And the colors at McDonalds are meant to provoke a psychological reaction and etc etc blah blah blah yawn. Every seller of everything does this exact same thing.

And here you go again thinking some laymen meaningless definition is in any way shape or form relevant. .

“No one would buy the loot cases unless there was some hope of getting something of equal or greater value out of them. That should be obvious... even to a child.” —-> I agree! and yet people buy lootboxes nonetheless! 

The dictionary? I looked it up in blacks law dictionary, which is the only dictionary that matters. The legal definition is the only one that matters here.

“The things you get in the loot box don’t have resale value, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have value.”

“Value is relative.” Noooooooo it 100% is not. When it comes to defining if something is gambling, it means tangible money value. The legal definition is the only definition that matters, so not sure why you concede that point.

“they do not, however, have the unilateral right to do so at the any and every expense of the liberty of individuals.” ......... I am stunned reading this....truly stunned....... You are going to have to explain how offering randomized imaginary digital doll clothes is “at the expense of the liberty of…

“They prey upon consumers.” hahaha omfg are you kidding me!?!? “Those companies prayed upon me by forcing me to buy imaginary digital yoga pants for tracer! I had no choice.” —-> Grow. Up.  

I reject your first sentence. Lootboxes are obviously not a form of gambling, no matter how they make you feel. Unless we are talking about counterstrike (which is gambling), It cant be gambling when you have a 0% chance to win anything of value. “EPIC LEGENDARY” drops are equally worthless as a common item.

hahah that is a wonderful question. But no, they cannot have value because the are not transferable. If you cant sell it, then its worthless. This is the main difference why CounterStrike IS gambling because those skins can be traded on a third market for real money. Without that characteristic there is no “bet” its…

They are literally not gambling so no they are not lootboxes. Unless the box has money hidden inside instead of a pair of Tracer PJ bottoms, no its not gambling.

Yaa it seems like alot of these arguments against lootboxes are limited to “I dont like capitalism” as opposed to finding any grounds for why its unethical within our capitalist framework (which isnt going away).

I completely agree about business ethics but I fail to see any validity to the argument that selling randomized boxes of imaginary digital doll clothes is in any way unethical. Nor has any industry, legal, or government body that’s looked at it.

“Loot boxes, by most are considered gambling.” lol except for every industry, legal, and government body that has considered it, or most fellow lawyers I’ve talked to.  

Getting “caught up” in what? Making a decision to buy something is not getting “caught up” in anything.

I recommend you look up the “Revlon duty.” Yes, Delaware corporations (which all AAA publishers are) are required by law to maximize shareholder value.

Genuinly dont understand this comment. I never said gambling is good or isnt. But lootboxes are simply NOT gambling. No matter how much you say it is, it will never be gambling when you literally cannot win anything.

Explain how making a purchase decision is at all in anyway at anyone’s expense?

“This is a disgustingly “adult”, cold-hearted point of view.” GOOD because this is the actual world we live in. Id much rather more of this than the immature man-children who seem to think that companies who are required by law to maximize shareholder value are somehow charities looking out for their well being. They…

Nope, not in this circumstance. If it has no tangible worth and isnt even transferable, it has no value.