> That's gambling minus the possibility of making money.

Lootboxes are extremely scummy, but doesn't the fact that you can't make money from it make it not gambling? Otherwise wouldn't places like Chuck-e-Cheese with ticket prize arcades be considered gambling? Or card games like MTG and Pokemon? In those cases you can even sell your prizes to other people for real cash.

Honestly. Baseball cards are a very well known, very popular, very mainstream and socially accepted loot-box/gambling. Is is the picture and statistics that make it okay?

Why do video game loot-boxes get extra scrutiny?

For context, I hate any game that implements them and believe they're the largest reason that mobile gaming continues to suck.

>For context, I hate any game that implements them and believe they're the largest reason that mobile gaming continues to suck.

Can you explain how this contextualizes your above statement and questions?

I'm not trying to defend loot boxes at all. Maybe I should've said 'reference' instead of 'context'.

Both are bad, but one has existed for longer than the other. So, it isn't as normalized for anyone over 16yo.

You absolutely can make money if the games allow transferring assets, or you can transfer an account to someone else.

See: the whole CS:GO lootbox fad. On top of the value of the cosmetics which could be traded, "Creators" were making enough money streaming lootbox opening to be able to afford hypercars.

Some of the more popular games do have significant resale value on skins that can be turned into steam credits. So its op par with gambling. And no gambler makes money trough their spins, unless you count games like poker where better players can edge out somewhat of an advantage.

No. No it doesn't.