New Gacha Policy Discussion

[Altier Verwood]

2 minutes ago, Finite said:

Me paying less for a superior product is somehow me being scammed? Enjoying paying 2500L for premade color changer fatpacks. I'll sit back and laugh while unpacking all my old gachas xD. I love the notion that buying something outright in SL is somehow more frugal than playing a gacha. No matter how you do it, you put money into a video game. There's nothing frugal about it regardless of what you bought with it.

And I will enjoy getting exactly what I pay for for the amount I pay for it.

[Tetsuryu Vlodovic]

2 minutes ago, Finite said:

Enjoying paying 2500L for premade color changer fatpacks.

Enjoy paying 2500L and still not getting the item you want.

[Lucia Nightfire]

1 hour ago, Asadora Summers said:

 

I just want to take this time and say that it is heartwarmingly concerning that people are worried about their breedables. I'm hoping this is out of love for their breedable pets and not out of personal greed of profit.
I love my KittyCatS! They keep me company on my land. Before I had them, legacy prims were my companions; however, I'm so used to having my virtual cats push me, throw butterfiles at me and demand to be picked up... that I'd be sad if they were gone.
Seriously though, your post is on point. It's not gambling if your two paired up mother and father of breedables have an offspring, that's just nature.

If KittyCats does not allow for a user to pay money to buy a starter cat of known traits and instead, gets one of randomized traits, they might be in violation of the policy as it doesn't look like LL can make an exception in this area.

LL certainly opened up a can of worms (bad pun) and can't play favorites to any applications that offer unknown content for money.

I do hope the FAQ LL is cooking up explains what all is allowed or not outside of what's literally gacha for all intents and purposes.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Lucia Nightfire

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 hour ago, Cain Maven said:

Guys, can we just move on? This is page 37 now of this thread. It's done. It's over. Let's live with it.

That is not how discussion forums work. Everyone gets to participate.

[Finite]

3 minutes ago, Tetsuryu Vlodovic said:

Enjoy paying 2500L and still not getting the item you want.

That hasn't happened yet. Not that it doesn't happen but those are the gacha vendors I and most avoid. Most aren't like that. I'm sorry that you put 50L into a gacha and didnt get the rare you wanted and now you are all upset about it.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Finite

[Drayke Newall]

2 minutes ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

If KittyCats does not allow for a user to pay money to buy a starter cat of know traits and instead, gets one of randomized traits, they might be in violation of the policy as it doesn't look like LL can make an exception in this area.

That is more a better point than arguing over trigger food for breeding already owned animals, as what you posted does sound similar to a gacha.

[Deathly Fright]

1 minute ago, Finite said:

That hasn't happened yet. Not that it doesn't happen but those are the gacha vendors I and most avoid. Most aren't like that. I'm sorry that you put 50L into a gacha and didnt get the rare you wanted and now you are all upset about it.

how does somebody new to the vendor avoid it?

[Zoren Manray]

The more I look into the actual legality of all this the more annoying it get's about the vagueness from LL about why this is being done. Again yes I agree some controls were needed but outright ban? Seems the only Countries with strict anti loot crate laws on the books are Netherlands and Belgium, Then others with looser ones being Japan, China and Germany. And then the UK and US are making plans to implement some laws.. All these laws ban DEVELOPERS specifically though and take little to nothing into account for a user created marketplace. Also aside from Netherlands and Belgium the other laws are only seeming to ban lootboxes that effect gameplay not simply visual aspects. Take for instance the proposed us legislation Senate bill S. 1629 Specifically says in section 2 under exclusions:

COSMETIC ALTERATIONS.—Such term shall not include an add-on transaction to an interactive digital entertainment product whose only effect is to alter a user's visual representation within the game provided that it does not, from the perspective of a reasonable user, provide the user with a competitive advantage over other users who do not make such transaction.

ALL OF SL's gatcha are purely visual effects!! So what is the reason for this? Likely army of layers freaking out about growing legal trends and not caring to understand nuanced differences.. Oh well best ban it all then just to be safe. 

[Deathly Fright]

3 minutes ago, Zoren Manray said:

The more I look into the actual legality of all this the more annoying it get's about the vagueness from LL about why this is being done. Again yes I agree some controls were needed but outright ban? Seems the only Countries with strict anti loot crate laws on the books are Netherlands and Belgium, Then others with looser ones being Japan, China and Germany. And then the UK and US are making plans to implement some laws.. All these laws ban DEVELOPERS specifically though and take little to nothing into account for a user created marketplace. Also aside from Netherlands and Belgium the other laws are only seeming to ban lootboxes that effect gameplay not simply visual aspects. Take for instance the proposed us legislation Senate bill S. 1629 Specifically says in section 2 under exclusions:

COSMETIC ALTERATIONS.—Such term shall not include an add-on transaction to an interactive digital entertainment product whose only effect is to alter a user's visual representation within the game provided that it does not, from the perspective of a reasonable user, provide the user with a competitive advantage over other users who do not make such transaction.

ALL OF SL's gatcha are purely visual effects!! So what is the reason for this? Likely army of layers freaking out about growing legal trends and not caring to understand nuanced differences.. Oh well best ban it all then just to be safe. 

I think it's more that other countries may see gatchas as the same as loot boxes in other games, which are problematic.

 

And wouldn't the person making the object be the developer? So, the creator?

Edited August 3, 2021 by Deathly Fright
added creator bit

[Lucia Nightfire]

1 hour ago, Faly Breen said:

i think @Finite is there more right since a lot gacha creators put (way to much) actual effort into their things willingly to know that some of their stuff is actually "rare". with this factor gone, where will be this factor if everyone can literally "just buy it"? I mean the "thing" about gachas was this "curiotisty" what you will get. with that literally gone, it will more or less end as a boring window shopping trip now.

I think creators aren't hinging on gacha for the sake of gacha, but for other reasons, the primary one being that they already enjoy creating content and have an outlet to bolster their exposure/notoriety/brand/name. I think if there is not an alternative avenue acceptable by LL, they will simply fall back on pricing their work accordingly. That rare they spent additional time creating will be priced much much higher than their "commons". The price difference alone shows their perceived value in their extra work. The gambling thrill will be gone, but the customers that actually use/wear/rez/love their content won't be gone and will gladly pay the price the creator thinks it's worth.

[Zoren Manray]

2 minutes ago, Deathly Fright said:

I think it's more that other countries may see gatchas as the same as loot boxes in other games, which are problematic.

Yes that is true.. but if perception of what is in SL was purely a reason for a ban I could thank of a bunch of other things that should be outright banned as regulators in some countries would perceive them as unfavorable. as I've even said some action was clearly needed but the outright ban with no clear reasoning is making a mess of it. 

[Jordyn McGregor]

I have not read through all the posts, nor do I really care to, but my two cents...I don't really have an opinion on gachas staying or going, but I do find it unfair to only give people one month's notice of this new policy.  

Creators have planned and will have been working on Halloween and Xmas events, not to mention now only have a month to figure out how to transform their existing gachas into something they can sell.

They should have been allowed to finish out the year and start 2022 with the new policy.

[Drayke Newall]

9 minutes ago, Zoren Manray said:

The more I look into the actual legality of all this the more annoying it get's about the vagueness from LL about why this is being done. Again yes I agree some controls were needed but outright ban? Seems the only Countries with strict anti loot crate laws on the books are Netherlands and Belgium, Then others with looser ones being Japan, China and Germany. And then the UK and US are making plans to implement some laws.. All these laws ban DEVELOPERS specifically though and take little to nothing into account for a user created marketplace. Also aside from Netherlands and Belgium the other laws are only seeming to ban lootboxes that effect gameplay not simply visual aspects. Take for instance the proposed us legislation Senate bill S. 1629 Specifically says in section 2 under exclusions:

COSMETIC ALTERATIONS.—Such term shall not include an add-on transaction to an interactive digital entertainment product whose only effect is to alter a user's visual representation within the game provided that it does not, from the perspective of a reasonable user, provide the user with a competitive advantage over other users who do not make such transaction.

ALL OF SL's gatcha are purely visual effects!! So what is the reason for this? Likely army of layers freaking out about growing legal trends and not caring to understand nuanced differences.. Oh well best ban it all then just to be safe. 

Linden Lab has to take a broad brush over this issue and apply regulation based on the strictest countries law as they cannot implement or police any regulation for each individual countries law. It would be impossible. In the case of EA they were able to make the game so that it didn't offer lootboxes to Netherlands and Belgium. LL cant do that.

:EDIT:

As to your developer comment. LL in this case are not considered the developers. It would be the individual creators that are developers. LL only provide the service for the developers.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Drayke Newall

[Rosekin1982]

1 minute ago, Drayke Newall said:

Linden Lab has to take a broad brush over this issue and apply regulation based on the strictest countries law as they cannot implement or police any regulation for each individual countries law. It would be impossible. In the case of EA they were able to make the game so that it didn't offer lootboxes to Netherlands and Belgium. LL cant do that.

Actually they can. Same as they ban people from entering Gambling sims based on their IP addresses. If you live in a state or country where gambling is illegal then you are unable to enter a gambling sim currently.

[Finite]

2 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

they cannot implement or police any regulation for each individual countries law.

Don't they already do this with skill gaming sims?

[Deathly Fright]

4 minutes ago, Zoren Manray said:

Yes that is true.. but if perception of what is in SL was purely a reason for a ban I could thank of a bunch of other things that should be outright banned as regulators in some countries would perceive them as unfavorable. as I've even said some action was clearly needed but the outright ban with no clear reasoning is making a mess of it. 

I would rather LL be able to argue that they took action before it was a legal issue, and acted broadly. it's either that or that they split hairs over what may be legal in the future then having to explain themselves. think their kid stuff policy here.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Deathly Fright

[Lucia Nightfire]

1 hour ago, Jordan Whitt said:

I have not read through all the posts, nor do I really care to, but my two cents...I don't really have an opinion on gachas staying or going, but I do find it unfair to only give people one month's notice of this new policy.  

Creators have planned and will have been working on Halloween and Xmas events, not to mention now only have a month to figure out how to transform their existing gachas into something they can sell.

They should have been allowed to finish out the year and start 2022 with the new policy.

As much as I agree, LL's hands might be tied. They could have already been given a timeline else face hefty fines.

[Quistess Alpha]

Quote

i think @Finite is there more right since a lot gacha creators put (way to much) actual effort into their things willingly to know that some of their stuff is actually "rare". with this factor gone, where will be this factor if everyone can literally "just buy it"? I mean the "thing" about gachas was this "curiotisty" what you will get. with that literally gone, it will more or less end as a boring window shopping trip now.

(quote from @Faly Breen, taken from @Lucia Nightfire's quotation)

Here's an interesting idea, if the object you get is totally random and you don't even know what the possible options are, is that still a gacha (Probably yes)? What about if you have a "bag of many things" that rezzes out a single item at a time. if someone buys the item, it rezzes out something else. you get exactly what you pay for, but there's no knowing and no expectation what the next item might be.

[Drayke Newall]

Just now, Finite said:

Don't they already do this with skill gaming sims?

True, though are you then expecting show owners to pay double rent to have their gacha's at another place? It just isn't viable.

[Lucia Nightfire]

1 hour ago, Drayke Newall said:

In the case of EA they were able to make the game so that it didn't offer lootboxes to Netherlands and Belgium. LL cant do that.

Imagine if LL gave land owners the ability to proactively ban guests from <insert list of countries here>...

[Deathly Fright]

Just now, Quistess Alpha said:

(quote from @Faly Breen, taken from @Lucia Nightfire's quotation)

Here's an interesting idea, if the object you get is totally random and you don't even know what the possible options are, is that still a gacha (Probably yes)? What about if you have a "bag of many things" that rezzes out a single item at a time. if someone buys the item, it rezzes out something else. you get exactly what you pay for, but there's no knowing and no expectation what the next item might be.

people spoke earlier about just saying with hovertext what the item is if you buy it, then making the next item random. it would still show the next item after the first is purchased

[Drayke Newall]

3 minutes ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

Imagine if LL gave land owners the ability to proactively ban guests from <insert list of countries here>...

You really think they would do such a thing quickly? It took them years to introduce skill regions after their gambling ban.

The way this has been announced sounds as if LL have been given some insider knowledge as to what is to come.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Drayke Newall

[Quistess Alpha]

1 minute ago, Deathly Fright said:

people spoke earlier about just saying with hovertext what the item is if you buy it, then making the next item random. it would still show the next item after the first is purchased

Hmm, but now I think more about it, there are ways you could take that concept deeper down the slippery slope: if there's an option to pay extra for the item you see to increase the chances that the next item is a rare. . .

[Lucia Nightfire]

1 hour ago, Drayke Newall said:

You really think they would do such a thing quickly? It took them years to introduce skill regions after their gambling ban.

I was joking.

[Finite]

6 minutes ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

Imagine if LL gave land owners the ability to proactively ban guests from <insert list of countries here>...

Skill gaming sims already do that automatically.

7 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

True, though are you then expecting show owners to pay double rent to have their gacha's at another place? It just isn't viable.

Yes I understand, I was just pointing out that it's something already in place and not something entirely impossible to implement elsewhere. And quite frankly if someone is upset they cannot access something due to some regulation they should be upset with their lawmakers about it. Not SL. (yes i see the irony in this statement... 😭).

Edited August 3, 2021 by Finite