Elyssa Artis

Because some creators have spent so long investing mass amounts of time into gacha, doing one after the other, making quick bank, one ofter the other. Perhaps randomly trying regular releases that didn't do well right away, that they think they don't ever do well. They never spent time building up their mainstore, customer group, or had a big enough selection of regular items in their mainstore and MP to realise that it all adds up over time to some very nice passive income. love it.

No, I don't, but without giving a firm guideline (aka, not something that has the word example anywhere), you can see 3 people at least had 3 different ideas about what it meant. So if that comes down to only color being known, then say that. Color must be known, all other traits being unknown is acceptable. Sometimes the shortest answer is the clearest.

Also, for real? Is that a thing? I gotta see that if it is

That's fair. Really all traits and 2 gen genetics of the starter packs should be known. It all contributes to how 'rare' the item is. Realistically though, it's likely why color is the thing given, because it's the only common thing between all these breedables, without killing the breedables industry.

He did, but of the colors, otherwise he would be listing out every color. But again, it obviously isn't clear enough, so if they can state what traits need to be known, as a firm list. Something like: Color needs to be known Color, tails and ears need to be known Color, tails, ears and 2 generations of genetics need to be known That would be absolutely ideal, and avoid all confusion.

So you read the line specifying colors, saying that information should be known and other unknown traits are acceptable and you ended up at just knowing the animal is okay. And the other girl ended up at the color was just an example and all traits should be known. Please LL, can you clarify exactly what traits must be known, as your initial answer is not clear enough.

Agreed, I understand their legal team told them it's okay, but it's way too close and still encourages the addictive behavior that the laws are trying to prevent. It surely wouldn't be long before this is also not okay.

I agree, it does assume incorrectly that the color is the main factor, it doesn't mean that the answer they gave is just an example. They clearly stated other unknown traits are okay. They are aware of the other traits. But they are still reading this, so push that case, It totally is true, all traits, not just color contribute to a breedable being rare. As it stands, that is indeed their ruling for now, so saying other people are ignorantly misinterpreting simply because you feel it shouldn't be that way is frankly quite rude.

It's not an example when they specifically reference the other unknown traits and say that's okay. To me, I think it should be all traits being known. They all contribute towards the item being common or rare. They have clearly stated that other unknown traits, that they have or develop (presumably through breeding), is okay.

"This is acceptable at the present including the various unknown traits they may come with or develop" They are aware other traits are special, they say the color being known is acceptable. They wrote straightforward information, but I am misinterpreting it?

^ This is what was posted. Color has to be known.

1. Show friends only 2. Machine could be scripted to stay locked to the previous buyer for 30seconds to give them first option at the next up item. 3. Seems like it will change only upon buying 4. Yeah, seems like tfr will still be okay with this conveyor system 5. Yeah, always an issue with new things, thankfully there's enough people following all this, shouldn't be too difficult.

Nope, the way they say it's okay is you will have to know the color you are getting. Other things like tails and ears can be random, but color/coat will have to be known.

I am happy that gachas are going, however it doesn't feel like this is about following a law, so much as it is about getting rid of something that has caused issues and backlash on LL for a long time. The issues with copybotting gacha items has been an ongoing issue, both to combat as well as the staff to handle the extra complaints filed and backlash that 'LL is doing nothing about it'. The permissions statement about transferrable items seems to be tacked on as a way to rule out this policy covering other markets within SL from being wiped out, as there appears to be no laws that state anything about permissions of items. (I could be wrong on this, but none I have seen) Loot boxes in most games have both tfr and no tfr items included. Now the breedables are a grey area, because they need to find a way to differentiate the breedables from the gachas/loot boxes, so it is only the gachas being removed from SL. Breedables aren't an issue generally for coppybotting since they are scripted to connect to an external server to check if there is already a duplicate rezzed and delete any copies. At this point however breedable starter packs, aside from the random chance being assigned after the point of sale, are the same thing, which is why their faqs saying they are still looking into the breedables, it may still change.

I mean, it's 68 pages long, and posts are largely speculation about which laws LL may or may not be following. Citations from LL on which laws they are being held by would be ideal.