silevera

As a consumer, I feel I have give my L$2 on the debate on "conveyor belt" vendors (and any other "replacements" for gacha vendors). The vocal majority here appears to be split into those who don't want gacha to die and are desperately looking for solutions that are as close to the spirit of gacha as is possible without violating the new policy, and those who want gacha and all traces of it to die and oppose any attempts to continue their sale using a new mechanic. I am curious what percentage of the people suggesting the new mechanisms are actual gacha sellers, and how many are consumers. I myself am a consumer, I had literally just come from a gacha event when I heard the news, and I was pretty upset about it. However, as much as I don't want gachas to die, the decision has been made by LL, and I agree with an earlier comment that suggested letting them go gracefully. Gachas are a form of gambling, and I understand that that is why they are being banned; but to me that is also what makes them exciting. The thrill of having a chance to get what I want on the first pull, or even getting a rare -- regardless of whether that is an item I even want -- were a big part of the appeal of gachas. While randomness is part of that mechanic, that aspect in and of itself is not what makes gachas fun to play. I do not see any advantage in trying to maintain this random aspect in selling the items that were previously gachas. While in fact I don't feel like there should be a "replacement" for the gacha mechanism at all, I also don't think that the suggested replacements benefit anyone. While some on the opposing side describe the conveyor belt mechanism as "gacha with extra steps", I don't think this is an accurate description. As long as you know exactly what you're paying for this is not "gacha"; in my opinion this is just a "vendor with extra steps". Waiting for the item you want to pop up excites no one, but in addition there are issues with this mechanic regardless of how it is implemented: If you, or someone has to buy the current item before the next one shows up, less desired items will make sales halt until someone comes along who will buy the item. If the idea is to force you to buy a less desired item just to move the vendor along, or so you can get a rare that the vendor shows coming up next, that is just scummy, and I would agree with anyone who says such vendors should also be banned. If the vendor moves on to the next item on its own after a set period of time, that is a usability issue at best. If I don't respond quick enough I will lose the item I wanted to get, and unless it blanks and doesn't accept payment for a time before moving on, I could end up accidentally buying an item I didn't intend to -- which would put it right back into what LL is banning with this new policy. Presuming all issues are worked out, you are still just left with a vendor that has just been made more complicated for the sake of retaining the "spirit" of gacha. I will not make any suggestions as to what should be done with existing gacha items, as my personal opinion is that once the policy goes into effect, gachas should just go away and creators will have to move on to other business. While fatpacks may work for some sets, I will not buy a fatpack just to get a single item I want out of the set. And these fatpacks are usually sold as no transfer, so I would be stuck with items that I paid for but neither want nor can gift to someone who might care for it. However, I do believe that one aspect of gachas can be kept if items are sold individually, and that is rarity. This can simply be done by actually making it a limited edition -- I for one would definitely be interested in buying a unique item that might be going away soon, and I have done so in the past. But those could not be transferable, or it will just make people snatch them up to sell at a premium.

Why should I not be pedantic? And I am waiting for LL to clarify directly, as has been all of SL. The last thing anyone from LL has said was 14 hours ago now.

What are you basing this on? LL has made no mention of "gacha scripts". Patch Linden did mention the mechanism of the gacha machines, but in a way that is broad enough to include other systems that receive payment in exchange for a random item. Until LL finally steps up and answers all the questions people are having, it remains unclear how or if this will affect anything that is not currently named "gacha".

No one from LL stated that this will only affect items named "gacha". And by that logic, we could just rename them "collectibles" and be done with it. That is obviously not the intent. What LL did say is that the criterium is based on whether or not you are paying for an item where what you are getting is based on chance, which is why people are speculating that this may also affect breedables. And since LL has been failing to follow up on their promise to answer questions, you can hardly blame people from speculating. To say that this will "only affect gachas" is to underestimate people's ability to circumvent the rules. Unless LL makes it very clear what is and isn't allowed under these new rules, people will just name it something else and say that it's not technically a gacha. This is not likely to fly, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the rules -- once LL figures out the details -- will also affect other products that give out random items for payment. And breedables are such a thing.