1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Apple now requires games with loot boxes to disclose odds...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Wintermute, Dec 21, 2017.

  1. Wintermute

    Wintermute Tiny Birdy

  2. Desert Song

    Desert Song Super Cool Bird

    Interesting! Would not apply to ABE because it only applies to "loot boxes" that are purchased with real money, but interesting!
     
  3. Wintermute

    Wintermute Tiny Birdy

    Actually this will totally apply to ABE because "Apps offering “loot boxes” or other mechanisms that provide randomized virtual items for purchase must disclose the odds of receiving each type of item to customers prior to purchase."
     
  4. Desert Song

    Desert Song Super Cool Bird

    I must be missing it. What can be purchased in ABE that provides randomized virtual items? Everything I see available for purchase shows you exactly what you will get.
     
  5. Wintermute

    Wintermute Tiny Birdy

    premium tickets, gold 10 pack tickets, etc... How many people bought tons of those and didnt get what they thought they would? Not saying its right or wrong, but thats what Apple wants transparency over.
     
  6. Desert Song

    Desert Song Super Cool Bird

    They got exactly what they paid for. If they paid money for a premium ticket, that's exactly what they got. If they paid money for a gold ticket, that's exactly what they got. If they spent $99.99 for a "Tons of Gems" they got 6,000 gems. Everything that is for purchase with real-world money is clearly disclosed, not randomized.

    This article you posted did not apply to purchases of in-game items with in-game currency. Now, I can see what logic you are trying to use. Someone (1) spends real-world money on a premium ticket, then (2) uses that ticket to try to get something that is randomized. This article only applies to #1 - the virtual good or service you actually purchased for real-world money.

    I am 100% certain it will not apply to #2. Imagine the slippery slope if it did: "I spent $5 to get a dragon-slaying sword but I couldn't slay the dragon. I'm gonna sue!"

    Having said that, I can certainly see a loophole that some games may start using to get around this!

    Edit: Actually, Wintermute - I woudn't mind if it did apply to #2. It would surely be nice to know what the odds are of hatching different birds with premium tickets. I hope Rovio does start disclosing those things. But I don't think that is what the article was addressing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  7. DaggettBeaver

    DaggettBeaver Hatchling

    That's great news and should have been a law for a long time... sadly, our lawmakers - at least here in Europe - are still in the last century when it comes to "new media"...
     
  8. DaggettBeaver

    DaggettBeaver Hatchling

    That's a very American approach you have here and every law system that is worth the paper it is printed on would not let this go through.... aside from that, most games already use in-game currencies and any regulation not keeping that in mind would be utter nonsense.
     
  9. Desert Song

    Desert Song Super Cool Bird

    @DaggettBeaver - America is (supposed to be) all about personal freedom, so I will take that as a compliment. Do you seriously want the government legislating everything you can do? I am not sure what part of Europe you live in, but if America passed the same law the UK has - that a motorist that overtakes another vehicle in the incorrect lane is the one that gets the fine EVEN if the other vehicle was driving in the wrong lane - there would be riots. Riots. Government should serve the people, not the other way round. Less legislation, more freedom.

    But I fear we are veering off topic here...
     
  10. DaggettBeaver

    DaggettBeaver Hatchling

    I'm sure as hell for creating laws without loopholes and not letting obvious loopholes succeed in court.

    Here in Germany, it's quite simple: If something is obviously a clear way to get around a law, it won't have any chance in court. (important: we are talking about civil law here, not about criminal justice. Obviously, for criminal justice, there has to be absolutely clear what is forbidden and what not. In civil law it's all about reaching a balance between factions - and the faction who tries to abuse loopholes is not supposed to ever win that fight. And that's good.)
     
  11. Desert Song

    Desert Song Super Cool Bird

    We are digressing a bit because this is not a law we are talking about. It is an Apple policy for whether they will allow an app in their app store. Like I said, it will be interesting to see what happens. Will Apple say that ABE is not allowed in the app store because players do not know the exact odds of hatching a Santa (or any given bird) with a premium ticket? Or will Apple say that ABE is allowed because all packages offered in the ABE in-app store clearly state what you will receive when you purchase them?

    That is the question to be answered.
     
  12. DaggettBeaver

    DaggettBeaver Hatchling

    And since Apple knows that the majority of apps already hide their "gambling odds" behind an in-game currency and the rest of the apps would surely follow, apple would be really stupid if they accept that...
     
  13. Desert Song

    Desert Song Super Cool Bird

    Then to anyone who plays ABE on an Apple device: enjoy the game while you can. ;)
     
  14. Wintermute

    Wintermute Tiny Birdy

    LOL, when it comes to APPLE and apps, the only thing you will ever hear from successful app devs are loud sucking sounds. Sooner or later, everyone bends the knee to the Cult of Steve.
     
  15. Starman.thc

    Starman.thc Super Cool Bird

    To the point about whether or not purchasing a defined item (eg. gold ticket) would sidestep the new regulation: I would suggest that because the item you are purchasing is solely for the randomized item (in other words, you can't go and use your gold ticket for anything other than a randomized reward), there may be a pass-through provision that will close this perceived loophole.
     

Share This Page