Jump to content

New Gacha Policy Discussion


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 111 days.

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

Recommended Posts

I think this little bit is very telling. in the Ryan Schultz Blog: Nodoka Hanamura has posted a Twitter thread FAQ about this:

"Again, I cannot stress this enough. This isn’t something LL did to spite people. This is because it was either they banned gacha, or LL would be in hot water for hosting it…"

I mentioned in another thread about LL moving to cloud hosting with Amazon would have some consequences.  I assumed the child avatars and the adult sims would get targeted. Apparently not. LL is not "hosting" it, Amazon is.

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

3 minutes ago, CapriceFlavia said:

I have several questions, What about prize wheels? Or games people play and give away prizes? If you pay for something say X and in return you get X plus a secondary prize that is random is this allowed? 

Again it is the dilemma it would be considered a game of chance. You are paying to win a prize and hoping that the prize is the one you want. I mean even if you add a bonus, you are still creating another game of chance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I mean you really can't, Gacha you don't know what you are getting to a certain degree. But buying Ls, you know how much you are buying it is not a chance of it being random and you not getting that amount at all. 

I'm not sure how this applies to the comment you quoted me on. I was referring to the act of putting money into the game. It takes the same amount of "skill" regardless of what you end up doing with the L's you bought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mireille Massiel said:

Sellers, an even better idea for you. Have everything you make available for purchase at what you deem a fair price. And let me, the customer, decide what i wish to purchase.  Retailing 101, it's not hard.

Exactly what most of us do. Here is X, it's 350L, there's only one of it. You like? You buy.

Plus if I worked out the math, I'd never actually want to sell anything ... I spend sometimes 2-3 hours on something I sell for 350L ... around $1.50. Once. All my pieces are one-of-a-kind. I do it because i love it not be get rich. :)

2 minutes ago, Cinos Field said:

Limited edition items do kinda scratch the same itch as gachas do. Though they would have to be transferrable too... which is always a tricky thing on SL.

It's not tricky? I sell one of a kind artwork (no copy, no modify, transfer) that the new owner can transfer or even sell on, just like my real art. I think I missed the point of your post?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Again it is the dilemma it would be considered a game of chance. You are paying to win a prize and hoping that the prize is the one you want. I mean even if you add a bonus, you are still creating another game of chance. 

Not if you are paying say for a  Apple. you get the apple.. but in the background you would also win a big watermellon but not matter what you got that apple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

So basically a raffle. Everything that has chance in it, is still technically gambling. I am sorry to say that. 

Really? It doesn't feel like gambling to me, though, nor does it work the way I understand raffles to work. Don't raffles keep your money, whether or not you "win" the raffle? Or am I thinking of something else?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cube Republic said:

Congratulations on inventing the vendor

See that's a nice gacha even without the change. I'd be happy with any of those items. Not just the rares.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for my long statement, but I really wish the management will withdraw this decision and reconsider more carefully.

This is just my personal opinion, but I think Gacha is somewhat 'necessary evil', especially for some creators and the current in-world economic system.
Some people already mentioned that creators need some way to retrieve the time, labor, and dedication they spent on their creations. And it is obvious that gacha is NOT the only way to retrieve their costs. Actually, countless creators are providing their works with solid prices and more reliable and ordinary ways. I guess gacha takes a certain share of the current economic system, but still it's just one of many ways. Surely, some people like me will prefer solid ordinary style purchases. Reliability has enough advantages to spend much cost than unstable gamble play.

So. If we truly hate gambles, just we don't have to pay for this. Then that kind of business will be wiped out naturally. No legal restriction is required to achieve this goal.
Also. Addiction is the player's responsibility, not the provider's. If they truly want to get rid of their addiction, they can seek a doctor instead of spending for gacha. At least for me, it completely doesn't make sense to ask the creator about the responsibility of customer's addiction. These customers made the choice and they must be responsible for their own actions.

We all have the RIGHT to play gacha, but it is just one of many choices. There are so many other choices in this world. We have so many ordinary solid-priced products on almost every in-world store or marketplace. Also there are so many freebie providers are here and there. Actually I'm offering my works for free too. And if we truly want, we all can create anything we want. In-world creation tool is available for literally everyone with no exception.
Like this. If we can't get some specific items, but there are so many alternative choices. If we truly hate gacha, we already have a chance to get rid of it completely. Because it's just an option, not essential for Second Life.
There is a huge difference between many mobile gacha games and Second Life. In mobile games, gacha is the almost ONLY way to get the advantage. But obviously, SL is completely not.

So I personally feel, in the first place, this argument didn't happen if we all acquire enough about the 'unwritten agreement' of gacha system.
Why each play of gacha is so cheap, it's because of the instability of the reward per cost. This status is already included in the cost and therefore the play cost is already discounted. The action of playing gacha means the establishment of this 'unwritten agreement', especially about the instability.
And, if we're unhappy with this agreement, we all have the right to refuse it. Just, don't play gacha. Simple.

If, gacha system is obviously overwhelming the whole market and economy, and destroying the ordinal solid-price providers, gacha might be a problem. Or, if there are some complicated legal problems behind this statement, we might have no choice.
However. If it is still under the control of management's decisions, I truly appreciate it if they reconsider this.

For some creators, gacha is one of important sources of income. And for some newbies and 'welcoming instructors', some made-in-gacha avatars are REALLY great starter kits to learn and practice about appearance editing.
It's a pretty common affair that newbies break the first brand-new avatar kits and get depressed. But if it was just a cheap made-in-gacha kit and unimportant doubled piece, the damage won't be that big. And this damage control will reduce the guilty feeling of the newbie, and also secure the instructor's motivation. This is why I said gacha is 'necessary evil' despite I personally dislike gacha.

At least I have over 10 years long experience in Second Life and did the volunteer 'welcoming instructor's job many times. Also I created countless items and shared some of the pieces.
Still, I personally dislike gacha. So I personally really barely play those. But still, I feel it's necessary, or at least I think the management doesn't have to prohibit it officially. Official restrictions will damage the variation of the economic system and individual choices.

I prefer the diversity on both individual activities and the market atmosphere.

Play gamble or not. This choice is in our hands. And freedom of choice is more precious. I personally think so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

It's not tricky? I sell one of a kind artwork (no copy, no modify, transfer) that the new owner can transfer or even sell on, just like my real art. I think I missed the point of your post?

Glitches have more than once spirited no copy items away into the void from sims where I had them rezzed. It's just the nature of SL.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SheilaGrace Fluffpaw said:

Sorry for my long statement, but I really wish the management will withdraw this decision and reconsider more carefully.

This is just my personal opinion, but I think Gacha is somewhat 'necessary evil', especially for some creators and the current in-world economic system.
Some people already mentioned that creators need some way to retrieve the time, labor, and dedication they spent on their creations. And it is obvious that gacha is NOT the only way to retrieve their costs. Actually, countless creators are providing their works with solid prices and more reliable and ordinary ways. I guess gacha takes a certain share of the current economic system, but still it's just one of many ways. Surely, some people like me will prefer solid ordinary style purchases. Reliability has enough advantages to spend much cost than unstable gamble play.

So. If we truly hate gambles, just we don't have to pay for this. Then that kind of business will be wiped out naturally. No legal restriction is required to achieve this goal.
Also. Addiction is the player's responsibility, not the provider's. If they truly want to get rid of their addiction, they can seek a doctor instead of spending for gacha. At least for me, it completely doesn't make sense to ask the creator about the responsibility of customer's addiction. These customers made the choice and they must be responsible for their own actions.

We all have the RIGHT to play gacha, but it is just one of many choices. There are so many other choices in this world. We have so many ordinary solid-priced products on almost every in-world store or marketplace. Also there are so many freebie providers are here and there. Actually I'm offering my works for free too. And if we truly want, we all can create anything we want. In-world creation tool is available for literally everyone with no exception.
Like this. If we can't get some specific items, but there are so many alternative choices. If we truly hate gacha, we already have a chance to get rid of it completely. Because it's just an option, not essential for Second Life.
There is a huge difference between many mobile gacha games and Second Life. In mobile games, gacha is the almost ONLY way to get the advantage. But obviously, SL is completely not.

So I personally feel, in the first place, this argument didn't happen if we all acquire enough about the 'unwritten agreement' of gacha system.
Why each play of gacha is so cheap, it's because of the instability of the reward per cost. This status is already included in the cost and therefore the play cost is already discounted. The action of playing gacha means the establishment of this 'unwritten agreement', especially about the instability.
And, if we're unhappy with this agreement, we all have the right to refuse it. Just, don't play gacha. Simple.

If, gacha system is obviously overwhelming the whole market and economy, and destroying the ordinal solid-price providers, gacha might be a problem. Or, if there are some complicated legal problems behind this statement, we might have no choice.
However. If it is still under the control of management's decisions, I truly appreciate it if they reconsider this.

For some creators, gacha is one of important sources of income. And for some newbies and 'welcoming instructors', some made-in-gacha avatars are REALLY great starter kits to learn and practice about appearance editing.
It's a pretty common affair that newbies break the first brand-new avatar kits and get depressed. But if it was just a cheap made-in-gacha kit and unimportant doubled piece, the damage won't be that big. And this damage control will reduce the guilty feeling of the newbie, and also secure the instructor's motivation. This is why I said gacha is 'necessary evil' despite I personally dislike gacha.

At least I have over 10 years long experience in Second Life and did the volunteer 'welcoming instructor's job many times. Also I created countless items and shared some of the pieces.
Still, I personally dislike gacha. So I personally really barely play those. But still, I feel it's necessary, or at least I think the management doesn't have to prohibit it officially. Official restrictions will damage the variation of the economic system and individual choices.

I prefer the diversity on both individual activities and the market atmosphere.

Play gamble or not. This choice is in our hands. And freedom of choice is more precious. I personally think so.

Let me reiterate this, LL is not the one that is at fault here. This has been coming down the pipeline for ages, as there are new leglistations that have been made by governments, heavily regulating lootboxes. And since SL gachas are like lootboxes and it is hard to regulate them. They are choosing to get rid of them. And 1 last thing, we survived without gacha for a long time before, we can do it again. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Kyau Brodie said:

Positive Wavelength has already created a new system for their avatar gacha that complies with the new policy.

https://gyazo.com/01e167001234bf29857c7522ebdb6e89

...Huh.

You know what? I that does work. It's like a pay-in random item lucky board or something. You see what's on the board, you pay for it instead of putting in your name. It's like...an item roulette. 

Though I think that'll get a lot of people spamming like 'this item's up! someone get it so it moves over!' and probably increase foot traffic or camping lol.

Then everyone and their mom tries to get into events and screams about vendor campers.

Edited by Out Jinx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SheilaGrace Fluffpaw said:

Some people already mentioned that creators need some way to retrieve the time, labor, and dedication they spent on their creations.

They've been given a month, how much longer could they possibly need? Thats usually the default timespan for any business facing legal problems to make the changes before they face consequences and LL has a lawsuit and a lawyer breathing down their necks, this has nothing to do with opinions.... LL is overall a business for the Linden's and they will do what they must to keep things running. Would y'all rather they keep this going and potentially get shut down all together for keeping this in?

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

Just curious but since only net gain Ls have any value are we actually gambling if we aren't using anything of value to play? If I bought the lindens they have zero value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second Life isn't the only company in the world being affected by this anti-gambling law in Belgium that is focused on loot boxes (like our gachas) in gaming. Nintendo pulled two games from Belgium over this. https://www.engadget.com/2019-05-21-nintendo-pulls-two-mobile-games-in-belgium-due-to-loot-box-laws.html Blizzard and others have complied and others have pulled their games, too.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd have to see LL confirm that the system complies with the new rules. Because it clearly violates what the blog post described with the random outcomes. Said random outcomes are just a few steps away in the future.

Edited by Cinos Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Out Jinx said:

...Huh.

You know what? I that does work. It's like a pay-in random item lucky board or something. You see what's on the board, you pay for it instead of putting in your name. It's like...an item roulette. 

Though I think that'll get a lot of people spamming like 'this item's up! someone get it so it moves over!' and probably increase foot traffic or camping lol.

Then everyone any their mom tries to get into events and screams about vendor campers.

Roulette is gambling.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Finite said:

Just curious but since only net gain Ls have any value are we actually gambling if we aren't using anything of value to play? If I bought the lindens they have zero value.

Yes cause they do actually have value. People can sell Ls for actual money, that and you can buy Ls for actual money. So they have some sort of value to actual currency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I hate to break it to y'all, but any chance based thing where you pay an amount to get a random item, whether it be a Gacha or a Loot box or a lucky wheel, those would all fall under gambling ....

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Yes cause they do actually have value. People can sell Ls for actual money, that and you can buy Ls for actual money. So they have some sort of value to actual currency. 

You can only sell (cash out) net gain Ls. L's you bought you cannot turn around and sell (cash out for real money). So this notion is incorrect.

Edited by Finite
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Roulette is gambling.

No you're misunderstanding how the above vendor I'm talking about works:
What this vendor is doing, is randomising the next item coming up. So it's like 'up next: This item is now up!' the user knows exactly what they are buying. They can go 'Eh this isn't the item I'm looking for' and wait for someone to get the item they wanted. This is NOT gambling.

You know exactly what you're going to get if you put your L$ into the vendor, but if the item showing is not what you're after, you can wait.

The chance part is if the item you want is the one up next. Not the one you're buying.

 

Anyway my joke was, this is going to create campers and group spam on events and is a terrible idea.

Edited by Out Jinx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Out Jinx said:

No you're misunderstanding how the above vendor I'm talking about works:
What this vendor is doing, is randomising the next item coming up. So it's like 'up next: This item is now up!' the user knows exactly what they are buying. They can go 'Eh this isn't the item I'm looking for' and wait for someone to get the item they wanted. This is NOT gambling.

You know exactly what you're going to get if you put your L$ into the vendor, but if the item showing is not what you're after, you can wait.

The chance part is if the item you want is the one up next. Not the one you're buying.

That is categorically what the blog post mentions, namely "a random outcome as the result of paying money", just that the random outcome is "item you can buy a few purchases later" rather than "item you'll get right now".

If the Lindens make an exception for it... well, then they do. But right now it sure doesn't look like it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 111 days.

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

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