Framework for player gambled items?

ArchivedUser

So I was looking at another thread about gambling, and that's when this idea struck me.  How likely do you think it is that we could convince the devs to add a in game framework for player sanctioned gambling?

For instance,  two or more players could pull up the gambling menu.  They then add items and gold that they want to add, and the gambling framework menu holds the items/gold.  All parties can see the items/gold each player has added to it.  Then the players would do something like a /roll or some other predetermined action, and the winner will then be picked randomly by the game and is automatically awarded all of the items/money.  There would also be a message the game would give players warning them about entering any items into the gambling system, so that new or uninformed players would understand what they are about to do. 

I feel that something like this would add a whole other layer of enjoyment for players, and it could be used as even more of a motivation for players to participate in, and achieve group goals.  Let say you are in a raid group, and at the end of the raid there will be large group gamble, and one player could potentially win it big. 

/thoughts?

ArchivedUser

I feel it could add a whole nother level of money laundering for gold farmers, making their systems to detect large transfers for currency obsolete. They have already ruled out player controlled event gambling such as duels and others because of the potential for abuse. For every "I really think this would be great!" post, there are reasons why they have decided against them or limit them beyond your ideal.

ArchivedUser

I thought the devs said they were going to add bar games to taverns. all you would need to do is trade items after the game

ArchivedUser

Yep, they have confirmed many different types of games able to be played and initiated from a table in a tavern. One of the players has to "own" a copy of the game. Some will be found in game, others will have different mechanics of acquisition. It was literally the first stretch goal. They said they may allow small wagers on the outcome, but nothing that would be open and allow people to launder currency. What you won't see is someone being able to gamble say an iron dagger vs 100k gold and then the gold seller throwing the game to make the transfer look legit.

ArchivedUser

So I did hear them correctly then. Thanks for confirming 

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

I wish my phone would conform to type what I tell it to 

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

Yep, they have confirmed many different types of games able to be played and initiated from a table in a tavern. One of the players has to "own" a copy of the game. Some will be found in game, others will have different mechanics of acquisition. It was literally the first stretch goal. They said they may allow small wagers on the outcome, but nothing that would be open and allow people to launder currency. What you won't see is someone being able to gamble say an iron dagger vs 100k gold and then the gold seller throwing the game to make the transfer look legit.

If the game decides the winner randomly, then the seller wouldn't be able to throw the game.  Also, take this into consideration.  Gold sellers will exist regardless, especially if the game is big hit.  Why limit the scope of enjoyment for players for the sake of gold sellers?  Gold sellers will do whatever they can, whenever they can.  I personally as a player would rather have more options in game, as that leads to longer play times and player retention, by offering a myriad of activities besides just killing npcs.  This is something SWG had in spades, and it kept a lot of players involved.

ArchivedUser

The problem with adding too much in the way of in game gambling is that all of a sudden, regulations start coming in to play.

In the wake of the whole loot box thing, there are a lot of countries that are looking in to gambling in relation to computer games.

If some kid in Ireland loses everything on his account while gambling in game, an argument could be made that his losses have a value of everything he has spent on his account, including subscription. All of a sudden, Intrepid are on the hook for allowing underage, unregulated gambling in Ireland.

If the amount is kept quite low however, the argument that the loss equates to the subscription fees paid to date doesn't hold water, and thus there is no case to answer.

ArchivedUser

Noaani said:

If some kid in Ireland loses everything on his account while gambling in game, an argument could be made that his losses have a value of everything he has spent on his account, including subscription. All of a sudden, Intrepid are on the hook for allowing underage, unregulated gambling in Ireland.

ESRB, for one, has two different types of gambling: Simulated gambling and real gambling. Simulated gambling is still rated teen so if a 'kid' lost everything that is on their parents. 

Also, value is irrelevant because when it comes to mmos, we are paying for access to the game. Everything in the game is the property of the studio. In addition, if you could sue a company over lost time then every game that has shut down in the past could have been sued. Don't get me wrong, I wish I could sue Sony over murdering my beloved SWG, but I can't because I was merely accessing the game and not the owner of it.

ArchivedUser

Loyheta said:

Noaani said:

If some kid in Ireland loses everything on his account while gambling in game, an argument could be made that his losses have a value of everything he has spent on his account, including subscription. All of a sudden, Intrepid are on the hook for allowing underage, unregulated gambling in Ireland.

ESRB, for one, has two different types of gambling: Simulated gambling and real gambling. Simulated gambling is still rated teen so if a 'kid' lost everything that is on their parents. 

Also, value is irrelevant because when it comes to mmos, we are paying for access to the game. Everything in the game is the property of the studio. In addition, if you could sue a company over lost time then every game that has shut down in the past could have been sued. Don't get me wrong, I wish I could sue Sony over murdering my beloved SWG, but I can't because I was merely accessing the game and not the owner of it.

While I get what you are saying, this is not the case in every country in the world.

Ashes is a product that will be potentially played under more than 100 different legal systems, many of which have vastly differing views on gambling.

If there is a single website out there that buys or sells gold - even if against the games terms of service - there are countries out there that will place that monetary value on in game gold.

As something that I would consider a fairly cut and dry example of the difference - the ESRB does not consider loot boxes to be gambling, while other countries do.