[dtech]

That seems like a hack that won't hold up in court. Now it's still loot box gambling, but with the n+1 th box instead.

[buckminster]

Exactly. You're buying a known thing and an option. What's the option for? That's the gamble.

[s3m4j]

Actually I think that's a common salesman trick ? Put the product in the hand of the customer, so that they feel they already have it, then they have to pay.

[kazagistar]

Its that too, but that aspect of it isnt gambling. It's the part where buying the existing loot box gives you access to a second, yet unknown, gambling outcome.

[yAnonymous]

I actually think it will hold up quite comfortably, as no court will be able to tell when exactly it starts being gambling.

[seszett]

I can see how this can work in the US, but courts in Belgium (and Europe in general) do not stop at technicalities and they can absolutely consider it gambling without having to define the exact boundaries of gambling.