I agree, this article mostly preaches to the choir. I don't see how the card analogy as a good defense. In my opinion they fit all three core elements of gambling: consideration (paying for the...
I agree, this article mostly preaches to the choir.
I don't see how the card analogy as a good defense. In my opinion they fit all three core elements of gambling: consideration (paying for the booster pack), chance (the exact cards in the pack are unknown), and prize (desired card/rare cards). It's especially bad because there is no skill involved, the usual legal loophole to avoid the gambling label.
It seems to me that cards have slid under the radar because they don't trigger as many of the addictive pathways. Opening a card pack doesn't generate much in the way of light/sound effects. And I haven't seen any card packs attempting to trigger the gambler's fallacy. Lootboxes have taken the thinly veiled gambling that is trading cards and reintroduced all the most addictive and unfair elements.
I agree, this article mostly preaches to the choir.
I don't see how the card analogy as a good defense. In my opinion they fit all three core elements of gambling: consideration (paying for the booster pack), chance (the exact cards in the pack are unknown), and prize (desired card/rare cards). It's especially bad because there is no skill involved, the usual legal loophole to avoid the gambling label.
It seems to me that cards have slid under the radar because they don't trigger as many of the addictive pathways. Opening a card pack doesn't generate much in the way of light/sound effects. And I haven't seen any card packs attempting to trigger the gambler's fallacy. Lootboxes have taken the thinly veiled gambling that is trading cards and reintroduced all the most addictive and unfair elements.