New Gacha Policy Discussion

[Zidaya Zenovka]

5 hours ago, Caleb Kit said:

Hopefully the LInden's and their lawyers are really working out a survival plan for themselves and all of the members.   As far as the gachas are concerned good riddance.  However,  7Seas fishing is huge in Second Life and the issue is the transfer of Bait and other prizes.  If all prizes and things such as Bait must be set to No Transfer the game is going to be severly damaged.  Second LIfe was touted as a virtual world "Created by it's members".   So if the members can't choose to transfer their creations is that no longer true?   We have members who have created prizes and gifts that are set Transfer and they are no longer in Second Life.  We cherish having some of these in their memory.  And the memory of their creativity.   If we have to purge them why should any of us create anything?  I hope that Linden Labs and it's lawyers will very quickly explain these changes in better detail.  It looks as if this decision was made in haste and without studying the ramifications before announcing.   Please clarify soon. Thank you.

 

I've been playing 7seas since I joined SL. I have 14 years of fish in my inventory and only once have I ever given one of them to anyone else. I've never bothered buying one on the marketplace or trying to, anyways nor have I ever been given one by anyone or heard anyone talking about selling/giving fish away. They're collectibles in the sense that some are unique and interesting but it's not like Magic:The Gathering. There isn't a huge market for 7seas fish that I'm aware of. 

Trust me-7seas will be fine. Most people I know who play it are in it for the community and conversation. 

As far as the decision being made in haste I very much doubt that. It's more likely they waited until the last minute because it made more sense to them to look out for their pocketbook and leave the mess to us to clean up than spend money, time and resources doing this in way that would benefit all the soon to be ex-Gacha vendors out there.

[Mollymews]

2 hours ago, Faly Breen said:

you do know someone else answerd already

the FAQ has been updated, and Linden have given a definitive answer

for collectible cards then the best way to sell these is with a conveyor type vendor

from the updated FAQ
 

Quote

 

Q:  Could a “conveyor belt” system work?  

Example:  The vendor board selects an item at random and displays it for purchase.  That item remains on display and available for purchase until a buyer touches the vendor which locks it to them for purchase.  This allowed the buyer to purchase the item and deliver it.  The vendor unlocks and then selects another item at random and displays it for purchase and the cycle repeats.

Example image here and credit to Nadi Vemo for the approved vendor design.

A:  Yes, as long as the item currently being purchased is known. Note however that you should discontinue the use of the “gacha” term for these sales. 

 

what Linden have done with allowing conveyor systems is to make the selling of collectibles as permissive as possible within the regulations as Linden understand the regulations to be

and for this approach, Linden deserve quite a bit of credit

[Lucia Nightfire]

So a preview system (conveyor is a horrible analogy) is allowed.

This means gacha getya will now have an indirect traffic booster hell benefit to it as you're now going to see bots people standing around waiting to snipe rares when the display changes after people make a purchase.

Since I, along with dozens of others, predicted this to be a possible alternative, I went ahead and filed this feature request to have the option for objects using llSetPayPrice() to also set a restriction on who can pay the object.

This would allow a vendor to temporarily lock in who is paying for it since llSetPayPrice() allows anyone.

LL unfortunately doesn't "have time to tackle" this.

So vendors are going to be making a ton of refunds in these scenarios if they don't incorporate some mechanic to prevent people from paying for something that someone else sniped and end up with the next "unknown" item else people are going to claim machines are still acting as gachas.

[Elyssa Artis]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

No that is not what they are saying.

You have to know the core features of the item you're buying. This is not just limited to it's color.

 

That would be like having a gacha that always gave you the green dress, but randomly chose what body it was rigged for.

^ This is what was posted. Color has to be known.

[CelestineDemetria]

Just now, Elyssa Artis said:

Nope, the way they say it's okay is you will have to know the color you are getting. Other things like tails and ears can be random, but color/coat will have to be known.

Okay, was like well dang. That though, does open a strange door for people to use as it's called atm " Random Bundle, nest whatever animal seller "( Name will have to change probably ) as long as you would put EX: Brown cat on it, and load it up with all brown cats of varying traits. 

Hmm.. Shrugs. Or am I thinking complete opposite of what will fly.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Mollymews said:

and for this approach, Linden deserve quite a bit of credit

They have created a world where hidden chance mechanics will rule the day so long as they show what your current losing purchase is.

They should have clearly outlawed all random vendors.

[Kathlen Onyx]

Glad I was never into Gacha's because this conveyor belt system seems like a clusterF waiting to happen. Why would someone that just bought a common item and a rare item comes up NOT just buy it for themselves? Then you have hoards of people standing around waiting for the chance at getting the next item? no way , no how would I even go to a store that chose to sell things in this way.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Elyssa Artis said:

^ This is what was posted. Color has to be known.

Your literal misinterpretation is just that. They have provided an example and it's going to be taken as gospel that color alone is some special property and all other properties are not special.

[CelestineDemetria]

5 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

No that is not what they are saying.

You have to know the core features of the item you're buying. This is not just limited to it's color.

 

That would be like having a gacha that always gave you the green dress, but randomly chose what body it was rigged for.

Okay. Easy to wrap my brain around that.

 

[Rosa Hexem]

Okay while some people want to prevent people from sniping products off the conveyor by having a "lock in/out" system for buyers so people spending are the ones that get priority someone I was talking to had a different idea:

What if each person who was on the vendor got their own temp-attach vendor on their HUD? This means that each vendor, and in turn its rolls, would be personalized and exclusive to that person's perspective/viewer. Nobody can snipe/touch something that's on your hud, and so people are  "locked in" without anyone having to fight over a chance to use the vendor and get what they want!

Sounds pretty good to me.

[Lucia Nightfire]

1 hour ago, Elyssa Artis said:

2. Machine could be scripted to stay locked to the previous buyer for 30seconds to give them first option at the next up item.

Blocking previous buyer doesn't stop sniping when you have more than 2 people at the machine (or far away since anyone can pay from any rendered distance.)

Also, adding timeouts can potentially contribute to keeping people around, not just one person, thus contributing to the indirect traffic boosting element, whether that is desired or not by that store owner or other land owners in the region.

[Elyssa Artis]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Your literal misinterpretation is just that. They have provided an example and it's going to be taken as gospel that color alone is some special property and all other properties are not special.

"This is acceptable at the present including the various unknown traits they may come with or develop"
They are aware other traits are special, they say the color being known is acceptable.

They wrote straightforward information, but I am misinterpreting it?

[CelestineDemetria]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Your literal misinterpretation is just that. They have provided an example and it's going to be taken as gospel that color alone is some special property and all other properties are not special.

Got what you are saying. Was I guess a bit confusing. Only because they give just one "Trait" or attribute as an example. Take that one thing and run with it .. "Well they said one so one it is "

After the other post I totally get what you mean and they are saying now. 

Let's hope others do. Hahaha

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Viche Hexem said:

Okay while some people want to prevent people from sniping products off the conveyor by having a "lock in/out" system for buyers so people spending are the ones that get priority someone I was talking to had a different idea:

What if each person who was on the vendor got their own temp-attach vendor on their HUD? This means that each vendor, and in turn its rolls, would be personalized and exclusive to that person's perspective/viewer. Nobody can snipe/touch something that's on your hud, and so people are  "locked in" without anyone having to fight over a chance to use the vendor and get what they want!

Sounds pretty good to me.

Do you want an evil gacha explicitly designed to milk as much money from you, specifically you, unseen by everyone around?

Like a gacha you can take an play anywhere in private that has a secret mechanic where the full outfit costs L$5000 and only after you have spent that it will give you the opportunity of a known purchase that completes the set.

Rollers are EVIL. They will be far more EVIL than just random gachas.

[Elyssa Artis]

Just now, CelestineDemetria said:

Got what you are saying. Was I guess a bit confusing. Only because they give just one "Trait" or attribute as an example. Take that one thing and run with it .. "Well they said one so one it is "

After the other post I totally get what you mean and they are saying now. 

Let's hope others do. Hahaha

It's not an example when they specifically reference the other unknown traits and say that's okay.
To me, I think it should be all traits being known. They all contribute towards the item being common or rare.
They have clearly stated that other unknown traits, that they have or develop (presumably through breeding), is okay.

[Rosa Hexem]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

 EVIL

I am not here to discuss morality, I am here to discuss the future of this kind of vending in SL. If I can help steer it towards something more ethical for the consumer that's great and the idea that this system tells people what they're buying before they buy it already sounds like one small improvement from the blind gamble gacha demanded. That's about as far as I want to get into discussing how EVIL it is.

[Coffee Pancake]

The FAQ color example is simplistic and assumes (incorrectly) that a singular trait is the key desirable one.

If you're into breeding you will know that actual rarity is a combination of many traits. 

[Mollymews]

7 minutes ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

I went ahead and filed this feature request to have the option for objects using llSetPayPrice() to also set a restriction on who can pay the object.

This would allow a vendor to temporarily lock in who is paying for it since llSetPayPrice() allows anyone.

LL unfortunately doesn't "have time to tackle" this.

is a bit unfortunate that Linden don't have time to tackle this

and yes agree, if vendors are not scripted to prevent sniping then is going to be a lot of unhappy people at the not-a-gacha events

am pretty sure tho that most reputable merchants will script in the anti-sniping (refund) measures

as an aside. I think Collectibles would be a good name going forward

[Anairah Galicia]

14 minutes ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

So a preview system (conveyor is a horrible analogy) is allowed.

This means gacha getya will now have an indirect traffic booster hell benefit to it as you're now going to see bots people standing around waiting to snipe rares when the display changes after people make a purchase.

Since I, along with dozens of others, predicted this to be a possible alternative, I went ahead and filed this feature request to have the option for objects using llSetPayPrice() to also set a restriction on who can pay the object.

This would allow a vendor to temporarily lock in who is paying for it since llSetPayPrice() allows anyone.

LL unfortunately doesn't "have time to tackle" this.

So vendors are going to be making a ton of refunds in these scenarios if they don't incorporate some mechanic to prevent people from paying for something that someone else sniped and end up with the next "unknown" item else people are going to claim machines are still acting as gachas.

Gachas randomness and its gambling attributes are what's being taken off the table. If your ability to purchase the item you want depends on the chance of it being available, doesn't that just re-insert the same randomness and gambling attributes that they're trying to get rid of?

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Viche Hexem said:

I am not here to discuss morality, I am here to discuss the future of this kind of vending in SL. If I can help steer it towards something more ethical for the consumer that's great and the idea that this system tells people what they're buying before they buy it already sounds like one small improvement from the blind gamble gacha demanded. That's about as far as I want to get into discussing how EVIL it is.

I'm not talking morality.

An EVIL script that is specifically programmed to appear random yet really blocks your chance of winning by manipulating you. The closer you get to a set, the harder the machine makes it for you to win it.

We already have gachas that will intentionally give out duplicates to players who have played several times because they know they can get away with it.

Rollers with a lock in to prevent sniping are WORSE than gachas. 

[Elyssa Artis]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The FAQ color example is simplistic and assumes (incorrectly) that a singular trait is the key desirable one.

If you're into breeding you will know that actual rarity is a combination of many traits. 

I agree, it does assume incorrectly that the color is the main factor, it doesn't mean that the answer they gave is just an example.
They clearly stated other unknown traits are okay. They are aware of the other traits.
But they are still reading this, so push that case, It totally is true, all traits, not just color contribute to a breedable being rare.
As it stands, that is indeed their ruling for now, so saying other people are ignorantly misinterpreting simply because you feel it shouldn't be that way is frankly quite rude.

[Silent Mistwalker]

Personally, as far as this conveyor belt type vendor thing, I won't touch one. It's too close to the banned thing for comfort for me.

[Elyssa Artis]

Just now, Silent Mistwalker said:

Personally, as far as this conveyor belt type vendor thing, I won't touch one. It's too close to the banned thing for comfort for me.

Agreed, I understand their legal team told them it's okay, but it's way too close and still encourages the addictive behavior that the laws are trying to prevent. It surely wouldn't be long before this is also not okay.

[CelestineDemetria]

9 minutes ago, Elyssa Artis said:

It's not an example when they specifically reference the other unknown traits and say that's okay.
To me, I think it should be all traits being known. They all contribute towards the item being common or rare.
They have clearly stated that other unknown traits, that they have or develop (presumably through breeding), is okay.

my original question I had asked to get clarification.  I was asking about the original box from the creator being sold to you "Randomly" only per say knowing it's a cat in a box .- someone stated as long as you know the color- Nope. As Long as you know the Attributes of the Animal being purchased from the Creator at point of sales.

 

Not the secondary breeding after that is not in question with traits and what not popping out, that I already know is fine from reading it.

Edited August 6, 2021 by CelestineDemetria

[Rosa Hexem]

9 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

I'm not talking morality.

An EVIL script that is specifically programmed to appear random yet really blocks your chance of winning by manipulating you. The closer you get to a set, the harder the machine makes it for you to win it.

We already have gachas that will intentionally give out duplicates to players who have played several times because they know they can get away with it.

Rollers with a lock in to prevent sniping are WORSE than gachas. 

This is more of a problem with faith in the vendor's designers to make it actually be fair and holding them accountable for that. That seems like a fair point but more of some kind of regulatory issue than a mechanical one to the ideal on paper version of a conveyor. I wouldn't go as far as to say this isn't important to the discussion, but it's not what I'm discussing wrt the fundamental mechanics of the conveyor system and making it fair in an environment where we assume the conveyor itself isn't intentionally designed to rip people off (any more so than a gacha-alike system is already kind of a ripoff, but hey, people liked that in gacha apparently, iunno).

Edit: Since it's still a valid point of discussion though, I do kind of have an idea. If everyone's working off of some kind of unmodifiable script with set odds in it that's made to be fair, that'd ensure people couldn't tamper to make it intentionally cheat people. Maybe people hosting events could make their own vendor script for the occasion with these set paramaters and have sellers use those? It wouldn't stop people from having unfair conveyors in their own stores but it's one way of curbing bad faith stuff in general.

Edited August 6, 2021 by Viche Hexem