Just now, Piper Kelly said:

It's fair as in the player knows exactly what they are doing and the chances of getting what they want, even if they are slim chances.  And there's nothing wrong with rares, its simply the chance to have something that not everyone else has, consider designer clothing where only limited copies are made.

Admittedly if a gacha machine stated the exact % and drop rate of the items, additionally it didn't require multiple items to get benefit from, and the items involved were not necessarily piecemeal or greater than the other, this would fall out of most lootbox regulations.

I have never seen a gacha that did that.

[Asadora Summers]

Just now, SativaStaryk said:

Ok what about sploders?

 

Legally, I am not sure when it comes to sploders. All I know is that it's a traffic building item that a lot of clubs use.
I wouldn't be butt-hurt if they were the next thing to go. 😁

[DeeJay Peapod]

1 minute ago, Chaz Longstaff said:

It's nothing but gambling and it's shady as anything to your customers. If I want something in blue I should be able to buy it in blue, not have to give you 8000 lindens to get the one that I want.

Plus they were done to death. It's like one person gets an idea in SL and 9 million people ape it, and it's not like they are *improving* on the original idea or anything, which is different, but nope, just aping it.

With luck, this will inspire some new innovative business ideas that are fairer to customers.

 

or ya know...you look for resellers on MP or in world...where odds are youll find it for cheaper anyways....people play gachas because its FUN....

[Teager]

Just going to add on my agreement with others in this thread who have suggested that one month fore-warning might be too short a turn around time. It will take time for the news to spread to more reclusive creators who may not follow the blog, the forums, or group chats, as well as time spent in redoing box images for each item and potentially perms as well. Stores that have many gachas may sit empty while creators rework their products, which could have a significant effect on creators for whom second life is their primary source of income. 3-6 months might be a kinder time frame for the creators worst affected.

[Torric Rodas]

How about a hover text:  Current Prize is:   "whatever"  .. up to the user if they pay 50L for what is shown.

They may have to play umpteen times until the prize they want comes up..  but you could never say it was random, since the resident would know exactly what they were purchasing each time they pay the machine.

[Ceejay Harvey]

1 minute ago, SativaStaryk said:

Ok what about sploders?

 

Probably next. if Gatcha fall under this new ruling  then Sploders should go to, as in both cases you  don't always get what you want, but you get something.

Which has always until now been a defence against  wre gmbling claims

[Sora Cyclone]

4 minutes ago, SativaStaryk said:

Ok what about sploders?

 

Sploders that you have to pay into in order to win are already against the rules.  They've been against the rules since the gambling ban.

[Qie Niangao]

36 minutes ago, 69queenofthenight said:

So Basically anyone who sells breedables and uses a vendor to sell multiple Items of the same breed but the rest of the items is unknown can no longer use vendors or gatchas to sell eggs, bundles, crates,  or whatever the babies birth as.  Because we would have to list every trait on all the breedables?  We can not just put a certain breed in a vendor with various traits. 

I would think this would need to change, along the lines you specified. If there's uncertainty about what you get in return for what you pay, that's pushing the gambling envelope pretty hard.

25 minutes ago, Chaser Zaks said:

At first when it was "You get random item" it was fine, but it turned into redemption card re-selling which is the kicker.

Maybe gachas could have survived a bit longer if they were limited to no-transfer items, so there could be no re-selling. The buyer would still be very much taking a chance with what they spend, so it's still "gambling" of a sort, but if there was no possible way to monetize the result it would feel different.

28 minutes ago, Javen Latte said:

With this line of thinking then someone should close casinos because people have a gambling addiction.

2 minutes ago, SativaStaryk said:

This is not skilled gaming, its all luck of the draw. 

Of course LL was forced to close in-world casinos years ago. I do kinda wonder if the thin veneer of "skill" that justifies the "skilled gaming" regions could be applied to a next-gen gacha that can only be used on those skilled gaming regions. Seems unlikely gacha commerce could pay the bills on those regions, but it might work for a while until the gacha fad finally dies out.

(Not that it matters what I think, but I've always hated gacha; it's just such an egregiously annoying way to be forced to buy stuff. I also think it's pure delusion to consider them anything other than low-stakes gambling but I don't particularly care about that.)

[NeoBokrug Elytis]

People sure have a lot of questions about what this is; please let me simplify:

If the seller has you pay L$ for a thing, and you don't 100% know what that thing you're getting is -- it's not allowed now.

[Adam Spark]

24 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Not when everything you buy from now on 100% no-modify.

There are literally thousands of items on the MP, not limited in quantity, that are modifiable. Modify permission is hardly a gacha exclusive thing. Not even close. I buy modify items all the time and change things on them to suit my liking, and I avoid Gachas like the plague.