Jump to content

New Gacha Policy Discussion


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 76 days.

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

Recommended Posts

Just now, Alwin Alcott said:

ok, mention 5 big ip-replacement actions from last 3 months... nót hear say

I know of botters and nothing is being done. Ask any gacha dealer. There are several large conglomerates who have this down to a fine art. I never mentioned LL has filed actions, they do nada...zilch. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SheyCutiePie said:

So let me get this right. it is gabbling right and all there people that is happy about this are from EU. Please tell me people are not going crazy. Can we now banned Lottery from the EU. This is not gabbling. Are you going tell a kid not to play with a toy vendor in real life to collect them all? This is silly and will hurt SL.

gambling has other laws than buy and sell ... keeping those apart isn't a weird thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No they don't, that's ridiculous. First of all there is neither law nor cases you can point to that exist to trigger a legal decision. Second, if that were the case, there wouldn't be any customers from outside the US. You have a weak grasp on how international and local law in fact work. You need a law. You need a case. You need a prosecutor, like the German prosecutors who announced publicly they would prosecute for child pornography. But that had to be combined with other signals from the environment  for them to make a policy.

No district attorney or prosecutor abroad have said anything about the application of their laws to SL. And go back and read the CA law referenced above, and any other law and their intent. 

HAHA ok then then explain how Belgium and the Netherlands enforced their laws to get EA and other gaming companies to remove lockboxes from their games in those countries.

Explain how Steam was fined millions of dollars and forced to introduce refunds because Australia sued them because they were not complying with Australian Laws.

Explain how Apple were fined millions of dollars and have to offer refunds as well as offer allow for third party repairers in Australia per Australia's law.

Explain how Sony was sued because they were not complying with Australia Law having to pay millions of dollars compensation.Sony to pay $3.5 million penalty for misrepresenting PlayStation gamers’ rights | ACCC

All of these companies had the same clause in their ToS about California law etc. It doesn't matter, if you trade in a country and have a physical presence which can be as small as money transactions have to comply with that countries law.

For reverence and taken from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission which is a government body (i.e. the Australian government says this and no company has ever won against such things":

“No matter where in the world a company has its headquarters, if it is selling to Australian consumers, the Australian Consumer Law applies.” The same also applies to any other relevant law in Australia.

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

5 minutes ago, Jewel Nova said:

I know of botters and nothing is being done. Ask any gacha dealer. There are several large conglomerates who have this down to a fine art. I never mentioned LL has filed actions, they do nada...zilch. 

 

see hear say... no facts
And as you can see on regular happenings... copyrights are taken serious by LL.
But it needs action from the creator... and doesn't work for bought/ripped/free content on 3d website.... many so called "original" items come directly from turbosquid or other mesh creator sites.

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

4 minutes ago, SheyCutiePie said:

So let me get this right. it is gabbling right and all there people that is happy about this are from EU. Please tell me people are not going crazy. Can we now banned Lottery from the EU. This is not gabbling. Are you going tell a kid not to play with a toy vendor in real life to collect them all? This is silly and will hurt SL.

From the reports I've been reading there discussion and a move to change the idea that loot boxes (which gacha *machines* can arguably be classified as such) from gambling and instead approach the issue from a consumer protection angle, which has a lot better chances of succeeding.  One such report then advises that the EU “broaden the perspective beyond gambling aspects and approach the issue of loot boxes and other problematic game designs from a wider consumer protection angle.“ Noting that the Union has great competency in consumer protection law, and that would be a better angle of approach in the long-term. 

the writing is on the wall right there.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drayke Newall said:

HAHA ok then then explain how Belgium and the Netherlands enforced their laws to get EA and other gaming companies to remove lockboxes from their games in those countries.

Explain how Steam was fined millions of dollars and forced to introduce refunds because Australia sued them because they were not complying with Australian Laws.

Explain how Apple were fined millions of dollars and have to offer refunds as well as offer allow for third party repairers in Australia per Australia's law.

Explain how Sony was sued because they were not complying with Australia Law having to pay millions of dollars compensation.

All of these companies had the same clause in their ToS about California law etc. It doesn't matter, if you trade in a country and have a physical presence which can be as small as money transactions have to comply with that countries law.

Because those games have lootboxes that fell under their laws? SL does not. Notice Belgium and the Netherlands have not attempted to come after SL with this; even if you can wedge gatchas under the definition, largely aimed at children in games, it's too small beer to bother with.

Explain why that didn't happen if you believe that "companies are forced to comply with other countries' laws" when they have no standing, there is no case. Even the Apple suit in this country DID NOT FLY. Again, read the resolution of it. Notice how cynically this played out. First, Apple said they should be shielded as a platform provider. Sound familiar? Then Apple faced a class action law suit. Then Apple shook off the suit successfully a got a ruling that the parties had no standing and suffered no losses. You really do not understand the way the world works. You think the vindictive glee with which you greet phenomena you don't like is something you can harness is a big or small game company. You can't. The rule of law prevails over vendettas.

Explain how LL was not sued, questioned, commented upon, or jittery from this lawsuit all this time. Their jitters now may be unrelated, in fact. The lawsuit *failed*.

Your notion about the self-execution of international law is simply untrue. Even treaties the US signs on way more important matters like against torture at the UN do not self-execute. You have to have a case and a court of law. Money transactions online cannot be construed as a physical presence.

Why aren't you over at Roblox?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Because those games have lootboxes that fell under their laws? SL does not. Notice Belgium and the Netherlands have not attempted to come after SL with this; even if you can wedge gatchas under the definition, largely aimed at children in games, it's too small beer to bother with.

Explain why that didn't happen if you believe that "companies are forced to comply with other countries' laws" when they have no standing, there is no case. Even the Apple suit in this country DID NOT FLY. Again, read the resolution of it. Notice how cynically this played out. First, Apple said they should be shielded as a platform provider. Sound familiar? Then Apple faced a class action law suit. Then Apple shook off the suit successfully a got a ruling that the parties had no standing and suffered no losses. You really do not understand the way the world works. You think the vindictive glee with which you greet phenomena you don't like is something you can harness is a big or small game company. You can't. The rule of law prevails over vendettas.

Explain how LL was not sued, questioned, commented upon, or jittery from this lawsuit all this time. Their jitters now may be unrelated, in fact. The lawsuit *failed*.

Your notion about the self-execution of international law is simply untrue. Even treaties the US signs on way more important matters like against torture at the UN do not self-execute. You have to have a case and a court of law. Money transactions online cannot be construed as a physical presence.

Yet, here we are where Linden Lab have specifically stated in there blog post "Due to a changing regulatory climate..."

In other words, they have to comply. I will bet my hat that Linden Lab's lawyers know far more about international Law than you. If Linden Lab have made this decision it is based on what their Lawyers have said and no amount of you saying 'but... but.. but, I know law better than everyone else" will change the fact that gacha's are now banned due regulatory (legal) requirements.

Suck it up and move on.

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

Just now, Drayke Newall said:

Yet, here we are where Linden Lab have specifically stated in there blog post "Due to a changing regulatory climate..."

In other words, they have to comply. I will bet my hat that Linden Lab's lawyers know far more about international Law than you. If Linden Lab have made this decision it is based on what their Lawyers have said and no amount of you saying 'but... but.. but, I know law better than everyone else" will change the fact that gacha's are now banned due regulatory (legal) requirements.

Suck it up and move on.

LL's vague invocation of a "changing regulatory climate" is not a law, in this country or any other, and not a case, in this country or any other. So far we see in fact Apple shed their lawsuit and the ruling went in their favour. The legal advice in National Review is as follows. Perhaps Raj Date reads National Review with his background in law-enforcement; but actually nothing here says REMOVE the loot boxes. It says be transparent about them -- and indeed not only are merchants, but re-sellers. There aren't children in SL. SL is one big secondary market that is ALLOWED under the TOS and STILL allowed. So even a jittery game manufacturer or platform provider, reading this advice, would not have to conclude that SL gatchas need to die. Everyone with any sense is challenging LL to speak up on their motivations for this, their information, their dealings with actual authorities. So I hope they will. 

Considerations to Help Mitigate Risk

  • Take steps to avoid creating a wager, chance or win/loss structure required for a finding of gambling

  • Accurately and transparently disclose probably for winning

  • Consider substantial parental controls on loot box purchases made by minors

  • Ensure that there are minimal “fine print” terms or fees that consumers plausibly could contend are

    hidden or obscured

  • Develop and implement strategies for enforcement against unauthorized secondary markets that improperly sell your virtual items

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Because those games have lootboxes that fell under their laws? SL does not. Notice Belgium and the Netherlands have not attempted to come after SL with this; even if you can wedge gatchas under the definition, largely aimed at children in games, it's too small beer to bother with.

Explain why that didn't happen if you believe that "companies are forced to comply with other countries' laws" when they have no standing, there is no case. Even the Apple suit in this country DID NOT FLY. Again, read the resolution of it. Notice how cynically this played out. First, Apple said they should be shielded as a platform provider. Sound familiar? Then Apple faced a class action law suit. Then Apple shook off the suit successfully a got a ruling that the parties had no standing and suffered no losses. You really do not understand the way the world works. You think the vindictive glee with which you greet phenomena you don't like is something you can harness is a big or small game company. You can't. The rule of law prevails over vendettas.

Explain how LL was not sued, questioned, commented upon, or jittery from this lawsuit all this time. Their jitters now may be unrelated, in fact. The lawsuit *failed*.

Your notion about the self-execution of international law is simply untrue. Even treaties the US signs on way more important matters like against torture at the UN do not self-execute. You have to have a case and a court of law. Money transactions online cannot be construed as a physical presence.

Why aren't you over at Roblox?

You literally need to read up on government regulations and gain a better understanding before saying some of this stuff.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cancer Triellis said:

Ugh, fatpacks. If I want 1 single thing in the package, I have to shell out 10x the price? :[ no thanks.

Play gacha and you will probably pay the same price as a fatpack trying to get what you want!  js

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Aria Aurelia said:

You literally need to read up on government regulations and gain a better understanding before saying some of this stuff.

I have. I also have quite a bit of RL experience in how international law and cases work. You need to read the outcome of the suit against Apple. Oh, and Google.

Two years into this, no one came for SL and still haven't, that any public record has told us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a fairly good understanding of legally binding agreements at this stage of life.  Everytime you login to secondlife you agree to abide by the Terms of Service. No matter how much you argue on this forum otherwise, this is now a legally binding part of the Terms of Service.  Whether you like it or not, this is now part of linden labs business model. They won't likely be wanting to get sued or fined by goverments in countries where they want to retain revenue streams.  I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with all of this anyway?

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

10 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

That's not a law in the US. Just because Canadians are in SL doesn't mean that LL has to do Canada's prosecuting for them. LL is a private company. A Canadian prosecutor would have to attempt this, and there would have to be a reason and a precedent. Not seeing it. This advisory is from 2010, and SL had 11 years of gatcha after that. Next.

I expect this was already corrected, but I am only on page 22 of this thread.

ca.gov is the California state government website, Governor Brown was the governor in 2010, and the article mentions California repeatedly.   This advisory has nothing to do with Canada.  

Next?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jaylinbridges said:

I expect this was already corrected, but I am only on page 22 of this thread.

ca.gov is the California state government website, Governor Brown was the governor in 2010, and the article mentions California repeatedly.   This advisory has nothing to do with Canada.  

Next?

Yeah, I can know. I can read, and read the word "California" and even other news articles on this subject about *California* where one can even kiss a Sunset Pig.

All that occurred is that the "CA" reminded me of Canada, which has CA as its Internet address. So I began Googling around and reading on Canada's law, and a recent class auction suit invoking existing gambling law and consumer law about minors. So I referenced both. The end. I do hope that glow from correcting someone on the Internet does linger for you, however.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of what people say here is abstract and tendentious and not rooted in reality. They do not make gatcha sets and sell them. They don't even re-sell them. They don't study law in a wider context and haven't read up on this subject.

But let's hear from an actual merchant, keiralans of Raindale, in a poor country who made her living mainly from gatchas. This is her public group notice. Raindale sells fantasy type items and is very popular. It explains how hard the transition will be, and what this does to a real person in real life, not a fantasy, as it is for most of the people on the forums:

"As some of you already know, gacha will be banned from SL since September,1...

https://community.secondlife.com/blogs/entry/8586-policy-change-regarding-gacha/

I am really trying to cope with this news and to figure out what to do next, but right now I feel very lost.

Most of my income came from gacha and I seriously doubt that I'll be able to cover my SL and RL expenses with regular releases only...


My C|M collections never get as much sales as gacha sets (even when they have 10+ items in). It's not about quality, time and effort. I can spend 60+ hours on a highly detailed project, and it will never bring as much money as a gacha set made in a week...

As you might notice, I don't make a lot of gachas these days.  Arcade covered my fullsim rent + other fees, and an extra set every other month helped me to maintain my modest middle class lifestyle here in Russia.
In order to make this money without gachas I'd have to create 10-15 new releases a month - that's unrealistic, and I will be burnout in just a few weeks.

I do love gacha both as a creator and a shopper, I think 2/3 of the stuff I've ever bought were from gacha machines, and it really feels like one of the last things I actually enjoyed in SL is soon to be gone.

Maybe it's a sign for me to move on and finally do something else outside of SL.
I'm not closing Raindale just yet, and have no such plans in the next few months! But if it turns into a hobby without any real profit - I'll have no choice but to minimize my time here.


The most confusing part for me - is what to do with existing gacha sets.

There is no way I could possibly re-package hundreds of items into individual products, make new pictures, replace note-cards etc... it would be a huge waste of time and prim space (especially since I'll most likely have to move to a cheaper sim with less prims)
________________________
What I decided for now:
________________________

I will make copy+ full-sets for gachas that are currently in main-store - after September,1

I will have to completely retire (remove from store) most of the older machines in the Outlet area.

I will try to hand-pick the best prizes from all the sets and re-package them into copy+ releases - it will take some time and there is no guarantee that a certain product will ever be for sale again individually.

I will still exchange all the prizes purchased earlier (or from re-sellers) to copy+ on request
*yes, re-selling gacha prizes is still going to be legal

________________________

For now, I put all of my machines on 25L$ per play - let's enjoy our final days of "risky gambling" and "lucrative business" XD

Of course, I'm open for your requests, ideas and suggestions - just drop me an IM/NC

*my English is in a bad shape today, because I'm pretty upset - if you didn't understand something from this NC - please ask!

Keira ♥

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

5 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I do hope that glow from correcting someone on the Internet does linger for you, however.

I will be glowing in golden warmth for at least a week Prok.  You are too funny :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another merchant, Jinx (Julia Demina), with a lot of great animal gatchas which are the core of her business although her avatars may carry her through this. Still, for her it's a sad day:

"Yes, it's a sad day - the news from Linden Lab that Gachas in SL are to end.  From 1st September Gachas will be banned in SL.

So....while I decide what to do with all the Jinx gachas  - whether to retire them or recreate them as something different.....ALL Gachas in-store are set to just 25L$ per pull for the month of August.  Enjoy :) "

Here's what Minima (ors quan) said -- note the mood is not gleeful and prudishly vindictive as this man makes his living from gatchas. Yes, he has houses, backdrops, jewelry and will likely survive. Yet his tone is of sadness -- and it is sad:

Hello Minimals !

We have shocking news about the new LL´s policy change regarding gacha.

Sadly we wont be able to create more Gachas as a gamble game, enforcement won’t start until September 1.

During this time all gachas are going to still be available at MINIMAL Gallery after that we will set them as FATPACK versions.

For more information feel free to read their blog post:
https://community.secondlife.com/blogs/entry/8586-policy-change-regarding-gacha/

Thank you all, always

Here is what Contraption says, a highly skilled and best-selling merchant:

Dear Contraptioneers,

We've long moved away from gachas since 2019, and they only continue to exist in the back of the store to remain fair.

However, for the musical machine collections currently sold, they will be packed mod/copy for a high price. This price is to cover the UNUSUALLY HIGH PRODUCTION VALUE they exceed.

You have until Sept 1st to roll the musical gachas before they get packed into high priced (5k+++) fatpacks. 

(The less complex ones will range 1.5-3k).

So note how this works. Merchants are mainly upset, and trying to cope, and those who did start coping 2 years ago are going to make their wares more expensive, which is perfectly logical and legitimate. Gatchas enabled people -- of which there is no shortage in SL -- to decorate their homes or have a skilfully-crafted music box in their homes without forsaking their groceries or rent in RL. That era is over, and the world is a poorer place. The adjustments involved may be beneficial in the long run, but along the way we will see people lose their livlihoods and leave SL and that's never a good thing. The litigious law-farers in this thread ought to consider this reality.

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

7 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

 

You must of missed Apple Fall & Scarlet Creatives post on this thread then! I have quite a few raindale sets that I spent a bundle of money on as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 76 days.

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

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