Shitty love phrases isn't an asset and therefore does not count in terms of gambling.I'm pretty sure to be defined as gambling it must possess some sort of addictive quality but this is quite far from my field so I'll just shitpost:
So is Kinder Surprise to an extent (gambling)
So is this, because you don't know exactly what kind of shitty love phrase you'll find inside!
isn't an asset
Wrong. There is a definition of asset in the law, and advice on a piece of paper does not constitute that.isn't an asset
But it really is, like your kinder example! Since when concluding a deal, the parts are the ones deciding the intrinsic value of such "assets". Suppose I'm a collector, for example. People do collect kinder surprises, I haven't got the slightest idea about such market but probably some pieces also have a monetary value, nowadays.
I'm really just messing with you, I know how ridiculous that sounds and I'm no law expert but I'm pretty sure there are other reasons for why one is classified as gambling and the other one isn't, concepts like shared value (winning something that's considered valuable by a large majority vs shitty love phrases) and the addictive nature of gambling are taken in consideration in some legislatures, each nation in Europe uses slighlty different regulations.
Again, I'm not an expert, just pulling things out of my ass here...
It cannot be lootboxes. I think the multiple ongoing investigations would make it fairly difficult for them to do so and still reach the worldwide audience they are looking at. Unlike Chinese companies, EA and Disney are based in the US and are very vulnerable to consumer laws there.
They could do that, if they want to kill whatever reputation they have left. "Lootboxes is gambling for children" is really just a side show in this story, it is the specter of pay2win that made Battlefront 2 a commercial failure.It cannot be lootboxes. I think the multiple ongoing investigations would make it fairly difficult for them to do so and still reach the worldwide audience they are looking at. Unlike Chinese companies, EA and Disney are based in the US and are very vulnerable to consumer laws there.
They MAY, however, start charging for other things. Say a single-use power-up would cost $x. That won't be lootboxing, but it would be p2w.
Given that it is EA, I am surprised that people hasn't realised that whatever reputation EA has left is merely an accident of them either not having thought of a way to ruin that yet, not realise they have that part yet to ruin or that enough people are stupid enough not to see the ruination they have brought to everything they have set their greedy thug eyes on. EA has never cared for its reputation and I don't see it starting now. Even when this lootbox thing blew up, they shamelessly ignored everything and sent out their stormtroopers to try and shout people down. It took a call from Disney to stop them in their tracks. A bigger fish indeed.They could do that, if they want to kill whatever reputation they have left. "Lootboxes is gambling for children" is really just a side show in this story, it is the specter of pay2win that made Battlefront 2 a commercial failure.
One must keep up appearances, you know...Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.
Eh, if it was that important to them they'd do something to change it. Words are cheap.Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.
Eh, if it was that important to them they'd do something to change it. Words are cheap.Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.
They slid back to their old arrogant habits. Nothing new there. Happens all the time. I'd say they are staring at another worst company in America title.Eh, if it was that important to them they'd do something to change it. Words are cheap.Given how butthurt they got over being awarded "worst company in america" several years in a row, I think you underestimate how important reputation is to EA.
https://www.cnet.com/g00/news/how-electronic-arts-stopped-being-the-worst-company-in-america/?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS5hdS8=
On October 30, 2017, Consumer Reports shut down Consumerist(sant: the guys who host the worst company in America awards), stating that coverage of consumer issues would now be found on the main Consumer Reports website.[3
That would explain why EA went full retard, then. The timing is exquisite.
Wrong. There is a definition of asset in the law, and advice on a piece of paper does not constitute that.
The problem here is that people like to throw their own interpretation of stuff on it without the slightest training in law. As someone who has a bit to do with Commercial Law (amongst other types of law), there is a logic in the definition of laws. While there are loopholes, this has more to do with oversight than anything else. For example, there is actually no law against, say, the PM of New Zealand declaring that all blue-eyed, blondes are to be shot at dawn. However, the likelihood of people actually following that order is miniscule ALTHOUGH it makes them all criminals in the eyes of the law for not doing what the PM LAWFULLY ordered.
Pulling things out of asses seems to be what a lot of people love to do, especially those who wants pure anarchy with no rule of law at all. Freedom at the cost of society falling apart. Rule of the strongest or at the end of a gun barrel. Another group of idiots love to change laws or create new ones and then persecute people for historical acts based on the new laws. A typical example is the Essendon "doping" saga in Australia where the team was given what was LATER a banned substance to enhance performance. The team, the coach and the doctor were persecuted by the sports doping authorities (both Australia and world) for it, even though it was legal AT THE TIME.
The law is not something that a bunch of fucktards with agendas should be allowed anywhere near. It is dangerous as heck to allow them to impose their stupidity on the rest of us. Remembering that the law allows them to throw us behind bars for violating them. The PCtards are very fond of such nonsense, legislating everything from discrimination to human rights to anything they can lay their hands on. CONVERSELY, those freedom fanatics who would love to see that there be NO laws that impede their "freedom" to do what they want should also not be allowed anywhere near the law. Society is built on laws. Law is the contract whereby you obey and be given privileges of being part of that society. That is why we PUNISH criminals (i.e., take away their privileges as members of the society), the violaters of the law, the breakers of the contract. Without laws, there is nothing but barbarism. While the thugs may love such a thing because it allows them to take what they want with impunity, it is no way for any society to advance.
The question of lootboxes is more than just one factor. That is what the morons in thie thread love to reduce it to: define gambling, define asset, children, freedom, my rights. Every argument is reduced to one factor in order to pull a gotcha moment. It is actually a GROUP of factors. It is gambling, but it is NOT outlawing gambling. It is children, but it is NOT wholly children. It is assets, but it is more than that (you are gambling for pixels, after all). It is about freedoms but it is also about limits. It is about the rights of people to do what they want, but it is also about the limit to what they are allowed to do.
Not a single naysayer to the whole thing has ever looked at all the factors and in fact, when presented with an argument that tries to present all, they just go for the "I refuse to be a victim" narrative and argue towards absurdism. I spit on them as much as I spit on SJWs because to me, they are both the same kind of lying shitholes more concerned with themselves than society, science or truth.
There, FTFY.A whole bunch of non sequiturs and butthurt nonsense.
There, FTFY.A whole bunch of non sequiturs and butthurt nonsense.
If you are not even going to try to get what i am getting it, please stop wasting pixels.
No. Your post is.Oh so suddenly the inviolable law is nonsequitirs when it's inconvenient.
No. Your post is.Oh so suddenly the inviolable law is nonsequitirs when it's inconvenient.
That you didn't know the difference is why speaking to you is a waste of time.
Are you retarded? Have you actually READ what I have been talking about in this topic? A law change is EXACTLY WHAT I WAS CALLING FOR, YOU MORON!You are so full of shit. You can change the law and that is my point. You are obviously not arguing in good faith because you won't admit this.