Options
Probabilities of winning prizes from Boxes/Collections Drawings
kinger
Registered Users 4 Posts
Does Glu publish the probabilities/odds of winning prizes in the various mystery boxes or daily collections drawings anywhere?
To me its kind of like gambling, I mean if you look at the fine print of a lottery ticket it will tell the odds of winning; and the same goes for any radio contest or fast food promotional contest. I think it would be nice to know so that we had a vague idea how much something would cost before tossing thousands and thousands of gold away.
To me its kind of like gambling, I mean if you look at the fine print of a lottery ticket it will tell the odds of winning; and the same goes for any radio contest or fast food promotional contest. I think it would be nice to know so that we had a vague idea how much something would cost before tossing thousands and thousands of gold away.
0
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 3.2K Tap Sports Baseball 2018
- 1.9K Tap Sports Baseball 2017
- 2.3K Tap Sports Baseball 2016
- 533 Tap Sports Baseball 2015
- 395 Samurai vs. Zombies Defense 2
- 575 Heroes of Destiny
- 37 Terminator Genisys: Revolution
- 1 Legacy of Angels
- 96 Amazing Battle Creatures
- 64 Defenders & Dragons
- 912 Dino Hunter
- 205 Frontline Commando 2
- 284 Gun Bros 2
- 3 Hercules: The Official Game
- 131 Knights of Puzzelot
- 52 RoboCop
- 917 Tap Sports Baseball
- 32 Blood and Glory: Legend
- 22 Blood and Glory
- 25 Bombshells: Hell's Belles
- 34 Contract Killer
- 12 Contract Killer: Zombies
- 77 Contract Killer: Zombies 2
- 5 Dead Route
- 10 Death Dome
- 23 Deer Hunter Reloaded
- 12 Dragon Slayer
- 20 Enchant U
- 17 Eternity Warriors
- 61 Frontline Commando
- 67 Gang Lords
- 79 Gun Bros
- 6 Gun Zombie 2
- 4 Mech Battle Arena
- 36 Motocross Meltdown
- 25 Odyssey: Age of Gods
- 18 Samurai vs. Zombies Defense
- 146 Small City
- 8 Small Street
- 35 Stardom: the A-List
- 5 Tavern Quest
- 18 Tons of Guns
- 166 Game not listed above? Post here!
Comments
I mean, except for the palpable outrage from 95% of the player base. Can you imagine when they show that 1/1000 is your chance of getting Nolan Ryan?
Many states require odds be published and stated on the product and in all advertising material. I'm going to guess because gold is given at the start and can be obtained for free, it somehow gets past the criteria for that law.
At the same time, you'd have a really tough time successfully arguing this game is akin to gambling. It's not like you can play a slot machine for free. You don't have to pay for this.
I would say, though, you can get a pretty solid reasonable guess that any of those are likely to cost somewhere around 20-30k gold, just simply by comparative analysis with the players they give away in Fan Rewards. They cost 20-30k, so logically, odds are probably around whatever 20-30k gold would be, i.e. 1-in-15-to-20.
They get around it by having it within the video game. EA doesn't publish any of the probabilities for any of its sports games Ultimate team packs (the mode of the game most similar to Tap). Also none of our accounts have any financial worth, and you sure as **** couldn't sue Glu if you lost your team. T&C would most certainly cover those liabilities, and make it clear that any items purchased on this game are bereft of any type of monetary value.
So you're saying that I could buy $1000 worth of gold right now and in 2 mins they can delete my account and there would be no way to take legal action to recoup the money?
I am not saying there is none. I am saying that without a very good IP legal team and some serious resources its pretty unlikely you would ever see that money. And even if you did have those things you would spend well over the $1000 to get it back.
I guess you could try to take it up with iTunes, but realistically you wouldn't likely recoup that money.
You could put a stop-pay with your bank before the money went out, or report it as fraudulent. But you would have to keep that money in esgrow until the matter had been settled in court years from now.
That's contradicting the fact that u said that the T&C would cover those liabilities...now you're saying it's simply not worth the effort with how much it would cost verse how much you would recover
I am saying that the legal system is fluid and can be significantly more beneficial to one side or another based on the magnitude of the company, the resources of the plaintiff etc.
I didn't read this specific T&C top to bottom, but I am familiar with the conditions that would be included based on industry standards. Since I didn't read the entire thing, I am hesitant to put my *** on the line and guarantee the presence of that clause in this specific case. That being said, I would consider it highly unlikely if it were not there.
Don't just try to pick holes in my reasoning, you are out of your depth and merely trying to twist my words around to be clever.
Next time I won't bother answering your questions if you are just going to come back with "look an out of context contradiction hurr hurr"
You tell me not to twist words but isn't that what virtually every lawyer does?
Ill go ahead and address both things here. One, after claiming that those types of liabilities would likely be covered by the T&C, I went on to explain additional reasons for why a suit of that nature would be an unwise decision. I did not contradict anything, merely added additional insight.
Your comment about my posts on these forums is pretty weak, you claime sometimes you think I might not be a lawyer. Why does your judgement mean anything? I think I have demonstrated a much higher level of knowledge about the given topic, and your credentials for criticizing my knowledge are nonexistent. They dont ask the dumbest kid in class what they think of the valedictorian's speech.
You tried to find a contradiction where there was none, you've made some sort of vapid insult about my alleged contradictions making me a future politician, as if they was remotely relevant to the topic at all. You made up the contradiction when you misinterpreted what I said. And then go on to claim that because of some stereotypical aphorism about lawyers twisting words you have the right to try to twist mine.
But again please cite your info for questioning all of what I said, especially when my express purpose was in trying to answer questions and inform people. It's certainly more noble that cruising around on forums trying to twist advice into some sort of contradiction on a topic you know absolutely nothing about.
So just man up, admit you made a mistake and let's move on, it happens to everyone
Are you seriously that misguided that you still see a contradiction there? I can argue with a wall, whose only retorts to my claims are that somehow you are smarter because you made up a contradiction that isn't even there.
You man up and admit it, you know nothing about what you are talking about as I have continued to point out.
But no no you are right, the fact that I claimed it was covered in T&C and then pointed out that is possible it's not in there is the same thing as talking out your *** about a topic you clearly don't understand.
Did you finish high school? Can you not recognize when you are so far out of your depth? How many of the words I used did you have to google?
In what way did you prove yourself smarter? You've literally said nothing even remotely related to intellectual property law, or whether or not liability would be covered by the terms and conditions of use, you just keep claiming that you got one on me because of a contradiction that literally didn't happen.
I'm blatantly calling you out to add any info on the topic other than trying to make up nonsense about my arguments. Copy and paste your wikipedia info if you. Just provide something to the conversation.
I forgot, I take it back. 2nd dumbest kid in class, this meathead is the one with the negative IQ
Answer this question...did u state that it was covered in the T&C then say afterward in the scenario given using $1000 worth of gold , say that action could be taken but you would in essence have to spend more than you would recoup?
Both can be true...
If it came to the point where legal action was to be taken the argument the GLU side is going to take is going to be this is address in the T&C. The plantiff would argue that its not, and they were wronged in the scenario. Ultimately the court system would decide.
That being said if a client came into an honest attorneys office (oxymoron?) with this case they would likely advise you no to purse because the cost of their legal fee's would greatly outweigh the amount you can recoup.
I can't even... You tried to use a big word to prove you know what you are talking about, and can't even use it properly. You can't act supercilious, its a adjective you simpleton. You can't act stupid, you act stupidly. See the difference? One's an adverb, one's an adjective. Please don't try to get into a legal argument if you can't even apply clearly googled words properly.
And cubs said something after so I will go and mention that too. There would be no decision for the court case, it's either in there or it's not and like i tried to explain to him, I am 99% sure it is in there, I just haven't read the exact specifics so I wasn't completely certain.
Todd, I wouldn't talk out my *** to a client the same way I would on the internet, and I would never have even pretended to give advice before doing my research on a specific case.
Last time a mobile app was sued over purchases was the Amazon case where some parents brought a suit because they wouldn't refund a ton of expensive purchases by children. Court's ruled that the children's age was a factor, and they won. That was an issue of intent, and the judge overturned the clause in the T&C.
So, unless exigent circumstances arise in which you somehow lose the capacity to act in an autonomous manner, there is no recourse from the clause in the T&C. That being said, there are cases in which is it overturned, but again I reiterate that it would not be worth the time financially except in a few specific exceptional cases.
I don't know how much more I need to do to prove your ineptitude for the topic and really for the English language. I cannot believe you actually wrote "acting supercilious". I would laugh the opposition out of court for such a ridiculously mistaken sentence.
And I said it was likely in the T&C, but really would not be worth the trouble to look because it wouldn't be financially beneficial. You keep implying backtracking but I really was just giving a professional opinion based on my knowledge of the industry, and then trying to point out that anyone with a brain could realize it's unlikely to be a profitable endeavour.
If you want to go on another rant and make analogies that my opinion doesn't matter, feel free, I spent years defending to uphold the rights to free speech among others. However I am done with this conversation. Take care and have a good day
Lol! Because of how one acts and talks on an online forum for a VIDEO GAME makes him that much less of a lawyer? That's like saying, because you used "u" in your comment rather than typing it out formally, you're improper and do not deserve whatever occupation you currently have.
2 I never said he was any less of a lawyer, just said it wasn't good practice for a lawyer in that regards, the statement in question he clarified in his last post and I gave him credit (had u read the entire thread)
3 My line of work has limited space to work with at times so acronyms and abbreviations are common practice and acceptable
I did read it all, just seemed to me that your credit was a little facetious considering you continued to argue.
And I wasn't serious about you not deserving your job, just pointing out that what he talks about on an online video game forum doesn't decide whether or not he's a lawyer.
I did question at one point if he was a good lawyer, which in hindsight was bad judgement on my part, but that was my opinion at the time. However, (as was stated in a previous post) the opinion of the second dumbest kid in class doesn't matter
Well alright, I didn't get this image at all. From your tone and the things you said you seemed to be calling my knowledge into question. I agree what I said was ambiguous, and tried to go about clarifying my point, albeit in a holier-than-thou douchebag kind of way.
Questioning is good, however I felt as though I had provided enough information as to solidify my status as at least a reasonably knowledgeable party in the discussion. Your comments pertaining to that were the primary reason I felt the need to out-argue you.
@weighlift - you are still the dumbest kid in class, weTodd at least strung some sentences together.
I had a bunch of club mystery boxes saved up...just opened 20 over a couple accounts, got gold in 2