Celtic Heroes

Do you think it's gambling or not?

If so, should game developers be forced to have gambling licences?

TL;DR: Yes and no, And not really, but kinda

Are lootboxes gambling? Yes, in that you don’t have a guaranteed outcome and your results are somewhat random with more desirable stuff being more rare, thus increasing the demand for them. But in another way, not necessarily. I’m not entirely sure how to describe this, but I think there’s a distinction, and I’ll try to get my POV across. I consider most forms of P2W through lootboxes to be game-breakingly unfair and have less leeway in my definition, but I digress (necessarily in this case; distinction being that CH lootboxes and their resultant loot are available to “free players”). For the most part, I wouldn’t call lootboxes “gambling“ in the traditional use of the word, just from the general use case.

Should game developers be required to have gambling licenses? Well, in the U.S. most of that regulation is on a state level (not sure on the details, don’t quote me on this lol as I’m sure they’re exceptions all over the place), which would mean that a game would need to adhere to up to 50 different regulations, and that’s just within the U.S.. So in that way, no. However (going to y’all as if there’s not cause idk, but I assume there is some sort of thing like this), there should be some sort of category that games with lootboxes should be tagged with for Apple/etc.

Not sure if any of that clear but anyway.

Edit: rereading this when I’m awake lol, I’m just gonna leave that and pretend it’s coherent lol...

TL;DR: Yes and no, And not really, but kinda

Are lootboxes gambling? Yes, in that you don’t have a guaranteed outcome and your results are somewhat random with more desirable stuff being more rare, thus increasing the demand for them. But in another way, not necessarily. I’m not entirely sure how to describe this, but I think there’s a distinction, and I’ll try to get my POV across. I consider most forms of P2W through lootboxes to be game-breakingly unfair and have less leeway in my definition, but I digress (necessarily in this case; distinction being that CH lootboxes and their resultant loot are available to “free players”). For the most part, I wouldn’t call lootboxes “gambling“ in the traditional use of the word, just from the general use case.

Should game developers be required to have gambling licenses? Well, in the U.S. most of that regulation is on a state level (not sure on the details, don’t quote me on this lol as I’m sure they’re exceptions all over the place), which would mean that a game would need to adhere to up to 50 different regulations, and that’s just within the U.S.. So in that way, no. However (going to y’all as if there’s not cause idk, but I assume there is some sort of thing like this), there should be some sort of category that games with lootboxes should be tagged with for Apple/etc.

Not sure if any of that clear but anyway.

That was clear. That being said u gave a reason why u think they are gambling but your reason on why u think they are not gambling sounded more like why u think they are fair/unfair in games. So I'm gunna take your overall answer as yes u think they are gambling. Which is what I think, maybe, idk, tbf I don't really know lol. I'm not even sure what the proper definition of gambling is

I feel like the whole discussion of loot boxes and other forms of RNG-based content is very much a grey area in the gaming world. What's the difference between buying then opening a chest and getting random drops, and killing a boss and getting random drops? In most games, the difference is that loot boxes are solely available for purchase with real money - in CH it's a bit different...while chests can only be brought into the server via real money, any player can use in-game currency to trade for chests.

As for the definition of gambling - Professor Google to the rescue!


Based on that definition, I'd say that yes, lootboxes would classify as gambling in the literal definition of the word. However, when it comes to whether something is right or wrong, context is everything when it comes to things like this. After doing some digging into this, I found this neat article on the topic if anyone wants to give it a read.


As to whether loot boxes even fall under any existing gambling laws at all, let alone that there should be new laws controlling it...I'm not a Law expert, so I won't get into that much. I do however know that different countries (and even different states in the US) all have slightly different laws when it comes to gambling...and expecting developers to comply with every single one of them seems pretty unreasonable to me.

Na I don’t consider it gambling. Gambling to me is putting something in with the risk of not getting anything back in return, like dicing ingame for example. With loot boxes, at least most loot boxes, you’re always bound to get something even if it’s not what you’re looking for, you’re still getting something.

My problem with loot boxes is when A) a full priced game revolves around purchasable loot boxes (like recent Call of Duty’s, haven’t bought those games since black op 2 lol) and B) when a free game makes loot boxes a pay to win feature. With Celtic Heroes chests aren’t pay to win, it’s still incredibly easy to go far without spending anything. Buying chests just makes things easier which is how loot boxes should be in free games (free games need to make their money some how and I totally respect that).

I feel like the whole discussion of loot boxes and other forms of RNG-based content is very much a grey area in the gaming world. What's the difference between buying then opening a chest and getting random drops, and killing a boss and getting random drops? In most games, the difference is that loot boxes are solely available for purchase with real money - in CH it's a bit different...while chests can only be brought into the server via real money, any player can use in-game currency to trade for chests.

As for the definition of gambling - Professor Google to the rescue!

Based on that definition, I'd say that yes, lootboxes would classify as gambling in the literal definition of the word. However, when it comes to whether something is right or wrong, context is everything when it comes to things like this. After doing some digging into this, I found this neat article on the topic if anyone wants to give it a read.


As to whether loot boxes even fall under any existing gambling laws at all, let alone that there should be new laws controlling it...I'm not a Law expert, so I won't get into that much. I do however know that different countries (and even different states in the US) all have slightly different laws when it comes to gambling...and expecting developers to comply with every single one of them seems pretty unreasonable to me.

Eragon saves the day once again lol.
That article is pretty helpful in defining the overall view of lootboxes (for those who didn’t read): Overall, not really gambling as there’s always a payout (even if it’s undesirable), it’s voluntary (even if the game sucks without it), and the ERSB (people who rate games) bundle lootboxes into the same category as DLC and linear microtransactions (in the case of CH, this would be buying plat and converting it directly into gold). This rating was kinda what I was thinking towards in my last paragraph above, it takes into account that yeah there should be some sort of denotation that they’re in whatever game.

I feel like the whole discussion of loot boxes and other forms of RNG-based content is very much a grey area in the gaming world. What's the difference between buying then opening a chest and getting random drops, and killing a boss and getting random drops? In most games, the difference is that loot boxes are solely available for purchase with real money - in CH it's a bit different...while chests can only be brought into the server via real money, any player can use in-game currency to trade for chests.

As for the definition of gambling - Professor Google to the rescue!

Based on that definition, I'd say that yes, lootboxes would classify as gambling in the literal definition of the word. However, when it comes to whether something is right or wrong, context is everything when it comes to things like this. After doing some digging into this, I found this neat article on the topic if anyone wants to give it a read.


As to whether loot boxes even fall under any existing gambling laws at all, let alone that there should be new laws controlling it...I'm not a Law expert, so I won't get into that much. I do however know that different countries (and even different states in the US) all have slightly different laws when it comes to gambling...and expecting developers to comply with every single one of them seems pretty unreasonable to me.

that was interesting. I don't entirely agree with this bit
"Why do publishers include loot boxes?

At the end of the day, publishers are businesses, and they’re looking for a profit. And while EA and others are likely looking to make more money, it’s a bit more complicated than that.

Video game prices have largely been flat since the late 1990’s. While publishers fund developers working on cutting edge graphics with innovative gameplay, full voice acting and motion capture and, in some cases, continuing to support the game for years after release, they haven’t been charging more for those games. Publishers may argue that this is a way to get a greater return on investment so they can continue making more expensive, innovative games"

If this was 100% correct then publishers could easily get rid of loot boxes and include everything on their ingame store to sell the items straight up and still give them the income loot boxes do. Personally I think the reason is more physiological to the player. Maybe the question should of been, Why do publishers include loot boxes instead of selling everything straight up?

Na I don’t consider it gambling. Gambling to me is putting something in with the risk of not getting anything back in return, like dicing ingame for example. With loot boxes, at least most loot boxes, you’re always bound to get something even if it’s not what you’re looking for, you’re still getting something.

My problem with loot boxes is when A) a full priced game revolves around purchasable loot boxes (like recent Call of Duty’s, haven’t bought those games since black op 2 lol) and B) when a free game makes loot boxes a pay to win feature. With Celtic Heroes chests aren’t pay to win, it’s still incredibly easy to go far without spending anything. Buying chests just makes things easier which is how loot boxes should be in free games (free games need to make their money some how and I totally respect that).

That's true. Didn't see it like that before, Eragons linked article touches on that. Guess it's the same as buying football apple packs really but digital

I feel like the whole discussion of loot boxes and other forms of RNG-based content is very much a grey area in the gaming world. What's the difference between buying then opening a chest and getting random drops, and killing a boss and getting random drops? In most games, the difference is that loot boxes are solely available for purchase with real money - in CH it's a bit different...while chests can only be brought into the server via real money, any player can use in-game currency to trade for chests.

As for the definition of gambling - Professor Google to the rescue!

Based on that definition, I'd say that yes, lootboxes would classify as gambling in the literal definition of the word. However, when it comes to whether something is right or wrong, context is everything when it comes to things like this. After doing some digging into this, I found this neat article on the topic if anyone wants to give it a read.


As to whether loot boxes even fall under any existing gambling laws at all, let alone that there should be new laws controlling it...I'm not a Law expert, so I won't get into that much. I do however know that different countries (and even different states in the US) all have slightly different laws when it comes to gambling...and expecting developers to comply with every single one of them seems pretty unreasonable to me.

that was interesting. I don't entirely agree with this bit
"Why do publishers include loot boxes?

At the end of the day, publishers are businesses, and they’re looking for a profit. And while EA and others are likely looking to make more money, it’s a bit more complicated than that.

Video game prices have largely been flat since the late 1990’s. While publishers fund developers working on cutting edge graphics with innovative gameplay, full voice acting and motion capture and, in some cases, continuing to support the game for years after release, they haven’t been charging more for those games. Publishers may argue that this is a way to get a greater return on investment so they can continue making more expensive, innovative games"

If this was 100% correct then publishers could easily get rid of loot boxes and include everything on their ingame store to sell the items straight up and still give them the income loot boxes do. Personally I think the reason is more physiological to the player. Maybe the question should of been, Why do publishers include loot boxes instead of selling everything straight up?

That's an excellent point, and I agree that it's pretty obvious - people like loot boxes because there is an absolutely miniscule chance of getting the things they want, for a much cheaper price. The chance of getting something worth 3-4 million for the mere investment of 40-50k is extremely attractive. Sure, VR could put dragons or reindeer in the store for some random price - say 1000 or 1500 platinum. However, players would likely spend much less money that way, though it might balance out a little - more people would buy plat to get the new pets, but hardcore spenders would likely be spending less on average.

If they were still no-trade, then that would also lean a lot farther into the P2W aspect - free players wouldn't have a chance to get the mounts/pets unless they bought plat.


Slightly off topic, but I wish VR would start releasing new platinum-exclusive cosmetics (tradeable or not, I don't really care). Not in chests, but direct purchasable - e.g. 100 platinum for a full set of red (new fash), 250 platinum for a full set of blue, 500 for a set of white, etc (or just remove the color rarity bit altogether, and just have a single set of fashion for a set price). Because it's fashion, it doesn't impact the game at all, which means that it doesn't introduce any unfairness issues, and I think players would like the chance to get a full set themselves, or try to buy it off someone else (though I think it would mostly remove the parts/pieces trading that goes on with existing fashion, where you can buy/sell individual pieces for cheaper than the full set would usually cost.

I feel like the whole discussion of loot boxes and other forms of RNG-based content is very much a grey area in the gaming world. What's the difference between buying then opening a chest and getting random drops, and killing a boss and getting random drops? In most games, the difference is that loot boxes are solely available for purchase with real money - in CH it's a bit different...while chests can only be brought into the server via real money, any player can use in-game currency to trade for chests.

As for the definition of gambling - Professor Google to the rescue!

Based on that definition, I'd say that yes, lootboxes would classify as gambling in the literal definition of the word. However, when it comes to whether something is right or wrong, context is everything when it comes to things like this. After doing some digging into this, I found this neat article on the topic if anyone wants to give it a read.


As to whether loot boxes even fall under any existing gambling laws at all, let alone that there should be new laws controlling it...I'm not a Law expert, so I won't get into that much. I do however know that different countries (and even different states in the US) all have slightly different laws when it comes to gambling...and expecting developers to comply with every single one of them seems pretty unreasonable to me.

that was interesting. I don't entirely agree with this bit
"Why do publishers include loot boxes?

At the end of the day, publishers are businesses, and they’re looking for a profit. And while EA and others are likely looking to make more money, it’s a bit more complicated than that.

Video game prices have largely been flat since the late 1990’s. While publishers fund developers working on cutting edge graphics with innovative gameplay, full voice acting and motion capture and, in some cases, continuing to support the game for years after release, they haven’t been charging more for those games. Publishers may argue that this is a way to get a greater return on investment so they can continue making more expensive, innovative games"

If this was 100% correct then publishers could easily get rid of loot boxes and include everything on their ingame store to sell the items straight up and still give them the income loot boxes do. Personally I think the reason is more physiological to the player. Maybe the question should of been, Why do publishers include loot boxes instead of selling everything straight up?

That's an excellent point, and I agree that it's pretty obvious - people like loot boxes because there is an absolutely miniscule chance of getting the things they want, for a much cheaper price. The chance of getting something worth 3-4 million for the mere investment of 40-50k is extremely attractive. Sure, VR could put dragons or reindeer in the store for some random price - say 1000 or 1500 platinum. However, players would likely spend much less money that way, though it might balance out a little - more people would buy plat to get the new pets, but hardcore spenders would likely be spending less on average.

If they were still no-trade, then that would also lean a lot farther into the P2W aspect - free players wouldn't have a chance to get the mounts/pets unless they bought plat.


Slightly off topic, but I wish VR would start releasing new platinum-exclusive cosmetics (tradeable or not, I don't really care). Not in chests, but direct purchasable - e.g. 100 platinum for a full set of red (new fash), 250 platinum for a full set of blue, 500 for a set of white, etc (or just remove the color rarity bit altogether, and just have a single set of fashion for a set price). Because it's fashion, it doesn't impact the game at all, which means that it doesn't introduce any unfairness issues, and I think players would like the chance to get a full set themselves, or try to buy it off someone else (though I think it would mostly remove the parts/pieces trading that goes on with existing fashion, where you can buy/sell individual pieces for cheaper than the full set would usually cost.

I wish that too. Even if they had the same fashion in both chests and the store except one was trade and the other was no trade. Anything would do actually lol, don't think anything been added to the store since time began apart from new chests every event