Cinos Field
-
Posts
672 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by Cinos Field
-
-
Generally, laws are enforced according to the spirit, not the letter. And all I can say is I'm pretty thankful for that.
-
2
-
2
-
-
4 minutes ago, Viche Hexem said:
I'll be honest and say a lot of people pushing back against the conveyor system here are, admittedly, just against the idea of gacha alltogether
No, I'm purely against it because if it's allowed - and it's identical in concept with the randomness just pushed a few steps ahead - then the Lindens just created a ton of extra work for merchants for no reason.
Gacha: You pay for a random item right now.
Conveyor: You pay for a random item three extra purchases later.
Yes, it's known to you by the time of purchase, but you had to pay to randomize the future opportunity to buy that item, which means it's literally just gacha again.
-
8
-
-
3 minutes ago, Nadi Vemo said:
Hello. since i saw my vendor here lately, i would like to explain how it works.
Basically vendor shows one item to buy, it will only change that item when someone pays for it, and it will pick random new item from the list, vendor of course will lock to person who is currently using it so it will not allow any prize sniping. So that if a person decided to play longer next prize will always be their to pick first. it can also show what will come next, or it can be turned off to just show one item currently for sale.
i did that prototype because i would really like to know if that will be ok to use. textures in that prototype are just reused from my old vendor, they will have to be changed in the final version of course.
at the end person who pays the vendor ALWAYS know what they will get for that money.
at the end i would like to say i'm doing gachas just cause it's a way to sell more expensive stuff for cheap, i spend 2-3 months on every gacha i do, and those items are being sold for 100L at the events. and it really brings me joy when someone who dont have a lot of money can buy my mount or avatar for that price, even if they simply didn't get the blue one they really wanted, i can see they really enjoy those items. i value every single common item in my gachas more than it cost to pull.
best regards
Nadi Vemo
Have LL said that this is okay?
Because it still has a random outcome and item as a result of spending money, just a few steps in the future.
-
All I can say is if LL allows these barely-even-loopholes there was no point in banning gachas to begin with.
-
4
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
8 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:
I don't really know much about any of the current so-called "skill" games, but apparently they did manage to convince LL that there was skill involved.
I truly cannot figure out how anyone can attribute any skill at all to simply paying a vendor to get a random object.
In short, basically LL calls it "skill gaming" if skill can increase the payout or reduce losses to any significant degree.
Of course, the house always wins still. Can't be that skilled with the current iterations.
-
1
-
-
And I dunno about anyone else here but I've found tons of mod/copy unique and quirky decor items on SL. Lots of creators have plenty of creativity outside of the gacha sphere. The whole notion, as in that linked blog post, that "a lot of gacha is far more unique and interesting than non-transferable objects that can be purchased in SL" is totally alien to me.
-
6
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:
I don't see any that do except a few lesser known merchants who are on the forums. The best known merchants are expressing regret and sorrow if not fear and panic. What business are you in?
Those adopting a high and mighty tone of contempt for the low culture of gatchas, or the supposed "predatory" nature of gatchas, were not heard from in the past by and large, and aren't really in touch with the common person who adored them.
I don't know about you, but I know a ton of high-profile creators on SL who refused to implement the gacha model to begin with. Did you consider those people?
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Kytteh Wytchwood said:
Gachas are NOT gambling. When you gamble in a casino, you are not guaranteed a win after putting up your money in the form of a bet amount. Gachas were inspired by the Japanese gachapon machines that you put coins in and get a prize in a plastic ball package. Those machines are placed in retail stores in malls. They show a picture of what you can get. Just like those machines in grocery stores, where you can get cheap little toys.
You don't lose out on anything. The bonus was that you could resell the gacha on the marketplace or in-world, with the creator's permission. Then you are earning your money back for a common and making double or more back on rare products.
I think because there is a gacha frenzy going on, it could be why LL wants to put a stop to it. Especially when people complain and say they want to buy a specific color/ pattern, but wanting it at the super cheap price of a gacha.
This is actually helping creators to earn more profit with the actual value of the product's pricing point, instead of bending over backwards and selling under value.
So you'd argue that a slot machine that always returns at least one coin is not gambling because you always guaranteed a "win"?
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Sukubia Scarmon said:
@Adeon Writer mentioned in the beginning that he took a look at some of those scripts - them rarely being simple dice rolls, abysmall low rates, and apparently even a *scripted in* chance to get a duplicate. Let that sink in please. In a game of chance, where even if all items had the same chance of dropping you'd likely get duplicates anyway, some scripted in a higher propability to get a duplicate on top. (At least that's how I understood it. Correct me if I am wrong, please)Yes, and that's not the height of scummy scripting either. I had an acquintance who made gacha scripts. These included features such as "make it impossible to get the ultra rare before X number of rolls" to guarantee a definite minimum payout, said bias towards duplicates, and features such as getting a guaranteed early but low desirability rare to get the buyer to spend more trying to get the one they actually want later... which wouldn't appear for quite a while because the odds lower after the first one.
And so on. It's all black box scripts, nobody knows what they do. We can probably assume most sellers were honest, though... I hope.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Rosekin1982 said:
My point is that what you consider "reasonable" and what the creator considers "reasonable" likely vastly differ. I cannot name all the times I have passed on buying a really nice item from a normal vendor due to the ridiculous price they wanted.
Well, if the buyer and the creator disagree on a reasonable price, the creator won't sell anything and the buyer will buy from elsewhere. I don't see how this is a problem!
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Rosekin1982 said:
It is cute you think this will happen. What do you consider "reasonable price"? 10 times what they charged for a gacha pull? 20x? More?
Non-gacha creators have been doing it for... well, since SL first launched really. They set a realistic but profitable price for an item, and people pay it. In fact, did you know that real life works like that, too? People do pay for things if they know what they'll receive!
Some creators set the price too high and don't sell anything. Some set it too low to make much profit. It's up to each to find the sweet spot. That's just how life goes!
-
4
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Rosekin1982 said:
And here is the thing with this new law. The days of getting those common items for cheap are soon to be gone. Forget 50, 75 or even 100 L$ items, they will now go up by a factor of 10 to compensate for the lost income. ANYONE Thinking this new rule will let them get the same items at the same price without the randomness are mistaken. The only reason you were getting quality items form the gacha for such a cheap prize is the law of averages. Most rare items in Gachas were set to a 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 change to occur. This meant that a person would, on average, need to play 10 or 20 times to get the rare. So lets say the gacha was a 50 L$ gacha. 10 pulls x 50 L$ equals 500 L$. Now some would need the full 10 pulls to get the rare, and others would need only 1 pull, and yes some needed more then 10 (it does happen at times). Some of us were happy with the commons in a machine. I for one did not play a machine unless I happened to like most of the items in it to begin with. So for 50 L$ I could get a quality item in a random color and I was happy. NOW though, what you will see is those same common items selling for 500 L$. Heck, I would not be surprised if the creators that switch to normal vendors after this jack up the "Rare" items more then 10 x the price you would have paid in the Gacha. All I can see this move doing is further hurting SL, driving talented creators out of SL entirely and driving up the prices of items for those that stay.
I'm perfectly willing to pay a higher, known price, than an unknown and possibly infinite amount to get an item I want.
Creators that set astronomical prices will probably go out of business given the competition. And there's a lot of competition for high quality non-gacha items.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, Kricket Calamity said:
I think if I understand it correctly. The machine does the random chance without anyone paying. They see the item, pay for it and then the machine refreshes again to a random item. Is that the same as paying for a random result?
If you have to pay it to re-randomize the next payout, I feel like it is. The intent that the buyer pays for the next chance rather than the item presented is clearly there. I mean I'm neither a lawyer non linden labs, so I suppose we'll have to see if those groups are okay with that workaround.
-
Just now, Deathly Fright said:
you aren't paying for the next item, you are paying for the item it says in the hovertext. what items the vendor has in it has nothing to do with one purchase to the next
But then, wouldn't a slot machine that tells you what it's going to pay out on the next roll, while randomizing the one after that, be allowed? It's one of those "spirit of the law" things, almost certainly. Moving the random aspect one step forward, I doubt will have any effect on legislation.
-
Just now, Deathly Fright said:
how would it not be allowed? you are clearly being told what item you're getting, there are no rules for what item the vendor sells next. only that the item be clearly stated, which would be "fixed" by hovertext
The blog post says "a chance-based outcome as a result of a payment."
If you pay the machine to create a random result, in this case the opportunity for your next purchase, it would seem to clearly fall under that description.
-
Paying to randomize the next roll of a slot machine is clearly still just as much gambling as paying to randomize the current one.
Unless LL specifically say that is somehow allowed, I'd bet several fingers on that it's not.
-
Other than what Deathly said, there is also the situation where a buyer might like the mesh a creator made, but perhaps not the textures, so we might remake them. I personally love that kind of... iterative nature of SL, taking a creation I bought and customizing it to be just perfect for me.
Also the ability to delete the scripts inside it to save sim resources if not needed, but this functionality can be duplicated with good modifier-scripts, too.
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, rainbow Fairymeadow said:
Please explain this reason to me? I am a content creator in SL of Jewelry. I honestly dont use gachas much in my store because I make the item to include a HUD that will change metals, gems etc, and just make it one price for everyone. I never leave my items modify though... an item doesnt have to be modify for you to adjust it after its attached. so what other reason would creators have to leave little funny animals and things modify.. When you leave something that way as far as I know... the person buying it will then be able to get into all of your scripts or if its Trans as well they can just link a prim to it and call it their creation.
Please, for your own sake, as a creator - you should look into how the permissions system in SL works.
A modifiable item does not need modifiable scripts inside it. And linking a root prim doesn't change who created the original object, which is what people will see when inspecting the item, anyway... meaning that any lies about who created it would be very transparent. (not to mention they'd still only be able to sell one copy of it, assuming it's set to no copy...)
-
1
-
-
So, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm not sure how 30 days isn't enough time.
To package items into a vendor, given that you already have screenshots, shouldn't take more than a thirty seconds, tops, per item. So even for someone with a hundred gacha machines with 30 items in each would easily get it done. I'd have that done in a single workday. Even less if one was to display the items individually - just set "buy copy".
The remaining 29 days could be spent on considering pricing and future plans.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The blog post is worded in such a way that it seems any random effect as a result of money paid is banned anyhow. Which would include the hypothetical "preview gacha" where you pay for a random roll on the next available item. Unless the Lindens specifically say that's an exception.
Imagine it that was a slot machine, except you know if your next pull is going to win or lose. But you have to pay it to see what the roll after that will be like. It'd still violate all gambling laws, and pretty flagrantly so.
-
1
-
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
New Gacha Policy Discussion
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
What "vitriol"? It'd seem to be like most are just immediately recognizing that it's practically identical to the thing being banned, and questioning why it'd be allowed given that the original was banned. There's no real emotion involved here, just pattern recognition.