View Single Post
  #5  
Old 25 November 2017, 09:21 PM
Onyx_TKD Onyx_TKD is offline
 
Join Date: 17 December 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
After players organized and lashed out on Reddit and social media, lawmakers in Hawaii, Belgium, Australia and the U.K. began examining whether games that provide rewards, either through playing the game or through an exchange of money, could constitute gambling.
I think I must be missing something about the way this sentence was meant to be parsed.

The argument that spending real-world money to buy unknown, randomized in-game items is gambling seems pretty straightforward, whether or not it makes sense to regulate this particular type of gambling in the same way as others. But isn't a game that provides rewards due to playing it just...a normal game? By that logic, kids' soccer games are child gambling because the winners get a trophy (a reward) by playing the game. I thought maybe they meant specifically games that provide the same reward by two paths, gameplay or direct payment, but I don't see how the presence of the gameplay route would strengthen the argument that it's gambling.
Reply With Quote