LivDiv wrote:I don't have an issue with them personally but I think they should still be age limited.nick_md wrote:Gacha for cosmetics/taunts etc I don't really have an issue with.Anything that elicits this response when paid for should be treated as gambling really. I don't have a problem with that being accessible to adults but should abide by all other gambling laws.nick_md wrote:the chance element and it's great when you get a sick pull.
LivDiv wrote:Maybe it is time card games were looked at.
Those have long since moved on from being innocent fun, some rare cards from packs (not tournament or event cards) are going for serious money even when still in circulation.
They are less of a problem than loot boxes for sure though, firstly because the buyer at least gets something of value, even the lowest card can be sold on secondly because playing Magic or whatever doesn't actively harass the player to buy more cards.
Oddly the argument that the cards have value I think means that strictly speaking they should be considered gambling already.
both core set and expansion booster packs contain 16 cards: One marketing card, one basic land, ten commons (one possible premium card in any rarity), three uncommons, and one rare (occasionally, about one in eight packs, replaced by a mythic rare).
LivDiv wrote:Why have booster packs at all? Why not let people buy the cards they want directly?
Diluted Dante wrote:As someone who is on the outside of both of these, on the surface it seems like you could make a similar argument for Ultimate Team
Tempy wrote:Diluted Dante wrote:As someone who is on the outside of both of these, on the surface it seems like you could make a similar argument for Ultimate Team
The main difference, unless I have missed something with FUT, is that the old stuff eventually becomes entirely redundant and worthless. This is never really the case with MTG.
Diluted Dante wrote:Why is that Gav? Surely there is a ceiling on the stats cards can have and a prime Henry I'd have thought would be one of the highest? How does that become redundant?
A father who initially paid £4.99 for his 11-year-old daughter to use a smartphone app was shocked to discover a bill for thousands of pounds a month later...
..."My daughter was really upset when we told her about the financial consequences. She thought she was playing with monopoly money - it didn't seem real to her. How can these companies be allowed to trap minors in these games? To trap people who are vulnerable?" he said.
LivDiv wrote:They're just giving gamers a choice g. It's totally innocent.Spoiler:
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!