Jump to content

New Gacha Policy Discussion


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 107 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Who said they would want to? It's not a matter of wanting to or not. It's a matter of what will keep things "flowing smoothly".

When you are in business, you rarely get to do what you "want" because you must stay within the bounds of the laws and regulations. Sometimes you have to do what you don't want to do in order to stay in business. 

LL has really shot themselves in the foot with this conveyor vendor thing. When it comes to laws and regulations, a simple name change isn't going to stand up in court.

How have they shot themselves in the foot?   LL want gachas to disappear from the face of the grid, and that's what's going to happen.   

All LL have said on the subject of conveyor  belts is 

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. 

There's been plenty of speculation and wishful thinking in this thread, but all LL have said, it seems to me, is that it's ok if someone  wants to make a vendor that sells one item at a time, chosen randomly, so long as it makes it clear what the item is and you know what you're buying at the time of purchase. 

Then the next item pops up, on the basis of first-come, first-served, and anyone who wants it (and is quick enough) can buy it.

The question refers to the buyer touching the vendor to guarantee the right to buy the particular item on display.    It doesn't say anything about buying the option to buy the next randomly chosen item, too.   

If there's an element of chance involved, and the item sold is transferrable, it seems to me, then the vendor is likely to get removed.   That's because, if you buy an option to purchase a randomly-chosen item of value along with your actual purchase, that introduces an element of chance into into the transaction.   

To my mind, it's gambling if I'm taking a punt on my L$100 buying me not only the ultra common blue McGuffin on display, but also an option to buy the ultra rare green McGuffin that I really want because I can resell it for L$1000, and taking the risk that the option will result only in the opportunity to buy another blue one, to add to ever my expanding collection of ones I don't want.

If anyone wants to try their hand at making one of these (bearing in mind Qie's early comments about the scripting), then I guess we'll see what LL make of it, but I don't why LL should get into the vendor business.     No one ever suggested they might set up in competition to Caspervend, and I don't see why this should be any different.

Edited by Innula Zenovka
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Faly Breen said:

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

I think the rules are really simple. If an item is transferable, you can make money of the resale of an item. If you can make money from winnings it's gambling and gambling isn't legal in a lot of places. That's my 10 bouncy balls ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

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

If you have to buy something you don't want to get what you do want, how is that not losing money? You had to pay for something you didn't want to get what you did want so you are paying more than if you could have just bought the thing you want without having to pay for something you don't want.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing.  I sure as hell won't be playing the new system but then I rarely played the old one.  There will be people who think this new system is somehow more fair and will continue to pump money into it in the hope that the next item will be what they really want.  I think any merchant who buys into this thinking it's a lovely work around to the gacha ban will find themselves losing customers when, at some point, those customers figure out it's an even worse system.  

Have at it.  I won't be shopping at any store that uses it.  I'm sure quite a few people feel the same as me.  

A few pages back, I mentioned a better solution.  Point for each item in a set you buy, collect enough points and purchase the rare.  No random purchases.  No buying something you don't want.  Buy the color/items you want.  Sort of like Epiphany does with points.  Any points from any machine the store has can be accumulated to purchase any rare.  Rares are displayed on a separate vendor that uses points only.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stella Davros said:

Sure, but miss the part that talk about that u can resell and have back something and as well u can trade the copies

Ya, I can't sell my Gacha's though, I've tried many times.  Can't even give them away most times since they are unwanted items.  Do you want to buy them off me for some profit for me?  I have around 2700 of them currently in my inventory.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stella Davros said:

Sure, but miss the part that talk about that u can resell and have back something and as well u can trade the copies

I didn't miss the part where you can sell or trade the copies, however you may have missed the part where I stated I include fatpack versions for L$3,000 - so all content is accessible without the need to trade or gamble.  Though I may be the only one of several creators that do this it is still an option.  I personally do not see a lot of return value on reselling Gachas, a majority of users resell them anywhere from 50%-90% off their original values just to get cash back.  That is of course unless they got a rare, which they then markup to usually L$1000 or more.  Additionally using my redacted customer for example - this would mean they must attempt to sell all 47 copies of my gacha that they purchased for the same amount. Other customers will be doing this as well and resellers tend to undercut each other by a significant amount. So why buy from the reseller if they don't have a rare unless its an item you really wanted, they will likely come directly to my stall/store and take a risk themselves OR they'll see that I have a fatpack and skip playing the gacha completely.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

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.

What is really crazy is most people think there is no way to rig a ring toss so that's one of the first games they blow their money on. I worked concessions and ticket box. Mostly ticket box. Of course I did do a little jungle feral RP in a box with some snakes for a while. Mowgli didn't hold a candle to me. 🤭

But yes, this is why I am so concerned about this new vendor system. There are so many ways it can be gamed and most would never even realize it.

Edited by Silent Mistwalker
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one possibly good aspect of the conveyer method is that it will end up supplying resellers with product. People will still "play" the conveyer vendor just like they once played the gacha vendor. They won't care that they are having to pay to get to the next possible rare because they've been doing that all along. It won't matter that they can see it's absolutely NOT something they want because they will simply sell it either at a resale shop or on the MP. 

The HUGE downside is that when those rares come up on the vendor there will be others around, possibly bots, to snipe the rare. And heaven help those who have any lag at all because even though they might actually hit the vendor first if there's lag the vendor won't know they hit first.

As a merchant, who never quite felt comfortable selling through a gacha vendor so they sit unopened in my inventory, this conveyer method seems even more icky to me than the original gacha. 

This conveyer method might pass legal scrutiny, but does it really make sense for a creator to use this method? I sure wouldn't want to be on the other end of all those PMs from customers who lost a rare after paying for several unwanted items just to be out sniped by a bot or someone with a better connection than mine.

Edited by Blush Bravin
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

How have they shot themselves in the foot?   LL want gachas to disappear from the face of the grid, and that's what's going to happen.   

All LL have said on the subject of conveyor  belts is 

There's been plenty of speculation and wishful thinking in this thread, but all LL have said, it seems to me, is that it's ok if someone  wants to make a vendor that sells one item at a time, chosen randomly, so long as it makes it clear what the item is and you know what you're buying at the time of purchase. 

Then the next item pops up, on the basis of first-come, first-served, and anyone who wants it (and is quick enough) can buy it.

The question refers to the buyer touching the vendor to guarantee the right to buy the particular item on display.    It doesn't say anything about buying the option to buy the next randomly chosen item, too.   

If there's an element of chance involved, and the item sold is transferrable, it seems to me, then the vendor is likely to get removed.   That's because, if you buy an option to purchase a randomly-chosen item of value along with your actual purchase, that introduces an element of chance into into the transaction.   

To my mind, it's gambling if I'm taking a punt on my L$100 buying me not only the ultra common blue McGuffin on display, but also an option to buy the ultra rare green McGuffin that I really want because I can resell it for L$1000, and taking the risk that the option will result only in the opportunity to buy another blue one, to add to ever my expanding collection of ones I don't want.

If anyone wants to try their hand at making one of these (bearing in mind Qie's early comments about the scripting), then I guess we'll see what LL make of it, but I don't why LL should get into the vendor business.     No one ever suggested they might set up in competition to Caspervend, and I don't see why this should be any different.

I'm sorry. I trust LL with something like this far more than I do a bunch of scripters I know nothing about. I know you do some scripting and I know you've been in SL a long time. I also know something about you as a person from reading your posts on VVO occasionally. So, yes, I would have faith in you to script something like this honestly and without injecting (intentionally) means of being able to game the system in favor of the seller.

It may be time for LL to compete a little on their own market. They do set the standards after all.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 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 

Then your parent shall tell you this or better has to tell you this: Linden Labs is based in California and have to operate first and foremost under the Californian Laws. Under those laws, especially the Califonian Gambling Law, gachas are considered a gambling device, even an illegal gambling device, based on 4 points.

- Device requires a payment (whether those are real money, virtual money, tokens or even carrot slices, makes no difference)

- It's based on chance rather skill, aka the user (player) has no control, no input in the outcome of the result.

- The result has a value (in this case, item can be resold and the profit of this action can be cashed out in real money)

- Most important, the algorithm aka script can be manupilated so the outcome can be altered.

 

This law is already as old, even older then the gachas in SL and it wonders me that it took so long for Linden Labs to take action against them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

This law is already as old, even older then the gachas in SL and it wonders me that it took so long for Linden Labs to take action against them.

Well maybe the new owners are the ones pushing for cleaning up this stuff which leads to the question of what will be next. Other question is why the State of California hasn't gone after S/L or many of the other gaming companies that have lootboxes or gachas. From what I am seeing, it is only Belgium that has done so and as a result a number of games are no longer accessible for people from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faly Breen said:

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.

Theresa Tennyson sighs.

Provide the random packs of "cards" for free, with some sort of limiting mechanism if desired - one "pack" per day per person, for instance. Then find some way of monetizing them that doesn't involve paying for an unknown result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Then your parent shall tell you this or better has to tell you this: Linden Labs is based in California and have to operate first and foremost under the Californian Laws. Under those laws, especially the Califonian Gambling Law, gachas are considered a gambling device, even an illegal gambling device, based on 4 points.

- Device requires a payment (whether those are real money, virtual money, tokens or even carrot slices, makes no difference)

- It's based on chance rather skill, aka the user (player) has no control, no input in the outcome of the result.

- The result has a value (in this case, item can be resold and the profit of this action can be cashed out in real money)

- Most important, the algorithm aka script can be manupilated so the outcome can be altered.

 

This law is already as old, even older then the gachas in SL and it wonders me that it took so long for Linden Labs to take action against them.

They are more then likely just poking fun at me, since my work has a legal team with us in some form or another for certain reasons that can't be said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Komarimono said:

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.

 

20 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Here's the thing.  I sure as hell won't be playing the new system but then I rarely played the old one.  There will be people who think this new system is somehow more fair and will continue to pump money into it in the hope that the next item will be what they really want.  I think any merchant who buys into this thinking it's a lovely work around to the gacha ban will find themselves losing customers when, at some point, those customers figure out it's an even worse system.  

Have at it.  I won't be shopping at any store that uses it.  I'm sure quite a few people feel the same as me.  

A few pages back, I mentioned a better solution.  Point for each item in a set you buy, collect enough points and purchase the rare.  No random purchases.  No buying something you don't want.  Buy the color/items you want.  Sort of like Epiphany does with points.  Any points from any machine the store has can be accumulated to purchase any rare.  Rares are displayed on a separate vendor that uses points only.

If anything this has become a HUGE eye opener for consumers of how creators have been taking advantage of them for years.  TBH, I could play SL from here on out without spending any more money except possibly Tier and/or land rental. So creators better figure out some clever way to make me spend my money because it's sure not going to be this and won't be for a lot of people. Sure, in the beginning it may seem that it is a good solution but I guarantee that once the concept is fully implemented it will go over like a lead foot and become a nightmare. If your products can't sell without using these tactics then really how good was the product to begin with.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

The HUGE downside is that when those rares come up on the vendor there will be others around, possibly bots, to snipe the rare. And heaven help those who have any lag at all because even though they might actually hit the vendor first if there's lag the vendor won't know they hit first.

Have the customer "sit" on the vendor and lock sales to the avatar sitting on it. Then have the vendor cycle if paid or if the customer stands. If the customer doesn't want to pay for the item up they can stand, but that will 1) re-roll and 2) possibly give someone else a chance to sit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I getting the feeling the very hardcore "gachas are fun!" crowd, looking for a new scamboat, are people who actually have stores that rely heavily on gachas?

You are basically admitting to loving/having fun being ripped off otherwise.. and this new "solution" sounds just as anxiety Inducing as the last, just in a different manner.

If it's a live thing, god help you if there are 50+ other people in the room waiting for that same item to come up.

Edited by s2Pandora
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

From what I am seeing, it is only Belgium that has done so and as a result a number of games are no longer accessible for people from there.

Google "class action lawsuits loot boxes"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

If your products can't sell without using these tactics then really how good was the product to begin with.

I think there needs to also be the realization that a lot of products in SL are under priced and the gacha mechanic helped to boost income via multiple purchases.

Take a simple themeatic gacha with a house and a dozen random decorative items.

The house is obviously a lot of work, but the incidental decorative work is perceived as worthless junk because it's not the house.

This couldn't be further from the truth.

The solution is obviously themed bundles of decorative stuff. Yay .. consumer friendly regular vendors with clear pricing win again.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's exactly that what needs control.
Both showed clear that greed is a bad factor.

from 40 commons  20 rares, 4 extra rare and 1 super rare ..and 75 pulls for the last...
or worthless badly made commons, to just a color difference with the rares with the same template ( sometimes clearly from a 3rd party 3d site.... )

Regulating by profession groups works seldom well... there needs to be one above. And not with the hardly working report by resident system.
 

That's generous. I won't name the store but their gachas are so rigged that 75 pulls will get you 75 commons. You might be lucky and get a single uncommon but expect to pump 10,000 linden into that machine for a rare/super rare unless the gods are smiling on you. That's the real reason creators want to keep this going. Sorry to the stores that made fair gachas and didn't exploit people but now it has to stop. I loved gachas when the Arcade first opened but I quit playing them once it became less about a fun game and more about money and the value of rarity.

If you're derailing by going "But trading cards" and "but 7Seas", cut it out.

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

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.

yes you right about making it available to everyone

something that has been talked about in other conversations is a inworld vendor object able to be connected to an item on Marketplace.  Suppose Linden did this, it would suit the Smart Object model.  The web link would be a property able to be set at design time

when we pay the vendor it registers the sale against the Marketplace listing and the product is delivered by the marketplace system, and not by the object

if it was done this way then Linden could get paid for making it (a marketplace commission they don't get ordinarily from inworld sales)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

To my mind, it's gambling if I'm taking a punt on my L$100 buying me not only the ultra common blue McGuffin on display, but also an option to buy the ultra rare green McGuffin that I really want because I can resell it for L$1000, and taking the risk that the option will result only in the opportunity to buy another blue one, to add to ever my expanding collection of ones I don't want.

I agree.  Whether you are taking a chance on the first item you see (the one you click on) or the one that you don't see yet, it's a gamble.  That's what's explicitly forbidden in this policy announcement.  I have stayed out of this thread until now because I have absolutely zero personal interest in gachas, but I am amused by how much effort some people are putting into finding a way to beat the policy instead of just giving up on the gacha dead horse.  I can't believe that LL would be interested in developing their own conveyor belt or other gacha look-alike.  As an experienced scripter myself, I wouldn't waste my time on it.

  • Like 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The solution is obviously themed bundles of decorative stuff. Yay .. consumer friendly regular vendors with clear pricing win again.

This would tie in perfectly with what I proposed.  If you want that house, buy a certain amount of other items from that merchant's machines to accumulate enough points for the house.  There is no random chance involved, no buying things you don't want in order to get what you do want.  There is a choice.  Not a choice of next item available but a choice of many different things to rack up points.  This is especially nice with home decor.  I want this light, that rug, those plants, etc.  Yay!  I have enough points now to get that house.  Win/win.  The merchant makes a bunch of sales and the consumer gets only things they want.  Also, it's doable for people on a budget just as much.  The points don't expire.  Buy a few things this week and a few more next week.

Anyone seeing a downside to this?  I'd love some input from either side.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

 

If anything this has become a HUGE eye opener for consumers of how creators have been taking advantage of them for years.  TBH, I could play SL from here on out without spending any more money except possibly Tier and/or land rental. So creators better figure out some clever way to make me spend my money because it's sure not going to be this and won't be for a lot of people. Sure, in the beginning it may seem that it is a good solution but I guarantee that once the concept is fully implemented it will go over like a lead foot and become a nightmare. If your products can't sell without using these tactics then really how good was the product to begin with.

Or maybe this has been a HUGE eye opener to those of us who don't do any aspect of Gachas. I honestly had no clue to how prevalent this has become as I pretty much limit my shopping to the Saturday Sale events and a few specific searches in the MP with the Limited Quantities filter checked so my results aren't littered with them. Question is, will creators survive with thrifty consumers like me who look to save every L$ I can?

If there are that many people who plonk down thousands for rares and stuff and have fun doing it, then great. Gacha Creators are then fulfilling a need that obviously extends beyond the actual item itself. For me there is still plenty of items to buy that do not require me to use that segment of the market so I see no problem with letting Gacha creators sell their stuff to those that want it that way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 107 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...