Jump to content

New Gacha Policy Discussion


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 73 days.

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ZenCho Balhaus said:

I really cannot scroll back over this incredibly long thread. But will the random nest givers that a lot of Meeroo sellers have at their stalls be outlawed too?

yes,

btw the thread is irrelevant for answers on questions, you need to read the blog
 

Edited by Alwin Alcott
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said:

yes,

btw the thread is irrelevant for answers on questions, you need to read the blog
 

I have been reading the blog and the FAQ and couldn't see any mention of the random nest givers...hence me asking here...Sorry

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ZenCho Balhaus said:

I have been reading the blog and the FAQ and couldn't see any mention of the random nest givers...hence me asking here...Sorry

Q:  But what about breedables (again)?

A:  If you buy a brown cat, and a blue cat (as examples), as long as you knew you were getting a brown cat and a blue cat at the time of sale, this is acceptable at the present including the various unknown traits they may come with or develop.  Secondarily, when those cats make little kittens with unknown outcomes, this is also acceptable.  Lastly, the resale of any breedables will require at the time of purchase that the purchaser knows what they are purchasing at the root level (for example, it is a blue cat).  
 

so.. no random nests. but visible what it is. Meeroos are one of the breedables where you only need a shelve to sell.. the nest and animals are able to show their traits.... just sorry for the ones that try to sell low traited nest in chance machines... those nest in general are only suitable for points in the hud.

Edited by Alwin Alcott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, snowvoice said:

I have a question about this conveyor belt type machine.
It allows the buyer to see what will be available next, but it does not allow him to choose what to buy.
The buyer has to keep buying one item after another that he does not want until it is his turn to get the item he wants.
If the buyer doesn't buy the next item within 10 seconds, he or she will give up the right to purchase the item to someone else.

Question 1: Isn't this system of not letting the buyer choose the product and making them feel rushed by setting a time limit on their decision to buy the product they don't want, gambling?

The creator also claims that the machine has been approved by Linden Lab, the lawyers hired by Linden Lab, and the Vice President of Product Operations for Second Life.

Question 2, is this true?

To anyone who disagrees with the creator, he says, "If you claim to be illegal, dispute Linden in court.

Question 3, Does Linden have a special agreement to protect him?
 

@Patch Linden

Someone really needs to take a look at this.

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

19 minutes ago, snowvoice said:

I have a question about this conveyor belt type machine.
It allows the buyer to see what will be available next, but it does not allow him to choose what to buy.
The buyer has to keep buying one item after another that he does not want until it is his turn to get the item he wants.
If the buyer doesn't buy the next item within 10 seconds, he or she will give up the right to purchase the item to someone else.

Question 1: Isn't this system of not letting the buyer choose the product and making them feel rushed by setting a time limit on their decision to buy the product they don't want, gambling?

The creator also claims that the machine has been approved by Linden Lab, the lawyers hired by Linden Lab, and the Vice President of Product Operations for Second Life.

Question 2, is this true?

To anyone who disagrees with the creator, he says, "If you claim to be illegal, dispute Linden in court.

Question 3, Does Linden have a special agreement to protect him?
 

Oh those are gonna be so fun to "corrupt"...

Imagine the kind of optimized conveyer layouts this could generate to maximize payment, here are a few ideas:

  1. Last item bought by a given person is probably the most desired item.
  2. Make sure that the conveyer always contains no more than 1 rare/desired item.
  3. Pack the rest with the least desired items.
  4. Make it look a little more random than that.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

Oh those are gonna be so fun to "corrupt"...

Imagine the kind of optimized conveyer layouts this could generate to maximize payment, here are a few ideas:

  1. Last item bought by a given person is probably the most desired item.
  2. Make sure that the conveyer always contains no more than 1 rare/desired item.
  3. Pack the rest with the least desired items.
  4. Make it look a little more random than that.

5. reset after a player change, and start with 50 useless items again.....

( for me it looks like that approval came a bit to fast... and needs some closer look)
 

Edited by Alwin Alcott
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, hairtuss said:

A dopamine deficiency is very serious. It can cause muscle cramps, stiffness, spasms, tremors, aches and pains.
It can also cause a loss of balance, fatigue, low libido and low energy.
Furthermore, it can cause insomnia, and a general inability to focus.
If you don't think any of that is bad enough, it can also directly cause demotivation, mood swings and feelings of inexplicable sadness, hopelessness, low self-esteem and guilt.
Still not convinced? How about the fact that it can directly cause anxiety, thoughts of self-harm and at its worst, suicide.

Rather than trying to find a legal or "safe" way to put ourselves or others at risk for developing a dopamine deficiency, we should collectively push back against it. This is wrong, harmful and shouldn't be accepted in a civilized society. Do the right thing.

Additionally, those who spend a majority of their free time on internet are highly likely to have mental illness. This is not a negative thing, I have ADHD/Anxiety/Depression and am medicated for these ailments. I would argue a majority of Second Life’s player base is struggling mental illness, especially since the Pandemic. The pandemic has brought so many people to Second Life, both returning and new. To have any system that continues to predate upon individual mental illness  is morally and ethically bankrupt.
Designers who insist upon selling Items in a predatory way should be transparent with their earnings. I am aware of several individuals who bragged to have made $10,000 USD in a span of 30 days off of Gachas. No, I will not name names for privacy reasons and I do not see any reason for these individuals to fabricate these numbers.

 It appears those creators who are advocating for the conveyer system are more than happy to predate on their customers.

Edited by xAmbiguityx
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all of this. i'd also like to point out that if linden chooses to exploit this "loophole" there's a very real chance they'll have to walk back on this decision later, with less notice, as legislation catches up with this quite frankly sophomoric attempt to dodge regulatory measures.

crack down proper in the first place, or risk SL being rightfully banned as a gambling platform in civilized countries. 

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

41 minutes ago, snowvoice said:

I have a question about this conveyor belt type machine.
It allows the buyer to see what will be available next, but it does not allow him to choose what to buy.
The buyer has to keep buying one item after another that he does not want until it is his turn to get the item he wants.
If the buyer doesn't buy the next item within 10 seconds, he or she will give up the right to purchase the item to someone else.

Question 1: Isn't this system of not letting the buyer choose the product and making them feel rushed by setting a time limit on their decision to buy the product they don't want, gambling?

The creator also claims that the machine has been approved by Linden Lab, the lawyers hired by Linden Lab, and the Vice President of Product Operations for Second Life.

Question 2, is this true?

To anyone who disagrees with the creator, he says, "If you claim to be illegal, dispute Linden in court.

Question 3, Does Linden have a special agreement to protect him?
 

As far as I know, this machine has not been approved, only the general type of machine has been said to be ok in the FAQ:

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.

So claiming that LL, their lawyers and Patch Linden have approved this machine, is a little bold. Same for the "dispute them in court" part. The general type of machine might be ok, with details still to be figured out and who knows if this approval will stay. And I highly doubt there is a special agreement to protect him.

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

I wish that they would clarify the need to make 7s things non-transferable.  7s can be played baited and un-baited.  When baited, I guess there is a catcha element to it.  However, when playing un-baited essentially the person fishing is winning free rewards from the person hosting the event.  These are commonly held in newbie friendly areas or as give-away events for different groups.  When there is no "input" or bait is it really needed to limit the permissions of the items being given away?  How does this translate to other kinds of fishbowl giveaways?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Shuichi Shinji said:

As far as I know, this machine has not been approved, only the general type of machine has been said to be ok in the FAQ:

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.

So claiming that LL, their lawyers and Patch Linden have approved this machine, is a little bold. Same for the "dispute them in court" part. The general type of machine might be ok, with details still to be figured out and who knows if this approval will stay. And I highly doubt there is a special agreement to protect him.

That machine is still gambling as the numbers coming up could be random. Like the gachas it needs to be banned too. I can see that thing milking players.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Because SL itself depends on our dopamine for its survival?

No, because only LL knows  what their demography exactly consists of.

And I suspect that a very urgent reason to comply with various laws in various regions of the world.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Patch Linden

We really need some clear non product specific rules to govern all these types of mechanics.

Simple rules like

  • Do not make a pay to purchase vendor where the delivered item is based on random chance.
  • Do not make a pay to purchase vendor where future randomness can be considered part of the purchase.
  • Do not make products that lock the buyer into random attributes after sale.
  • Games that issue random item rewards must only issue items as NO TRANSFER.
  • Do not use the term Gacha.
  • Do not implement intermediate tokens as a mechanism of sale.
  • Do not come up with creative ways to circumvent the above rules.

It would be helpful to know the legal guidance LL are working from.

It would be helpful to have some familiar examples of how those rules apply to existing systems. These must be clearly identified as EXAMPLES that break the simple rules, not an exhaustive list of what is and isn't allowed.

 

If the simplicity of the rules outlaws some edge case mechanics that might legally be ok or borderline , SO BE IT.

 

This is a mess and everyone is super confused.

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kimmi Zehetbauer said:

That machine is still gambling as the numbers coming up could be random. Like the gachas it needs to be banned too. I can see that thing milking players.

I said nothing else, but was just answering the quoted questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Because SL itself depends on our dopamine for its survival?

As internet users, we're already heavily exposed to systems and practices that exploit our reward system.
That doesn't mean the internet is bad, it means people do bad things with/on it.

People playing Second Life are choosing to engage in it and getting dopamine in return, yes.
There's plenty of people with an internet/technology/social media/you-name-it addiction who are already facing a dopamine deficiency, or have experienced it.

Do we need to make this worse by allowing predatory practices such as gambling? No.

And like someone else said, think about all the young people who also use SL. Some start in their teens or early twenties, when the brain is still developing. We're putting these people at risk as well.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish times were simpler like the 'Are you gullible ?' - 1Linden boxes.

At least it had a complimentary notecard by the creator to kindly count your losses.

 

I mean , so I was told .. :|

 

Edited by TDD123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hairtuss said:

People playing Second Life are choosing to engage in it and getting dopamine in return, yes.
There's plenty of people with an internet/technology/social media/you-name-it addiction who are already facing a dopamine deficiency, or have experienced it.
 

For many even posting in this or other hot threads is a Dopamine hit. When you get right down to it, most people spend time in S/L activities for what it does to them on an emotional level. If we are going to start banning certain activities because we don't approve of someone's serotonin, dopamine adrenaline, testerone etc etc spike, then just close S/L and every other game out there. Picking on one only is hypocritical.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Anara Heartsdale said:

I wish that they would clarify the need to make 7s things non-transferable.  7s can be played baited and un-baited.  When baited, I guess there is a catcha element to it.  However, when playing un-baited essentially the person fishing is winning free rewards from the person hosting the event.  These are commonly held in newbie friendly areas or as give-away events for different groups.  When there is no "input" or bait is it really needed to limit the permissions of the items being given away?  How does this translate to other kinds of fishbowl giveaways?  

Are the free-to-play situations exclusive of any paid, baited fishers? One might suppose that if paid and unpaid were allowed to intermingle, and assuming there's an advantage to paying, then the prizes couldn't be transferable nor otherwise have negotiable value.

But if the exclusively free-to-play condition holds, or if payment confers no advantage, then it all seems more like a (modern, permitted) sploder than a gacha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hairtuss said:

As internet users, we're already heavily exposed to systems and practices that exploit our reward system.
That doesn't mean the internet is bad, it means people do bad things with/on it.

People playing Second Life are choosing to engage in it and getting dopamine in return, yes.
There's plenty of people with an internet/technology/social media/you-name-it addiction who are already facing a dopamine deficiency, or have experienced it.

Do we need to make this worse by allowing predatory practices such as gambling? No.

And like someone else said, think about all the young people who also use SL. Some start in their teens or early twenties, when the brain is still developing. We're putting these people at risk as well.

Though I can't find the article at the moment, years ago I read that Microsoft employs game psychologists on the Office design team to increase user engagement with the suite, not necessarily to improve user productivity. One would be naive, I think, to presume that there are no conflicting motivations here. LL, like any other social/gaming platform must walk a line between what's best for the customer and what's best for the business.

This isn't anything new, it's called "marketing" and I could argue that it's the world's oldest profession.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

This is a mess and everyone is super confused.

It will stop being one if creators and merchants cease to sell by chance. It's their undying wish.

 

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

For many even posting in this or other hot threads is a Dopamine hit. When you get right down to it, most people spend time in S/L activities for what it does to them on an emotional level. If we are going to start banning certain activities because we don't approve of someone's serotonin, dopamine adrenaline, testerone etc etc spike, then just close S/L and every other game out there. Picking on one only is hypocritical.  

Not to mention a big part of social media. "How many likes did I get for that instagram post?" 345648484 likes. OMG!!!!! I'm the best! What, zero likes. No, no, no, no, that can't be true. I just want to die right now.

Edited by hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian
moved a double quote
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 73 days.

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

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