New Gacha Policy Discussion

[Komarimono]

2 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

Cause the only random thing is the item choosen from the machine but have the option to buy what you see at this moment with descriptions is like u go in one auction...u don t know what they will sell but when the auction is started u will have the decision to buy or not the item

I know what is is, and how it works, yes.  The machine, or vendor, shows that is currently available, letting you purchase only what is being shown and available.  Then randomly after said purchase, the available item is then changed to a different one.  Correct?

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Stella Davros said:

Cause the only random thing is the item choosen from the machine but have the option to buy what you see at this moment with descriptions is like u go in one auction...u don t know what they will sell but when the auction is started u will have the decision to buy or not the item

But you're buying that item you don't want on the chance that the next one will be what you want.  Same as a gacha but at least with gacha, that first purchase COULD be what you want.  The new system is even more cringy.

[Stella Davros]

Just now, Komarimono said:

I know what is is, and how it works, yes.  The machine, or vendor, shows that is currently available, letting you purchase only what is being shown and available.  Then randomly after said purchase, the available item is then changed to a different one.  Correct?

Correct

[Stella Davros]

Just now, Rowan Amore said:

But you're buying that item you don't want on the chance that the next one will be what you want.  Same as a gacha but at least with gacha, that first purchase COULD be what you want.  The new system is even more cringy.

Yes but like this u will not lose money straight away, is like if u want this u can buy next if not u will not lose money and someone else want what u don t can buy it

[Komarimono]

2 minutes ago, Komarimono said:

I know what is is, and how it works, yes.  The machine, or vendor, shows that is currently available, letting you purchase only what is being shown and available.  Then randomly after said purchase, the available item is then changed to a different one.  Correct?

 

1 minute ago, Stella Davros said:

Correct

So, since my understanding is correct.  The chance to get the item you want, is still based entirely on a random chance that you have no control over, requiring either yourself or another to invest currency into the vendor to progress to the next available item, making it a gamble on what you may next be able purchase?

[Stella Davros]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

IMO - and I am most definitely not a lawyer - as long as the machine does not lock to the person that pays for Item-A so that they get the first shot at the random spin result, they they are not really paying for the randomness.

By the same token, if I were to play this (which I totally would not), if it did not lock to me, I probably wouldn't bother because some bot will be standing there ready to snipe the rares.

If they will create a hud like i explained before will be locked and as well u can buy from home...even u don t need to go to the event

[Faly Breen]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

People can have all the fun with trading cards that they like. Unless, of course, you're counting the person providing the random cards being paid as "fun."

how else do wanna sell "trading cards" if everyone can literally "buy" the cards they want? Isnt the "thing" of trading cards the actually trading part? Think about pokemon, yu-gi-ho or magic card booster packs. if you know already what cards will be inside, where is the logic behind this if you get already what you want anyway? Ever thought about that? Ever thought about how this fishing game will end if you literally know which fish you will cast for next? Some people never thought logical behind this system coz some stuff literally is "based" on the random factor. It has nothing to do with buying on a vendor x version of a dress to finally get the one you want, its based on the trading part and not on the "you sell only x version and add a droprate to it so you make money" part coz THOSE should be the ones which get forbidden - not trading cards, fishing games or simple bubblegum toys or kinder surprise eggs god dang it. As i said already in my text there, a fishing game where you exactly know what you catch next misses the fun. opening card booster packs in which you know which cards are inside misses the fun.

1 hour ago, Komarimono said:

For fun, and mostly curiosity, I showed this "conveyor" system to someone at work.  I work for a cloud computing company called (removed!), so we tend to have to have a legal team on standby for reasons I can't really say.

Their response...  Was oddly humorous.  "If randomness is what needs to be removed, why was it made worse with requiring an initial purchase to then get random results after?  Hopefully these items cannot be re-sold since this would be gambling."

This. @Patch Linden

Edited August 6, 2021 by Faly Breen

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 minute ago, Stella Davros said:

3 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

IMO - and I am most definitely not a lawyer - as long as the machine does not lock to the person that pays for Item-A so that they get the first shot at the random spin result, they they are not really paying for the randomness.

By the same token, if I were to play this (which I totally would not), if it did not lock to me, I probably wouldn't bother because some bot will be standing there ready to snipe the rares.

If they will create a hud like i explained before will be locked and as well u can buy from home...even u don t need to go to the event

That still pretty much falls into the category of it is "locked to me" - which still means that I'm really buying the random spin hoping for something specific.

[Stella Davros]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

That still pretty much falls into the category of it is "locked to me" - which still means that I'm really buying the random spin hoping for something specific.

Yes but as you say "hope" is not a gamble....gamble is when u pay something that u don t know nothing, like this u have choise to buy somenthing that u know infos and then u can choice if buy there or somewhere else but at less you don t spin and lose money receiving goods that u don t want that s why is not gambling and as well then u have the chance to buy what you want from that set  on MP....just to say i ask to my parent that is a lawyer 

[Mollymews]

26 minutes ago, Shuichi Shinji said:

That sounds very interesting - kinda like what you could do in Unity with their scripts: export soem global variables which could then be set via UI as some kind of properties, too - no need to edit the scripts anymore. I would love something like that for LSL, just a new tab in the edit dialog where you could set such script properties.. but that's getting a litle off-topic now 🙂

if you want take the topic over to the Scripting forum and it can be talked about there

[Komarimono]

2 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

Yes but as you say "hope" is not a gamble....gamble is when u pay something that u don t know nothing, like this u have choise to buy somenthing that u know infos and then u can choice if buy there or somewhere else but at less you don t spin and lose money receiving goods that u don t want that s why is not gambling and as well then u have the chance to buy what you want from that set  on MP....just to say i ask to my parent that is a lawyer 

Gambling, the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor's miscalculation.

[LittleMe Jewell]

3 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

Yes but as you say "hope" is not a gamble....gamble is when u pay something that u don t know nothing, like this u have choise to buy somenthing that u know infos and then u can choice if buy there or somewhere else but at less you don t spin and lose money receiving goods that u don t want that s why is not gambling and as well then u have the chance to buy what you want from that set  on MP....just to say i ask to my parent that is a lawyer 

Possibly this view is valid - there are all sorts of lawyer specialties, so only one that specializes in gambling law is probably fully qualified to answer -- though all that really matters is LL's final stance on whatever various people come up with.

[Stella Davros]

1 minute ago, Komarimono said:

Gambling, the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor's miscalculation.

Yes but without the possibility of choose....

[Stella Davros]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

Possibly this view is valid - there are all sorts of lawyer specialties, so only one that specializes in gambling law is probably fully qualified to answer -- though all that really matters is LL's final stance on whatever various people come up with.

Exactly...and i repeat that before to write the FAQ they had a legal advice

[Faly Breen]

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Possibly this view is valid - there are all sorts of lawyer specialties, so only one that specializes in gambling law is probably fully qualified to answer -- though all that really matters is LL's final stance on whatever various people come up with.

yea coz by their rule, paying a bubblegum machine and getting one of 10 different bouncy ball toys means its gambling.

[Komarimono]

23 minutes ago, Komarimono said:

I know what is is, and how it works, yes.  The machine, or vendor, shows that is currently available, letting you purchase only what is being shown and available.  Then randomly after said purchase, the available item is then changed to a different one.  Correct?

 

22 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

Correct

 

19 minutes ago, Komarimono said:

 

So, since my understanding is correct.  The chance to get the item you want, is still based entirely on a random chance that you have no control over, requiring either yourself or another to invest currency into the vendor to progress to the next available item, making it a gamble on what you may next be able purchase?

 

9 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

Yes but as you say "hope" is not a gamble....gamble is when u pay something that u don t know nothing, like this u have choise to buy somenthing that u know infos and then u can choice if buy there or somewhere else but at less you don t spin and lose money receiving goods that u don t want that s why is not gambling and as well then u have the chance to buy what you want from that set  on MP....just to say i ask to my parent that is a lawyer 

 

6 minutes ago, Komarimono said:

Gambling, the betting or staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance or accident or have an unexpected result by reason of the bettor's miscalculation.

 

4 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

Yes but without the possibility of choose....

Basically...  You have no choice on the outcome, as explained and confirmed, of what is coming next after you've made the initial currency investment.

[Sammy Huntsman]

On 8/5/2021 at 9:48 AM, MelodicRain said:

So glad to see the end of this gambling trend. IAP lootboxes already plagued the gaming industry to the point of no return, we don't need this garbage plaguing SL. Thanks LL for actually doing something nice for the customers for a change, even though it was only due to a legal requirement. I'm so sick of finding that awesome looking item on some poster or site, then only to find out it's effing-gacha-only.

I'd rather pay 200-300L for the item I want, in the colour I want. Gambling and possibly paying 1000L+ for the actual item I want (when the item pool consists of multiple types of items), in popular colours (usually black, white, red, pink), no effing thanks, get your money from other idiots. People need to realize 90% of gacha items are never used/sold and end up being dead pixels, because let's face it, you'll probably get 20 copies of [insert unpopular item type, and unpopular colour here] before you get one that you want, and most people prefer the popular colours, and 90% of the time the popular colours are ALWAYS the rares.

Yes But I don't to be gambling away my money, and pay essentially equivalent or even more for a tonne of pulls and have a tonne of duplicates. Just to get the set. 

[Styxx Starchild]

14 hours ago, xAmbiguityx said:

Thank you, this is literally why my blood has been boiling.

From what I have noticed those that create gachas tend not to create store releases or stand-alone items.  Their stock is likely entirely based off of using gachas to predate on their customers as some sort of cash cow. This new "conveyer system" is just the same as Gacha but reversed. Even though a customer may know what they are getting - they do not know what they might be getting next.  This does not take the gambling out of the machine, instead it just retroactively reversed the process and created extra steps and increased the potential for abuse and customer infighting.

TLDR: Customers may KNOW what they are getting, but they do NOT KNOW what they are getting NEXT - still gambling. In other words, instead of gambling for a chance at random item, they are gambling for a chance to have a chance to buy the intended item. Eventually I am sure there will be a law against this as well so I have no idea why Linden Labs would clear this.

13 hours ago, xAmbiguityx said:

Exactly, it's disturbing it is even being considered as allowable.  The only difference is what you're gambling for, you're still not getting what you want either which way.

Though they understand the law/regulations at the moment, they should also look into the future. Gachas have always been gambling but they skirted the rules because you didn't lose - you always win, just not what you want. So to avoid another situation like this Gacha ban, it'd be much easier to do a blanket ban, elsewise we'll be having this same conversation a few months/years later down the line - because these two systems are same process.  It's all gambling, in one you're gambling for the item, in another your gambling for the chance to pay for the item.  Doesn't seem all that appealing does it?

13 hours ago, xAmbiguityx said:

I can assure you from the circles I am in, this is most defiantly not the case. I feel for the creators that need gachas to pay their bills, but employing an addictive practice unto their customers is not the Hill to die on.

@Patch Linden

My apologies for @ing you but I feel like this new Gacha System needs to be re-reviewed, please review my text above and I will elaborate further below. Creators have a vested interested in retaining predative ways to generate profits, I am guilty of this as well, but I am also a strong advocate against predatory practices. Since gachas have been deemed illegal, our customers are not stupid and can clearly see this is yet another crash grab, leaving a horrible impression not only of those advocating for it - but Linden Labs as well for allowing/approving this new predatory tactic.  My confusion  with this whole ordeal comes from this idea that randomization has been "removed" from the conveyer system - when it hasn't. Instead, our userbase will be not buying a product that they want or ever intended to purchase, but instead a chance to pay for the item they wanted, via a system that is randomly generated to work against the buyer.

For regular residents/non-creators I am going to include a brief example of my most recent Gacha.  This infographic attached below is a single user, but there were several others who paid over L$3,000 Linden Dollars - roughly $15.00 USD for a chance to pull one of the items they were hoping to win.  With my most recent gachas I generally include a version that's 15$-25% off the price you'd pay if you got "lucky" enough to pull all of the items in the machine just once (which is very rare and will also be just as rare in the "new" conveyer system).

In summary the image below, setting a USD - L$ Ratio of  $1.00 per L$250, one customer spent $4,700 to play my gacha a total of Forty-Seven (47); a little under $20.00 USD.  The fatpack for this gacha was L$3,000, or about $15.00 USD. The average number of duplicates being around 3 for this customer.  With the conveyer system, this would be the same apart from a customer knows what they are getting. Even so, customers will STILL try to get the item when they know what they can/could get.  There have been plenty of studies on gambling mechanics and consumers continuously choose the most easily perceived route to their goal - in this case another chance at winning the big one.  Additionally, please note that it took five (5) minutes for this customer to spend $30.00 USD; for non-creators these points should illustrate just why some creators are trying to fight this ban so hard. It's not about the fun, it's not about creating better experiences - it's about generating a cash flow. Creators are aware of how profitable these machines are, but I don't think the public knows just how much.

*EDIT

For clarity, this customer ended up purchasing the fatpack after 47 attempts, thus they spent $4,700 + L$3,000 for the fatpack - a grand total of L$7,700 ($30.00 USD).

Edited August 6, 2021 by xAmbiguityx

[Da5id Weatherwax]

1 hour ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Yep. Even Ring Toss is rigged.

Just about the easiest game on any midway to rig. I know of at least 5 ways to do it and most booths operate at least two of them simultaneously.

[JuriTreat]

I am at the Crystals Hearts event today. Which is a good reminder for me as to why I can't really enjoy these events. 100 stalls with almost 100% gacha items. I want to spend money, but I can't be a responsible consumer by gambling for 100% of the items that I desire. Beyond the legal implications, its easy to see why so many people want this gone.

[Stella Davros]

11 minutes ago, Komarimono said:

 

 

 

 

 

Basically...  You have no choice on the outcome, as explained and confirmed, of what is coming next after you've made the initial currency investment.

Ok but the creators can put the option that if u want the all set without to have a lot of copies u can pay x ......or if u want only the rare u can buy from MP or u can trade with someone else i mean u cannot choose for 75 lindens what u want....remeber that more u spin and more money creators gain,  is like you go to the wholesale and u like 1 dress but they will tell you i will not sell only one but for buy this u have to buy a set of 20 or u can go into the shop of someone who bought 20 and buy the 1 that you like for another price...this is market and gacha or conveyors or whatever is the wholesale

Edited August 6, 2021 by Stella Davros

[Komarimono]

5 minutes ago, xAmbiguityx said:

@Patch Linden

My apologies for @ing you but I feel like this new Gacha System needs to be re-reviewed, please review my text above and I will elaborate further below. Creators have a vested interested in retaining predative ways to generate profits, I am guilty of this as well, but I am also a strong advocate against predatory practices. Since gachas have been deemed illegal, our customers are not stupid and can clearly see this is yet another crash grab, leaving a horrible impression not only of those advocating for it - but Linden Labs as well for allowing/approving this new predatory tactic.  My confusion  with this whole ordeal comes from this idea that randomization has been "removed" from the conveyer system - when it hasn't. Instead, our userbase will be not buying a product that they want or ever intended to purchase, but instead a chance to pay for the item they wanted, via a system that is randomly generated to work against the buyer.

For regular residents/non-creators I am going to include a brief example of my most recent Gacha.  This infographic attached below is a single user, but there were several others who paid over L$3,000 Linden Dollars - roughly $15.00 USD for a chance to pull one of the items they were hoping to win.  With my most recent gachas I generally include a version that's 15$-25% off the price you'd pay if you got "lucky" enough to pull all of the items in the machine just once (which is very rare and will also be just as rare in the "new" conveyer system).

In summary the image below, setting a USD - L$ Ratio of  $1.00 per L$250, one customer spent $4,700 to play my gacha a total of Forty-Seven (47); a little under $20.00 USD.  The fatpack for this gacha was L$3,000, or about $15.00 USD. The average number of duplicates being around 3 for this customer.  With the conveyer system, this would be the same apart from a customer knows what they are getting. Even so, customers will STILL try to get the item when they know what they can/could get.  There have been plenty of studies on gambling mechanics and consumers continuously choose the most easily perceived route to their goal - in this case another chance at winning the big one.  Additionally, please note that it took five (5) minutes for this customer to spend $30.00 USD; for non-creators these points should illustrate just why some creators are trying to fight this ban so hard. It's not about the fun, it's not about creating better experiences - it's about generating a cash flow. Creators are aware of how profitable these machines are, but I don't think the public knows just how much.

*EDIT

For clarity, this customer ended up purchasing the fatpack after 47 attempts, thus they spent $4,700 + L$3,000 for the fatpack - a grand total of L$7,700 ($30.00 USD).

Thank you for posting this, even if some backlash may come your way from it.  It's good to see people being honest and upfront on these things.

[Komarimono]

2 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

Ok but the creators can put the option that if u want the all set without to have a lot of copies u can pay x ......or if u want only the rare u can buy from MP or u can trade with someone else i mean u cannot choose for 75 lindens what u want....remeber that more u spin and more money creators gain,  is like you go to the wholesale and u like 1 dress but they will tell you i will not sell only one but for buy this u have to buy a set of 20 or u can go into the shop of someone who bought 20 and buy the 1 that you like for another price...this is market and gacha or conveyors or whatever is the wholesale

Honestly, I have nothing more to say after what @xAmbiguityx has posted.

Straight, honest truth, facts and numbers.

[Ted McGregor]

@xAmbiguityx

[Silent Mistwalker]

52 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

i did say that the Moles build everything for Belli

which includes the scripts for everything in the Belli project, and then Linden sell the product that the Moles build

is fair enough to say that if Linden can make products to sell to us, then why can't they make vendors for us as well. Maybe they could. Maybe they could include the script in a Premium ShopKeeper package

Ah! I see what you are getting at! Yes, I agree. But it should be available to basic accounts as well, if that is what you are indicating by using the word Premium.

LL needs sources of income. As long as they (LL) don't try to take a percentage of inworld sales in any manner I don't see a problem with it. Personally, I really wouldn't have much of an issue if they wanted to take 1 - 2% but I don't think they'd really want to get into that accounting can of worms. Sales from a vendor system alone should be a fairly hefty chunk of change so to speak.