I don't think so? They're still limited, it's just that they're giving people an option to pick out of the entire list of limiteds for a very specific window?Originally Posted by Pendant
- - - Updated - - -
ngl, that'd be nice. Then I can save for when I need only the 5* Servant and use it instead of rolling for 4* dupes that I don't care about.
Witness The Power Of The... Suicide Squad?
There's no law like that whatsoever. Hell, Nier Reincarnation is doing that right now.
An individual of culture, I see.
Funny thing is Shimaudon actually worked on the game, but as a background artist I believe.
Based
Tez or Mr. President?
Do you mean Ms. President? Personally, I'm not expecting her banner to hit anytime soon. She's gonna get her own chapter, exploring her past and her true nature, and finally resolving her character arc. And then together they confront the real villain(s) of CitL. ...Is how I want it happened.
Very tempting banner, but since Nito is permanent, I guess I'll just skip this one and wait for the SSR ticket.
I distinctly remember people saying that they couldn't go and change a Servant's status from limited to permanent as that would run afoul of some arcane law.
Nah, no actual law governs that. I think the law only interferes if there is comp gatcha or the gatcha unit's actual implementation differs from what was said to be?
iirc its not Arcane law, its that if you somehow advertise (put in writing, like a soft contract) as EXCLUSIVELY limited time release and LATER become Permanent you run the risk of opening lawsuits
People say a lot of things about gacha laws, but it just so happens that basically none of it is true. What madarra said is true on paper, but that's a technicality of marketing laws that opens you up to that, not an actual game/gacha law referencing the limited status of "wares". It's the same with people who keep parroting that they aren't allowed to nerf units by law, which is complete nonsense. Of course, they wouldn't really ever do that because why would you open yourself to that backlash when you can just powercreep the unit instead, forcing people to roll for newer things again.
The only actual big law for games like this (aside from general laws that apply to all things, obviously) is the complete gacha one:
Gatcha games nerf PvP units when they're so broken that everybody doesn't bother to play or roll anything else, not sure why people believe nerfing is illegal. It makes a lot of people angry though, so for most gatcha companies it's the last option to pick unless there's no other way to fix the problem.
In an ideal world, gacha and lootboxes should have as much laws, restrictions and regulations as regular gambling.
To illustrate the point, King's Raid literally did this last October to all its units and the entire playerbase decided that was the point that truly and definitely kill the game. Dunno if they have any player left tbh.
In an ideal world, gacha and lootboxes wouldn't exist.
King's Raid had a lot of issues even before that, I'm surprised there were still people playing it after the awful crap they pulled when they changed the rune system (it's the point I left tbh). Most of the decisions they've been doing since the game started to clearly die because of how much they fucked their attempt to switch to a new client had been all about trying to take as much money as possible before the ship sinks, which is pretty obvious to a lot of people. That update you talk about basically killed everybody's builds and with the addition of more Weapon Soul levels they basically forced players to pay to be able to even clear things they could clear before with less investment.
Man, I sure am going to miss Pansirone, we need more crazy girls with pink hair and a flamethrower.
Lootboxes are at least already (slowly) being regulated. Gacha might take a whole lot longer though, considering it's not as widespread in the west, especially not if you compare it to what lootboxes became in recent years.
In an ideal world, gambling wouldn't exist. Fixed that for you.
I don't know about that. Are we to say that because something has addictive qualities, it's inherently evil? I think that's been used to justify a lot of unreasonable stuff. Do we ban something because we can't trust some individuals to use it responsibly? Where is the line drawn, then? Should we ban Pokemon cards because people have been essentially using them as a speculative currency, leading to people losing thousands on scams or because they tried to cash in late? Everything can be used irresponsibly and people who aren't in a right state of mind will always exist, we can't build our society trying to prevent that from happening.
Just like how alcohol and mind altering substances can be consumed safely, so can gambling. If something can be done by a consenting, understanding adult in a safe environment then it has a right to exist. I do think gacha games should be regulated but only in so far as gambling already is; preventing children from playing them is already a good idea, as is preventing developers from using scummy tactics. To a certain degree, the latter has already happened, as complete gacha is banned and most developers are obligated by law to display honest gacha rates. Improvements could be made, such as compulsory pity/sparking systems and requiring characters to be at a baseline level of strength consistent with other characters without needing duplicates.
No, in an ideal world, we wouldn’t have alcohol either.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
