Clown emojis all around

  • @tlou3please
    link
    English
    791 month ago

    I wish lawmakers had some balls on this subject. If there’s gambling, they should have to register as a gambling company and comply with all the other restrictions on gambling advertisements in each jurisdiction.

      • @Takumidesh
        link
        English
        491 month ago

        Using chips is even a stretch honestly. There are some chip imagery here and there but otherwise ‘chips’ are just how points are called.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          461 month ago

          Exactly you never actually commit to any sort of wager or even an imitation of financial risk.

        • @Lowpast
          link
          English
          121 month ago

          No, there are no bets, no buy in.

        • Druid
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 month ago

          There used to be ante in MTG. You’d play for cards in each other’s decks and were to keep them if you won the game. Plus, there were a number of cards actively interacted with the ante’d cards and added or changed what’s in the ante

      • @Maggoty
        link
        English
        -111 month ago

        They also base it on poker, yeah cards can transform each other but it’s still quite literally a poker game. This isn’t MTG. (Which is just real life loot boxes)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 month ago

          But poker is only a gambling game because when you play it you “give up” something of value in the hope of winning more through playing and randomness. What makes it gambling is not the cards or the chips it’s the gambling aspect. Balatro uses card and poker hands, and so does “yatzhee”, but it does not use any gambling mechanic. Lootboxes on the other hand use gambling mechanic.

          • @Maggoty
            link
            English
            -21 month ago

            Which is why PEGI didn’t say it was literally gambling, they said it was imagery of gambling.

            • lad
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 month ago

              Although you may be right about why they did it, I feel like imagery of gambling is not meant to be ‘something that is in any way related to something that happens to be gambling’, it’s when gambling is shown but you’re not the one gambling. If someone in game is gambling that’s imagery, if a game uses cards for something that is not gambling it’s not imagery.