Drayke Newall

Unfortunately this just will never happen. There are many options LL could take to make SL the forefront of the metaverse but the investment is now just too much for them especially given the dated engine and lack of updates. This would be the same even if VR wasn't even looked at. They have been/are just to slow at updating and keeping up with modern trends and still hasn't provided anything different since it started. Roblox is valued and touted as such not because it is popular with a certain demographic, but because the system they use of a virtual world where you can create an experience (game) within the virtual world and socialise as well is what people want (basically what LL wanted sansar to be). The principle that they have of a social area with games is what SL could have evolved into but done better to include everything most people want a cross between Roblox and Second Life. A Ready Player One environment. This is why Roblox advertise as such and are labelled the metaverse because compared to ready player one (where the metaverse is now compared to) Roblox is far more that than SL has ever been. Roblox have consistently also been up to trend on all things as well as improved their engine accordingly. SL has never done any of this. SL has just had things added to it that other VW's like Roblox had from day one or just updated systems that were forgotten about. Now yes, I know Roblox is different, however that doesn't mean we cant compare the differences in the uptake of modern tech etc between the two to see just how SLOW Linden Lab are. Just look at the time line below compared to SL and see how Linden Lab have simply just failed at everything uptake wise. Roblox: Released 2006 Second Life: Released 2003 (Second Life was at the forefront of 3D Virtual Worlds/metaverse) Roblox: IOS version 2012 Second Life: Still waiting (9 year difference) Roblox: Android Version 2014 Second Life: Still waiting (7 year difference) Roblox: Smooth terrain (block look to smooth graphics) 2015 Second Life: Never updated terrain tools or fidelity Roblox: Xbox version 2015 Second Life: Never released (likely never) Roblox: VR support 2016 Second Life: Looked into but shelved Roblox: 10 million user created in world games (experiences) created 2016 Second Life: region equivalent - 26095 in 2021 Roblox: Standalone PC version (previously web based only) 2016 Second Life: irrelevant Roblox: massive server updates 2017 Second Life: 2020 (4 year difference) Roblox: Party Place in response to COVID activated 2020 Second Life: No COVID incentive offered Looking at the above SL started at the forefront of the metaverse. It was the ONLY metaverse in 2003. After its hype years of 2006-2007 it just started to go down from there just not keeping with the times. Sadly Second Life reminds me of Kodak. A company that led the world in photography from the 1920's. They created the digital camera (in 1970's), but focused on their current offering of film camera's because the board never saw the need to update to the more modern aspects and so consequently by the time they began to focus more on their own version to rival the likes of Sony it was too little to late.

No, free will in relation to spiritual issues is debated. Free will itself is upheld in all denominations of Christianity. It is the areas free will exists that are debated. For example, Catholics believe in free will as far as everything is concerned. Lutherans believe in free will only as far as non spiritual matters are concerned. Calvinists believe in free will but is bonded by sin until transformed. Methodists believe in free will however it cannot be given without grace. Etc. But that is way off topic.

Sorry to hear that and if my posts in anyway did as such I apologise. I tried to keep it civil in responding in a manner of debate by providing examples of why I disagreed. Never meant any of the posts to come across as not caring to understand. I understand most points of view very well when talking about Christianity. I grew up with it, as did my mother, grandmother/father, great grandmother/father etc. I was barred from going to the movies, drinking, smoking, socialising in clubs all of that due to certain beliefs held by them based on what I believe is a flawed interpretation of the bible. The reason I mentioned the whole Methodist and Apostolic rules etc was due to hearing first hand from my grandmother her experiences and living the life personally as a kid not because it was still taught that way but because for generations my family was bought up that way. I think there was a difference back then than what happens now. Cherry picking is more common now where people pick a verse to suit their needs at the time in argument or belief irrespective if it is used in or out of context. Back in the early Methodist and Apostolic days it was more of a literal translation and refusing to live to a worldly standard. The reason for example as to not drinking, smoking etc wasn't so much due to a verse specifically say as such (there is no such verse) but was more in the sense that the body is the temple of the holy spirit and therefore 'damaging' it is wrong. With regards to dancing, theatres etc., that was from a translation of the verse "Be in the world, but not of the world". The women wearing pants was due to cross dressing etc. To give you an idea on how ingrained it became in a persons mind even if they still didn't believe many such things after leaving. My grandmothers last words to my mother was when my mother and teenage sister were visiting her in her final moments was "why do you dress her in pants" referring to my sister. Such denominations sill believed that grace overwrote the law of the old testament but also believed that some of those laws held true due to such things mentioned above. Such reasonings aren't cherry picking but come down to interpretation and I suppose in a sense personal inspirations. Whilst I don't have a problem with most of that, I draw the line at fanaticism or where beliefs due to wrong interpretation or context begin to cause harm.

I in no way think any less of a person for what they believe. I also believe that people have the right to believe what they want. That however doesn't mean that discussion, debate, argument etc can't be had where opinions and thoughts differ. It is from those very same discussions that many of the theological insights or inspiration comes about. It is also through such discussion that many religions improve themselves and move away from bad teaching etc. Discussions that, old beliefs such as early Methodist and Apostolic churches stating (and others), 'worldly' things like no jewellery to be worn or women are not allowed to wear pants or you cant go to the theatre, dance, drink etc have forced changed. No one is suggesting that you believing the way you do is wrong. If you believe that the bible is inspired who are we to tell you otherwise, we can only offer our side of the coin and debate pros and cons to edify ourselves. I, on the other hand, believe the bible to be a guide (like many other religious texts) on how to live your life and amongst that guide is also a history of cultures and their practices at the time that are now irrelevant. That is my opinion and belief until someone shows me otherwise. This is also why I don't myself, believe the bible to be the inspired word of God considering what is written in it. I believe, if it is inspired then everything written in it has to be an acknowledgement from God that everything in it is acceptable. It's akin to a person dictating a letter and someone else writing it. As some do to get around that; suggesting that only some parts are inspired by God opens up for interpretation as to which parts are inspired and this as history shows results in schisms within the religion and further compounds the issue of interpretation from long established fundamentals. Both views, in my opinion have a high probability of leading to fanaticism and is where we get burning at the stake, witch hunts crusades, terrorism etc all because text is determined to be of God (inspired) and therefore atrocities are justified by quoting scripture (from any religion). But all that is just my opinion and my previous posts have just been expressing that opinion which has allowed me to see science and religion as not too dissimilar.

No. Just no. Firstly it is a known fact that the chosen of God were the Israelites. Secondly to suggest any sort of thought that the God of the bible 'got into the heads' of other cultures is absurd not to mention goes against the bible in not only it preaching free will but also against the stories. Free will aside, if God 'got into the heads' of others, why did it require Moses to torture Egypt with plagues to get the Pharaoh to release the Israelites? Surely if he can just 'get into the heads' of people he would have 'inspired' Pharaoh to let them go. Would certainly have meant a lot less blood on the hands of God. Secondly, Abraham didn't write anything. The first books of the bible were not written until 200BC a full 1700 years AFTER Abraham. No the difference is that the CHURCH decided which books were inspired or not. It had nothing to do with God. Lets not forget that the church has different denominations that each think some books are inspired whilst other things they are not. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox church think the Book of Enoch is inspired (of which it is mentioned in Jude) and therefore is included whilst other denominations don't. Then you have the Apocrypha which the Catholic Church believe Canon, yet the Eastern Orthodox believe some of those Apocrypha are not but others are. Then the Protestant churches don't believe the Apocrypha is. Also the Jews believe the entirety of the Old testament and apocrypha (Hebrew texts have one book where Christian texts break those books into other books) is inspired. But just to add confusion to the issue, you then have the Church Fathers of whom, believed differently as to what books were to be part of the Biblical Cannon. For what they believed 'inspired' or canon differs. For example Origen who was one of the earliest theologians argued against and for some books. Athanasius was the same arguing for and against. Then you have the issues where the Septuagint has muddled the chapters of books such as Esther that the order differs from the original Hebrew. Not to mention that the Septuagint (which modern bibles are translated from) also contains many small changes in the meaning of the main text to Esther. On top of that you have numerous different translations of the bible with some altering meanings all together. Not to mention that some fragments in the Dead Sea Scrolls differ to the current versions of the bible despite those Dead Sea Scroll fragments being earlier than the ones used for the modern translations. So which version is inspired? Lets also then not forget common mistakes that can happen with printing where you have massive theological ramifications in some translations. This is not widely known but, Zondervan who are the biggest publishers of the bible in the world many years ago accidently released a bible that changed some of the "He" (referring to God) to "She". Whilst it was discovered, recalled and copies destroyed, some still exist in the world of which my family as a copy.

You missed the point of my post entirely. Explain how different cultures like those I posted (Australian Aboriginals) can loosely have the same oral tradition than the 'inspired word of God' when those cultures do not believe in the same or even a God but spirit people and animals? i.e. they believe a rainbow serpent that carved out the valleys and frogs that came forth from the barren land, opened their mouth and water came out making the rivers and seas. The underling fundamentals are in both creation stories (Bible and Dreaming Stories), there was land and water, the land was divided and then water came between the divided land. Does this mean that the Aboriginal Dreaming Stories are inspired by God as well seeing as whilst different carry the same fundamentals? To assume that it is, is an insult to other cultures and to assume that it is not shows that the the Bible is just mankind's oral tradition and not inspired as you can not discount other cultures earliest traditions that PRE-DATE the bible. So speaking of the Flood Story even if looking at it as there to 'teach us profound things', which culture's version is 'inspired by God' the version in the bible or the version in the Sumerian scripts? The Gilgamesh Epic in the Sumerian texts predates the bibles written account meaning that because they were written down first it has less a chance of been distorted which was common with oral traditions. That said they match so closely that it is impossible for them to not be of the same story. Lets also not forget that more than likely Abraham heard the Gilgamesh epic and passed it down to his descendants in a different format instead with then Moses writing it 1000 years later or a descendant even later in the Torah. Abraham was after all born in Ur which was a Sumerian city state of which the Gilgamesh Epic is based around (King Uruk, Third Dynasty of Ur). The Gilgamesh Epic shows parallels between the bible and Sumerian texts that arguing that one is inspired and the other not is open to ridicule and impossible to argue that inspiration of the Bible is from God and other scripts are not. For example the creation story and garden of Eden both having first man, Sumerian Enkidu/Shamhat - Bible Adam/Eve. Both created from the dust, both living amongst animals, both having woman introduced to man, both having woman eat from apple, both have women tempting man, both have covering the nakedness and unable to return to the garden, and both having a snake. Even the Book of Enoch (Apocrypha) is a parallel to the Gilgamesh Epics Book of Giants. If this is the case (Abraham hearing the Sumerian texts and passing those down) then surely you are not suggesting that Abrahams version is inspired by God because it is in the Bible and the Sumerian text isn't, despite those stories clearly coming from the Sumerian civilization first. You say the Bible is inspired. If that is the case so is the Sumerian texts of which predate the bible and are near identical between the Gilgamesh Epic and early Torah books.

It's because they fail to understand that the bible was created by and for a singular 'tribe' of humans and was oral tradition for centuries. I believe from memory the modern/classical held belief is that the Torah (Genesis, etc) was forbidden to be written down and was only eventually written down around 100-200CE/AD. This means that it was oral tradition. As far as the whole evolution/creation argument goes. An argument can be put forward that such oral tradition (Torah) followed the commonly used principles of passing on that 'law/tradition' by adapting those to memorable stories that are not necessarily literal but held truths to them when reading between the lines. As others in this thread have mentioned this means they can co-exist with modern scientific belief that a form of evolution is there within the stories, scripture etc. For example, most if not all cultures have a creation story that follows roughly along the same lines as each other - Nothing to Something. Most cultures also have a evolution story of sorts within them, be this the reduction of lifespan, Gaining of 'awareness', woman being made from man, even down to the evolution of languages - one to many. Take the Australian Aboriginals, the oldest continuous living culture who still practice oral tradition and have done for over 40,000 years. They have stories that tell of sea levels rising 7000 years ago, floods, volcanic eruptions, asteroids, extinct animals, solar eclipses, etc. Those stories are not to be taken literally but are there to remember events, how things happened, what to do in such events, what is dangerous, when to do things, remember beliefs etc. As an example, the most recent volcanic eruption was Mount Shank/blue lake etc in South Australia about 5000 years ago. Whilst they didn't say the volcano erupted or when or how, they passed down the story and effects of that eruption orally (to remember what happened so in the future they knew what it was) by telling the story of a giant that was looking for a place for his family to live. While camping they were chased away by a moaning bird spirit and left their camp ovens on. Over time these ovens filled with water that put them out and the moaning bird spirit left. Considering science now can date volcanic eruptions they have proven that this story of the giants was from that long ago and is now the blue lake and mount shank and bought insight into the eruptions for the scientists. As far as creation stories goes for Aboriginals, it varies here and there however, here are two links where it describes very similar to Genesis 1 stories with one even mentioning that animals can become humans by being rewarded (survival of the fittest so to speak) along with a similar rainbow story. The Rainbow Serpent (dreamtime.net.au) The Creation Story (dreamtime.net.au) Taking something literal like biblical stories, In my opinion is silly as there are to many other religions that counter them such as the above Aboriginal ones (remember oldest oral culture in world) or even the Sumerians. The stories are there for a reason and taking them literally isn't one of them. Jesus used parables for the same reason. When read as such they can perfectly align with science. As someone once told me, BIBLE is an acronym and stands for Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. That is what it is - how to live life peacefully and coexisting with your fellow man in the best possible way so you have no regrets when you die and can die with the knowledge of that and that you are going to a better place whatever that may be. The sooner people realise that the better for the world as religious fanatics and literalists are what make religions get a bad name due to their ignorance.

I agree with the video and never buy these lower end cards. That said as far as price goes, as I mentioned in Australia the price listed is the standard price here. This is because of not only exchange rates but also what Australians call Australia Tax, which is where an overseas company just ups the price because they can. When our dollar was at parity with the USA some things people over here would buy in the USA, take a holiday over there to pick it up and then bring it back and it still worked out cheaper.

Woman crashed motorhome using cruise control while making cup of tea (suffolkgazette.com) Was that you by chance?

Buy MSI GeForce RTX 3060 Gaming X 12GB [RTX-3060-GAMING-X-12G] | PC Case Gear Australia No idea if that is cheap in the USA ($652 USD) but in Australia with the great Australia Tax rort its regular price over here. Thats the higher end card as well cheaper ones are out of stock.

Sigh, I said I wouldn't respond anymore but you seem to be civil and post sources even though they are newspaper articles, so I'll bite. No it doesn't say exactly that in the article you stated as a source. But that is the thing, it is an article from a newspaper. Seeing as no one seems to actually look at the EU Report I linked... The following is from the EU Commission Report section 4.2.3 which tells what the final ruling of the Belgium Gaming Commission was with sources: This shows the same as what @Rowan Amore mentioned a few posts back in that it is the hook that makes the person gamble not the result. In other words a person really wants that rare so it has value to them and therefore that is what is illegal and gambling according to the Belgians. Additionally this: Note it says UMBRELLA TERM. This means ANY form. It doesn't need to define a name to the method of delivery (Gacha or loot box etc.), simply that any method that has game elements (defined later as a chance roll). SL is a video game just like all other virtual world as you would say "I am going to PLAY Second Life". Additionally, the random manner that you need to obtain the item is by chance (defined later in the report). The random contents you mention is this: It is that there are random prizes in the box which you can radomly get (defined in the report). The only difference is you get one random content from a gacha in SL not four like in a EA loot box. Gashapon are not mentioned specifically but the manner in which a loot box is defined is stated within the EU Report (Section 2.2) I listed which, takes into consideration both the Belgian and Dutch laws as well as independent research. That said it clearly defines the same manners that SL Gacha uses pay for a play/game, reward is chosen by chance, reward is delivered. Whilst once again the report doesn't specifically use the term gacha, the identifiers it lists that constitute a loot box are identical to a gacha in second life. Further, this is an extract statement from a source that the EU Commission's report uses to back up its report findings: synonym: NOUN; a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word. That is how SL gacha work as well. What would you classify as nothing useful? Would you classify getting an item you already have as nothing useful? I would bet most people and governments would. The EU Report is a study that they requested so as to use it as a basis for future discussion on how to go about the loot box issue. It isn't law or legislation (despite a few countries having laws for them) but is what any law that the EU create will be based on. Definitely last post from me so I'll let you have the final say and I will just end with a potential agree to disagree.

I didn't say that it was the case in USA. I said it was the case in some countries OUTSIDE of the USA as referenced in the EU commissions report. That said the EU Commissions report also takes into consideration Belgium's law (keep in mind Belgium is where the head of the EU is) which doesn't require selling to be defined as gambling. Belgium law simply states if you pay to play a game of chance that results in a prize either of monetary value or not, it is gambling. USA is irrelevant to the discussion as no matter what happens, even if the USA do not pass legislation, because second life is exposed and used in other countries Linden Lab may need to take steps to stop gacha's in those countries that have those laws. How they would do this remains unclear but there are only two options, close sims off to those countries that have gacha's on them or ban gacha's. Just because LL is a US company does not mean they do not need to comply with other countries laws. I didn't say every gacha was banned. I said complete gacha was and that was in reference to you mentioning about 'completing a set' in second life. I also said that SL gacha isn't like complete gacha. It isn't like any of the gacha that wiki page you linked. You can call it a gacha and get hung up on a name, but it doesn't change the fact that it operates exactly like a loot box as defined in the EU commissions report as well as the Netherlands and Belgium laws. The fact that you can then sell the prize as mentioned in the EU commissions report, according to them has higher grounds for SL Gacha to be likened to gambling. Once again I am not the one saying that the report is. Read it. What on earth does that have to do with Gacha's and gambling. It has nothing to do with the discussion so why should I post it. My personal life means nothing to the discussion. What matters is that you haven't provided any source that counteracts the EU Commissions report or other countries laws stating it is gambling. I would have a guess that the reason you haven't is because you cant. I already answered this. Why didn't the law specifically reference ArenaNet and their game Guild Wars 2. It didn't mention it nor didn't specifically ban it. Though, ArenaNet in seeing their loot box didn't comply made it unavailable in countries that have it banned. No law or legislation is going to list every company that is at fault. They are going to state what is and isn't banned and then the onus is on each company that has those mechanics to take steps to meet the law. It is not I that think that at all. READ THE F******* REPORT. It is GOVERNMENTS that have defined what gachas and loot boxes are. "You ask why legions of Japanese designers in sl sell gacha's fearlessly". To every other person I would say their common sense (you however clearly don't have as such) would tell them this is the case because they CAN. LL haven't banned them. That however doesn't mean that gacha's aren't defined in that report as loot boxes or gambling. Geez, any two year old should be able to put two and two together and realise they sell them in SL cause LL haven't banned them yet. Never claimed to be such. Considering I have just referenced both the Netherlands and Belgium laws as well as the EU Commissions findings that back up what I have said, I don't need to be a lawyer or any person. It is written in black and white. The onus is on you to prove my sources wrong of which you haven't come close. For an analogy on how close you have come to proving my sources wrong it is equivalent to me being on Earth and you are on Pluto. Your issue is that you cant grasp that laws and legislation are being passed that clearly define a gacha as a loot box as gambling because you are closed minded only thinking who I am matters when evidence has been provided to you specifically refuting your claims. Why do I have the feeling you don't mean this. Don't get me wrong, I truly hope I am wrong and it was your last pointless, irrelevant and useless comment in this thread, but something tells me it wont be. As for me however I have said all that needs to be said on the matter. So no more posts from me on the subject. Legislation is being passed in the EU in many countries that ban loot boxes (and yes gacha's in SL). I'm not saying that the evidence provided does. If you don't read the evidence and sources provided because you believe only US Congress law matters well then good for you. Just proves what many in the world already think, some Americans live in a bubble of their own with no clue about the world other than America. I hope @Orwar wont mind me quoting him as he put it so eloquently in his last response on this thread to people like you Prokofy.

It doesn't matter. That one line is what defines it as a box gacha. If SL's gacha doesn't have the same mechanism it isn't box gacha. The mechanisms that SL gacha have are IDENTICAL to loot boxes. I have provided the report that defines them as such so you can accept that or not. I don't care anymore. Additionally, it doesn't matter as box gacha and all those gacha's in that wiki article still rely on chance. Only difference is that your chance either increases or you get to reroll. In my example you have a 1 in 1000 chance of getting 'x' item. You are getting hung up on things that don't matter. What matters is exactly what that EU report shows and I don't know why you cant see that, that is: If you pay with real cash to play a game of chance that gives a reward (and in Netherlands that reward can be sold for RL cash) it is defined as gambling no matter what form of gacha, loot box etc it takes. That is what the EU report, Netherland law as well as Belgium and others state. It isn't my interpretation, nor is it just me saying that. It is clearly defined in black and white in that EU report I linked of which they also provide at the end of the document all the sources to back it up. I know how SL gacha works thank you very much, I was talking about complete gacha mechanisms. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It is still a game of chance you pay for and get a prize at the end that has monetary value or not depending on which country you are. Repeating over and over the same thing trying to refute what I posted when none of your points have refuted it, doesn't change that fact. You're not bringing up anything to refute what I have posted so I will take that as you have no source or evidence to the contrary of what I have posted so wont be responding anymore to your posts until you do. Its late where I am anyway so i'm off.

It is not closer to the box gacha at all. Read what it says below which I extracted from what you said: "As items are pulled from the box, the likelihood of receiving the desired item increases since there are fewer items in the box" This is not how SL gacha's work hence why they are technically as defined in the EU report (based on how they describe to identify a loot box) earlier on. Due to the infinite supply of items in the SL gacha your chances of getting the desired item are always based on the scripted chance. It is NEVER known. You could play 1000 times and never get the item you want or play once and immediately get the item you want. SL gacha scripts use UUID's in them so there is an unlimited amount in the box. No Second Life gacha has a specific amount of items within the gacha (like box gacha) that as purchased reduces the amount of items in that gacha therefore increasing your odds. For example, I make a gacha and place 1000 items in it. A person comes along and plays twenty rounds, wins the prize and then the number of items in the gacha drops to 980. This means that the next person that comes along has a greater chance of getting a prize as there are fewer items in the box. That is box gacha. :EDIT: Complete gacha is almost similar to SL Gacha but not quite as with complete gacha you collect items or coupons to complete the rare and so suffers from Coupon collector's problem - Wikipedia. SL gacha due to offering unlimited supply and based on common, rare, super rare, epic, legendary etc all with their own predetermined odds (per the script) is exactly how loot boxes are scripted in games. All of this is a moot point with regards to the EU report and what they have said defines a loot box and gambling. Belgium law states if you pay to play a game and that game is based on chance it is gambling. Netherlands law simply adds that it is gambling if you can sell the prize after. EU report references both.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. You pay a monetary value to play the SL gacha, first point in clause ticked. You have a chance of getting one of 20 prizes with rares being at a lower chance in a SL gacha, second point in clause ticked. You get a prize that has a value as it can be sold on the SL marketplace for equal worth of the initial payment or more, third point in clause ticked. There is no difference at all. Being guaranteed a prize has nothing to do with anything. Lastly, Japan banned what they called 'complete gacha' which is a gacha method whereby you pay to get a chance to win an item prize and the whole point of the gacha was to complete the set. It was banned due to being listed as gambling and predatory. Literally exactly what you have just described. Which is a moot point as a person still needs to play the gacha so that they are listed on the marketplace.

Utter rubbish. Firstly, there is no game of chance involved in a gumball machine. You pay for a gumball and are 100% guaranteed to get a gumball. Colour means nothing in regards to the argument either as the reward is the gumball and therefore you always get one. It is not a game of chance. Secondly, unless that gumball you just received has the form of the Virgin Mary and you sell it on eBay for thousands of dollars, it has absolutely no monetary value once received as a prize. Considering 2 of the points mentioned in clause 4.2.3 of the report are not ticked, you're gumball manufacture is still safe to create the machine without being liable for gambling laws. Knowing what you will say next and before you mention it. No, a 'gumball machine like vendor' that gives you a little toy in a ball is also not gambling as the toy does not have immediate significant monetary value. It is worthless unless possibly held for years and even then probably worth less than 1 cent. Therefore one point in that clause isn't ticked so not gambling. Its like arguing with a teenager. Provide proper sources rather than irrelevant points or don't argue at all.

I never lied about anything. I NEVER said the report mentioned 'SL gacha' specifically. I used the report to show you that SL gacha's are DEFINED (not named) in that report gambling as defined by the terms that they list constitutes a loot box and gambling. You never even looked at the report in full, just my response and made a decision based on a few points I brought out. :EDIT: Ill post this and lets see if you can argue that SL gacha's are not defined as gambling or a loot box under that EU Commission report (taken from clause 4.2.3): All three of those points are ticked for SL gacha's and the report clearly states in the above that they also are considered loot boxes as they tick all three requirements. Note it doesn't mention x gacha is excluded. Just three simple points that need to all meet to have ANY device, box, gacha, lucky dip, whatever as a Loot Box AND gambling. There is no counter argument you can make when the above clause specifically shows the mechanism SL gacha's use are the actual points EU states' own gambling laws define as gambling.

I play gacha's all the time actually and regularly attend gacha events for avatar things. All I am saying, like others in this thread is that there is going to be a time when they will be banned under new gambling legislation. You also clearly didn't read what I wrote or the EU report as it clearly defines the SL gacha as a form of lootbox. But I guess your one of those people that cant accept they may be wrong on something even when shown legal documents defining them the same. If you show me evidence other than "x person has a vendetta against an SL game" I would gladly say I am wrong. So that said, Ill just not bother anymore just feels like usual in all these threads, hitting my head against a wall.

Probably because as I said in my first post in this thread, Linden Lab and second life are a small fish compared to the others, and for the fact they probably are completely unaware of what SL entails or what it has. This would also be the same reason why Guild Wars isn't mentioned in the rulings despite having loot boxes. ArenaNet took the proactive approach by not allowing the loot boxes in Belgium. By the way I dont play overwatch, I am using that as the example as they were the first to introduce loot boxes into games and it was bought up in this thread by another poster. As to your 'expert' comment refer to my response to Prokofy below. And you keep on missing the point that it means diddley squat. You have never provided sources arguing your points so I will provide legal ones to refute ALL your arguments. No where does it say that they were banned because the items cannot be resold within the Belgium, Japan, China etc laws. That is to say it isn't even a factor they consider. All they consider is that, if you are playing a chance game with cash it is gambling. On the contrary, in October 2020 (last year) Netherlands amended their ruling made previously with the amended October SGR 20/3038 and SGR 20/3905 rulings stating within 7.1 that it is specifically because items obtained from a loot box can be resold for real money makes loot boxes illegal, defined as gambling more so than regular loot boxes that items cannot be sold for. The Eu has made a report in July 2020 (Loot boxes in online games and their effect on consumers, in particular young consumers (europa.eu) ) on how they are treating it and while like usual they are slow at legislation it is being looked at. In regards to your argument, the below is taken directly from the EU findings report (section 2.2.4) clearly refuting your argument. I wont post the table they include in the report (see link above) but the E-E category represents where the item is paid for by real money (including virtual money linked to real money - the Linden Dollar) and can be traded or sold for real cash. Further to that the document clearly states the following in regards to whether loot box's are gacha's: Also refer to section 4.2.3 in that report where it defines the 3 criteria that a loot box needs to have to be defined as gambling. The last criteria when related to the table in 2.2.4 and the E-E category or I-E category that SL gacha's fall into is according to the report 100% gambling - LEGALY defined under member state gambling laws. The EU report is from July 2020 and therefore recent enough to show that this is still being discussed in governments. Maybe not the USA but everywhere else. Whilst it isnt law in all countries of the EU, many member states are starting to make it so outside of the EU Commision. Also the children aspect means nothing as gambling laws dictate that to legally carry out a gambling game such as a loot box or gacha, that company needs a gambling license of which tech companies cannot obtain. So there is my evidence and sources arguing that gacha's and loot boxes are defined as gambling, not to mention now illegal in the Netherlands, Belgium and other countries irrespective of whether it is a normal bound to account item loot box or one that its items can be sold for real cash. I wait with baited breath (that was sarcasm by the way) at your sources refuting the above documentation. I'm sure you will provide some random response, but I highly doubt you can refute court rulings in the Netherlands, Belgium and the EU Commission itself showing that any loot box/gacha is gambling.

You seem adamant that the legislation being passed is all about pay to win mechanics. It is not. It is specifically the nature and mechanics of ANY lootbox resembling gambling. That is to say, you pay a dollar amount for a box FOR A CHANCE (GAMBLE) on a prize. No law proposed by any government that has been passed or looked into to restrict loot boxes links loot boxes and pay to win together and those that mention both clearly separate them as different things. Can read all about it here and quotes from the Belgium commission as to how they came to their decision Belgium Says Loot Boxes In Games Like Overwatch Are Illegal (kotaku.com.au). No where does it say pay to win is a requirement - read the comments as well for gamers perspectives. I am both. I play games and also play SL and there is no difference. I will break it all down so you can tell us all how they are different and let me repeat myself, Overwatch loot boxes are BANED in countries that have passed laws regarding loot boxes being gambling IF AND ONLY IF the loot box has to be purchased with RL money by buying a virtual currency. Loot boxes dropping freely and can be opened freely are not banned. Game Loot box This is what is contained in an overwatch loot box - Keep in mind all items are cosmetic and not pay to win: Player Icons, Emotes, Skins, Sprays, Voice Lines, Voice Lines, Victory Poses, Highlight Intro's or in game currency (credits) if a duplicate is found. These are the chances of an overwatch loot box: A Rare item or above is included in every box. An Epic item is included in about 18.5% of all boxes. A Legendary item is included in about 7.5% of all boxes. A Rare Victory Pose is included in about 23% of all boxes. A Rare Skin is included in about 30% of all boxes. A Rare Player Icon is included about 48% of all boxes. You pay $0.99 USD for each loot box and what is contained in those loot boxes are known before buying through patch notes and wiki's Loot Box | Overwatch Wiki | Fandom. If you get a duplicate you get credits returned. SL Gacha This is what is contained in a gacha - for this example I will make my own based on a scifi medical scene theme: chair, microscope, medical bed, wall partition, nurse dress, nurse hat, gloves, plant, surgery light, surgical tools and table and the medical room These are the chances of a the Sci-Fi Medical gacha: A Common item or above is included in every box. Common has a 90% chance Rare has a 48% chance Super rare has a 20% chance Legendary has a 7% chance You pay $0.99 USD for each attempt and what can be obtained in the gacha is known before buying via a picture somewhere in the store or on the gacha machine If you get a duplicate you can sell it for the same or more on marketplace. The only difference between the Overwatch loot box and my brand new forum made Sci-Fi Medical gacha is that the Overwatch loot box contains 4 items upon opening whereas the SL gahca contains only one item. So please enlighten us all how Overwatch Loot boxes allow a player via loot box purchase to "win to advance in the game" when they are all cosmetic and because you wont be able to please tell us how a gacha is different than the banned overwatch loot box when your so called pay to win argument is removed.

A person can only have a company if it is incorporated. It is a business otherwise. LMAO, you don't even know this and are trying to somehow prove that it means anything to you? Yes there are laws. Netherlands, Belgium and many others. Whilst yes they are not specific laws about lootboxes however lootboxes have been defined as gambling therefore are covered under the gambling laws of those countries. Your wiki page even implies as such. I don't need to prove it, your wiki site posted proves that Netherlands and Belgium forced those companies to remove lootboxes due to being against the law. There is not one loot box provided in ANY game that is or ever has been about advancing gameplay. No game that has been accused of using lootboxes as gambling even has such a mechanic of needing to buy an item to progress in the game. Hell, I don't even know of any game that forces you to buy an item to move to the next square. Such a game would last all of 2 seconds. Post sources of such games please to back up such a claim. Please dont tell people what they should and should do. Makes you seem like an arrogant and insufferable ****. Firstly nowhere did I ever say I was a sports commentator of games.. Where do you even get such things from. Secondly, Paul and yourself have already posted links showing that countries have banned loot boxes. Thridly, clearly you don't know how to define news as links in this very thread have shown such laws. I can say with 100% accuracy that I am not the one you describe. You are the one that clearly doesn't understand what is really going on here. You are never going to listen to anyone, see the evidence already provided here or realise you know nothing about loot boxes or their mechanics. Also from your posts you come across as not ever even playing a game if you think 'pay to win' is what loot boxes are or even think a game which forces a person to pay for an item to progress a tile even exists. Considering this I wont be responding anymore to you so ill just agree to disagree.

No, that is not the definition of pay to win and I am not talking about any form of lootbox that gives an advantage in games. I am talking about all loot boxes. You and Prokofy are wrong in your definition. Pay to win is buying something from an online store that is also available in game, but gives the purchaser an advantage over a person that doesn't buy it as they get the item quicker. It is not buying an item that is the only way to advance in a game. The term you are looking for and describing is pay to progress which is not used in most games other than mobile games. For instance, in the Archage game I can either buy an item off marketplace with RL cash to speed up my crafting time and get the item sooner or I can wait 10 in game days for the item to finish crafting. Another example would be I can either spend 10 days grinding a dungeon for a rare drop weapon or I can buy the weapon on the online store quicker. That is the definition and examples of pay to win and has nothing to do with loot boxes. Zero, zilch! The reason governments want loot boxes banned has nothing to do with pay to win but everything to do with gambling mechanics. For example, a person really wants that specific item therefore pays over and over in a chance to get it from a box. I have already mentioned and described what overwatch boxes are and the purchase of them were banned in some countries in EU not because of non existent pay to win mechanics (overwatch for instance only has cosmetic items in their loot boxes that don't affect gameplay) but precisely because they have similar mechanics to gambling. I.e. you pay for a chance to win a prize. I will tell you then. I may not be a lawyer or regulator, however I am the head of a company so do have a bit of an idea on how things work business wise and how companies need to react to laws of other countries. Additionally, I am also an ex e-sport competitor whereby I have played fps's (Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc) and mmo's (such as WoW) competitively in national tournaments. I have also been the head of such e-sport teams and know games inside and out including what loot boxes are and are not. So unlike you, I think I would know a little more about gaming terminology, news, laws and mechanics than you do.

Always before buying. As mentioned all games are different. Neverwinter online for instance the lootboxes drop from killing enemies freely and then you purchase a key to open the lootbox. Hovering on the lootbox however prior to purchasing the key gives you a list of all items that you can get. Then they are not box gacha's as you suggest as there is no limit within the box to increase your odds as those items diminish. That is the definition of box gacha's. A lootbox has an infinite amount of pre-known specific items ranging from common to rare which upon being bought you get a random prize as a gamble. A SL gatcha has an infinite amount of pre-known specific items ranging from common to rare which upon being bought you get a random prize as a gamble. Both are identical other than with a lootbox you open that directly after being bought whereas in SL the 'box' (vendor) is opened and gives you the prize upon being bought. They are identical in every aspect.

Second Life Marketplace - MD Gacha Machine Script "- Rares chance: you can set a custom extraction chance for rares, different for each rare category." :EDIT: Damn, you respond fast @Rowan Amore

No, you always know what you can get from a lootbox prior to opening you just don't know what item from that list you would get. It is exactly the same as gachas in second life. They also always have a major draw in that the rarer items look better just like gacha's in second life. For example in overwatch (the lootbox in your image) you can get any skin that is in the game for purchase in their store or that has been in an event such as Halloween. Therefore if you want to know what you can get you visit their store find a nice skin (you can only get skins in overwatch from lootboxes) and that has a chance to drop in the lootbox. The difference is that you can either wait and play the game to get that skin in an event in say 6 months or gamble with a lootbox for a chance to win that skin sooner. Alternatively, you either buy the skin for lets say 1500 virtual currency or you gamble 100 virtual currency to try and get a skin worth 1500. In other words low investment high risk gambling for a specific 'legendary' reward. Every game is different so some only have items in the lootbox that are only obtainable in the lootbox but the possible items are always known before opening. Compare this to a the lotto for instance. I pay $10 for a ticket but have the chance to win the legendary or rare jackpot or get a more common prize such as $1 reward. I know what I can get in my lotto ticket per division, I just don't know what I will actually get until my ticket is 'opened' or numbers drawn.