Jump to content

New Gacha Policy Discussion


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 64 days.

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

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Finite said:

You already spent the money when you bought the lindens. The lindens you used to buy said shoes are not money. They are essentially just tokens of zero value. Since the only lindens of any value are not the ones you bought but the ones from net proceeds from the things you sell.

Depends on the country you are in. The Australian Tax Office treats Lindens as real cash and if you earn lindens as a business model in second life you are required in Australia to declare all cash-outs (changing lindens to rl cash) as well as any Lindens you have in your second life account that you haven't cashed out. This gives a value to the linden token as the token itself is taxed, at least in Australia.

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

Just now, s2Pandora said:

Ohhh boy.
You can buy Lindens without the thought of using them on Gachas. That can be an addiction itself, yes, but it is not the reason for Gacha addiction. People who are addicted can feel physical or emotional pain if they don't partake in what they are addicted to. This is why it's so hard for people to quit certain things. They feel compelled to do it or the world feels like it's going to fall apart. Also fomo. It's like a high.
Not everybody has the same mental capacity or strength of will to stop themselves, so just because you can hold back, doesn't mean others can.
I have a mild addiction to houses in SL, but I have enough self control to stop and ask myself "Do I love it? What will I use it for?". Some people see it and they feel they need it, and there that goes.

I get what you mean about gambling addiction. My friend quit the game because of gambling addiction in SL, but it wasn't because of GACHA. It was because of no-devil. Which is allowed. I can see how someone with a gambling addiction can get hooked on gachas though. However I don't think they were the target of most vendors (admittedly there are probably some vendors who target gambling addicts).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mireille Massiel said:

If you want to make an item available as a one-off, that's your prerogative. My point was let the customer be the person who makes the decision on what they wish to purchase of yours - you know, regular vendors.  Instead of continually feeding a gacha in the hopes of getting that one item they desire.

I was agreeing with you! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Toodles Telling said:

Simple fix: buy a specific item e.g. a [copy/no trans] necklace and get a random [no copy/trans] reward/gift with it.

Basically the gacha script just needs a small tweek. And of course the rewards/gifts are listed next to the necklace. And one ends up buying 5 times the same "necklace".

Just like in RL: buy a shampoo and get a random item from their product line as gift. Which definitely is not gambling, but comon practice.

Isn't that what you already get in certain stores when you buy something: it's called a reduction or store credit.

Edited by Dorientje Woller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want the lindens to actually answer some key questions:

a. How is this any different from pokemon cards, etc?

b. How will this affect breedables that have random genders for their starters ?

c. I really don't think less then 30 days notice is enough time to transition over, also, you aren't compensation creators at all for the Linden they've spent on shop fees like uploads, etc.

d. Will vendors that give out a random breedable be outlawed, too?  The buyer knows that they are buying a breedable - just not what gender or stats it has. I have so many horse bundles, snakes, spiders, etc, I usually just toss them into an equal-chance vendor for people to play for funsies and to downsize.... so now am I unable to do that?  I won't have the prim space to put *everything* out for sale.

There are so many unanswered questions and concerns being displayed in this thread and they are seemingly getting flat out ignored by the individuals who would actually have answers to the questions.

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

Just now, Finite said:

I get what you mean about gambling addiction. My friend quit the game because of gambling addiction in SL, but it wasn't because of GACHA. It was because of no-devil. Which is allowed. I can see how someone with a gambling addiction can get hooked on gachas though. However I don't think they were the target of most vendors (admittedly there are probably some vendors who target gambling addicts).

That's one reason why Gachas are so looked down upon. They are addictive, and people know this, so it's "easy money" to make by exploiting somebody's weakness(hence predatory). Perhaps i'm a little harsher with addictive substances or circumstances as it's cost me quite a lot irl(grandparents lost their house because of gambling/parents were alcoholics and addicted to drugs). It's a little easier to keep yourself in-check when you've seen it take a toil on your life or a loved-ones life when you weren't part of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are people on SL who lost everything due to gacha addiction.. and that's sad to think about.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Depends on the country you are in. The Australian Tax Office treats Lindens as real cash and if you earn lindens as a business model in second life you are required in Australia to declare all cash-outs (changing lindens to rl cash) as well as any Lindens you have in your second life account that you haven't cashed out. This gives a value to the linden token as the token itself is taxed, at least in Australia.

Do they require you to report the lindens you bought? Or just the net lindens you earned? This seems confusing to me. Like if I was  a AU resident and I bought 100k lindens and they were just sitting in my account. I would have to report these lindens I bought as income? Doesn't seem accurate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Depends on the country you are in. The Australian Tax Office treats Lindens as real cash and if you earn lindens as a business model in second life you are required in Australia to declare all cash-outs (changing lindens to rl cash) as well as any Lindens you have in your second life account that you haven't cashed out. This gives a value to the linden token as the token itself is taxed, at least in Australia.

So, they are taxing you L$ account balance even if you haven't cashed any out?!? That's highly illegal, seeing as its not income until it hits your bank account. 

If i have 100K L$ in my account and they tax me on it and i never cash out, how is that even remotely income? L$ have no cash value. You can live in SL without ever buying a single L$. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

So, they are taxing you L$ account balance even if you haven't cashed any out?!? That's highly illegal, seeing as its not income until it hits your bank account. 

If i have 100K L$ in my account and they tax me on it and i never cash out, how is that even remotely income? L$ have no cash value. You can live in SL without ever buying a single L$. 

You're looking at it through the US law lens, not Australian law. It makes a difference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are they going to remove all of the ACTUAL gambling also? And what happens to the people whose livelihoods are dependent upon gacha? There are countries out there where having a skill in 3D or texturing or mesh has given people the opportunity (through Second Life specifically) to make a living when no other jobs were available. Once again Linden Labs seems blissfully unaware that their "product" is in fact an enormous social experiment and an entire other world. The regulations they so nonchalantly failed to specify were likely introduced to deter children from falling for addictive marketing practices. They could have and should have given more options. (You could require all gachas to have a disclaimer and to show the %s) (You could limit Gacha sales to people whose locations allow for gambling) (You could offer more like an ENTIRE YEAR for people to prepare and change instead of one month). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Velcon Ethaniel said:

a. How is this any different from pokemon cards, etc?

That question is really pretty irrelevant.  If the law somewhere says that Gacha is gambling or it is oulawed, then if LL wants to continue to do busy there, they must abide by that edict.  How pokemon cards relate just doesn't come into the equation.  That question would be for the people making the laws, not the ones enforcing it.

The rest of you comments/questions are legitimate concerns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, GIitterBomb said:

So are they going to remove all of the ACTUAL gambling also?

There is no ACTUAL gambling in SL.  There is SKILL GAMING. Yes, I know that in many cases, there is little skill involved, but that is how those games have been defined.

 

3 minutes ago, GIitterBomb said:

And what happens to the people whose livelihoods are dependent upon gacha?

Lots of people relied on true gambling for the SL livelihood also. There were folks that relied on the money they made from Ad Farming, but that was ultimately restricted also.  Everyone adapts or they don't.

 

5 minutes ago, GIitterBomb said:

The regulations they so nonchalantly failed to specify were likely introduced to deter children from falling for addictive marketing practices. They could have and should have given more options. (You could require all gachas to have a disclaimer and to show the %s)

There are various countries that have stipulated that Gachas are gambling and thus must be regulated as such. There are also other locales that have flat out banned Gachas.  LL has no options if the wish to provide their services to those locations.  Requiring Gachas to display percentages or disclaimers does not change the basics of what a Gacha is.

 

7 minutes ago, GIitterBomb said:

(You could limit Gacha sales to people whose locations allow for gambling)

LL does not allow ANY gambling because that makes them subject to another whole batch of regulations.  

They do currently have some SKILL GAMING and they do restrict those based on the locales that still consider it gambling.  However, I imagine that they have already considered if there was a way to allow the Gachas while heavily regulating it.  Sounds to me like it would be far more trouble that it is worth.  Especially since the laws on Gachas themselves are still very much evolving out there in the real world.

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

Meh. I don't feel any way about this.

I got over gacha a few years ago. It was fun at first but I realized I was wasting money trying to get a particular item and I've found that gacha items are poorer quality than non-gacha items.

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

1 minute ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

There is no ACTUAL gambling in SL.  There is SKILL GAMING. Yes, I know that in many cases, there is little skill involved, but that is how those games have been defined.

It is still considered a game of chance, even though they put the label Skilled Gaming. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know,  when you play gacha machine you always get something. Its not like gambling where you dont always win. So my question is  ..... Is gambling gonna be stopped as well?  It  Should be if gacha  is to be stopped. We should start a petition and have people sign it, to save gachas or end gambling if  gachas end

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Again, the law in California has not been prosecuted against LL or any SL merchant. That's what you keep failing to admit. There is no US law on this. There is not. US law refers to FEDERAL laws. You are citing a law in California. There are laws in Canada, too. To speak only of California, you cannot cite, because it does not exist, a single CASE of PROSECUTION of the law. You keep pretending that a law on the books alone is enough. Law is not self-executing. The Smith Act is on the books, but it was long ago essentially overturned by judicial decisions declaring it unconstitutional. You don't know how this law is being prosecuted or how it may be overturned. You just don't know. So stop invoking law as if law is enough to make policy -- in a void, without any jurisprudence. LL has not said, and may never say, that drove this policy, which is their right to make. Did a California prosecutor call them? I highly doubt it. Did Elizabeth Warren's pal who is a new owner jump on this for his own political and ideological reasons? More than likely. But we don't know, they haven't told us.

You can't declare LL as "technically in violation of the law" not only because you are not a lawyer -- that alone would not be enough -- but because you can't, like any educated person can, cite any case where the law was APPLIED to SL or any situation like SL. APPLIED. That's what matters.

So stop with the moralizing, which is all that can be done on the basis of your level of knowledge. Find a single case of the prosecution of this law. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Go here to read up on Canada. There are other pages, that's what I'm referring to.

Can't agree more, and it will be most helpful if the lab can provide more transparency on its legal challenges so that perhaps community together can find a solution by making adjustments?   I don't like to gamble, but in real life there are a lot of serious and legal transactions much much larger than 75L where chances are involved and that adults just have to assess risks and decide to participate or not and be responsible for their own decisions.  I am not suggesting gambling is the issue here, as I am not clear what it means by 'change of regulatory climate...'.

My other opinion is that I do not want my decision on what I buy/participate to be taken away because some people get addicted to something.  I shiver when I see many comments like that here.   LL is a private company providing such wonderful platform to us and,  have their rights to decide what services to offer to their customers. However, I do not want people to decide for me based on what they think is good or bad for ME. Those are the job of the parents and love ones who are there to protect people who cannot control themselves, or intellectually or emotionally weaker than normal adults. IMHO, we should not overload LL on moral responsibilities, those should be left alone for adult players to decide. I will be very sad if someone decided to take away my jar of peanut butter or stop me from using my physics at strip clubs because feeling good itself is addictive and therefore not good for me.  Most civilized countries put warning labels to alert people about harm and side effects, or require 18+ to access but not to ban, because they know people will be sad and angry if you take away their fun suddenly.

Finally, I don't play gacha a lot, but I had fun with it. The scheme motivates creators to make many beautiful and fun things.  If Ebbe is still around, I think he would agree too. Now I realize much was done in the background, just to let us have fun. Miss him and feeling sad...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GIitterBomb said:

So are they going to remove all of the ACTUAL gambling also? And what happens to the people whose livelihoods are dependent upon gacha? There are countries out there where having a skill in 3D or texturing or mesh has given people the opportunity (through Second Life specifically) to make a living when no other jobs were available. Once again Linden Labs seems blissfully unaware that their "product" is in fact an enormous social experiment and an entire other world. The regulations they so nonchalantly failed to specify were likely introduced to deter children from falling for addictive marketing practices. They could have and should have given more options. (You could require all gachas to have a disclaimer and to show the %s) (You could limit Gacha sales to people whose locations allow for gambling) (You could offer more like an ENTIRE YEAR for people to prepare and change instead of one month). 

What is stopping the same people from selling the items directly instead of in a gacha? All kinds of creators manage to sell their content without resorting to using gachas.

Edited by Cristiano Midnight
  • Like 13
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Trusor Draesia said:

. Is gambling gonna be stopped as well?  It  Should be if gacha  is to be stopped. We should start a petition and have people sign it, to save gachas or end gambling if  gachas end

It has already been said many times, there is no true gambling in SL.  LL has authorized some games as 'skill gaming', because the scripter has managed to convince LL that there is some level of skill involved in winning.  It does not matter that most of us view those games as 'gambling under another name'.  All that matters is those game creators have found a way to meet the requirements to be allowed.

Petitions will not change anything.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

What is stopping the same people from selling the items directly instead of in a gacha? All kinds of creators manage to sell their content without resorting to using gachas.

I would suppose that the same degree of "addictiveness" is not there for selling the content through normal channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LL wouldn't do this if they didn't feel some sort of regulator pressure. So don't expect them to reverse it. Just get started converting items over to single sell or fatpacks.

I am in full support of anything in the gaming industry that removes lootbox/gambling mechanics.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Trusor Draesia said:

You know,  when you play gacha machine you always get something. Its not like gambling where you dont always win. So my question is  ..... Is gambling gonna be stopped as well?  It  Should be if gacha  is to be stopped. We should start a petition and have people sign it, to save gachas or end gambling if  gachas end

It is gambling, that is the thing. Gacha is a game of chance, and you pay into it, and there is a chance you get a common, rare or ultra rare. I mean sure you get an item everytime, but the same could be said for an RL Slot machine as well. So I usually equate gachas, to an RL slot machine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I mean sure you get an item everytime, but the same could be said for an RL Slot machine as well. So I usually equate gachas, to an RL slot machine. 

RL slot machines do not give you something every time.  I've played them a few times while wandering through casino areas.  If they gave me back something every single time I put in a coin, there would be no way to ultimately run out of coins in my cup.  That has much to do with why Las Vegas has so many.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 64 days.

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

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