He’ll make a cashgrab game instead 
This idea they have will make Preston look like a saint.
1 Like
That’s how OP can do what they’re asking how to do.
This is wrong, if an item is not useful does it really count as an item to the consumer? Would consumers know said item does nothing before they buy it? The TOS is flawed.
What if it was a pet in pet sim that didn’t even break coins?
1 Like
You say this just because I disagree with you, I could just as easily disagree with OP and you wouldn’t say a thing. This isn’t negative, this is a constructive conversation? Blame the game, not the player.
Disagreeing to help someone on a topic they ask for help on can also be seen as negative, disagreeing with anyone can be seen as negative. I’m not trying to be rude or negative, am I? We’re both trying to get a point across, throwing “insults” (for lack of a better word) around because somebody doesn’t believe in an opinion gets nowhere.
Even if the TOS could technically get away with this through some magic loophole I don’t know about, think about this:
You’re making a lootbox that has a 99% chance of you getting NOTHING, full stop. Mind you, a lot of children play this game, so they’ll end up spending money like it’s no big deal. Guess what, most of the time (if not all the time), they’ll just end up throwing their parent’s hard earned money away, and they won’t receive ANYTHING that was promised from the loot box unless they hit that 1%, which is very, very slim.
So yeah, this lootbox is basically nothing more than a money-sucking device. Do you want to continue supporting this?
1 Like
I don’t support it, just answering the question :))
Preston already does (stuff like) this on a daily basis so…
1 Like
At least Preston gives out something all the time with his products, unlike the lootbox.
If I know anything about Roblox developers, if you tell them it’s possible, they will do it. OP won’t realize if it’s illegal until they get banned for trying the technique (unless roblox decides they like this new idea)
2 Likes
People of devforum, I am not asking about your opinion on it. Stop debating the ethics of it in here. As I’ve stated, many games already give people trash common items which are immediately discarded after being acquired. Is there any ToS basis that says I cannot substitute “common useless item” for “nothing” is the question that should be answered here.
4 Likes
That’s what I thought as well. It only says the odds should be properly listed, it doesn’t say that the player must always be rewarded with an item. That being said, the entire policy page is called “Random Virtual Items”, so one could argue that “Nothing” is not an item (even though, as I’ve said, giving them an useless item is such an easy bypass on this lol).
My guy, you’re wasting 2 dollars for pixels regardless, and with the probabilities properly shown to the user, you’re wasting those 2 bucks knowing that you might get trash. This is already applied in virtually every lootbox on the platform.
99% nothing and 1% something still adds up to 100. although, do read what i said above, you could argue that the term “random virtual items” implies that “nothing” is not an item.
they won’t receive ANYTHING that was promised from the loot box unless they hit that 1%, which is very, very slim.
They will be receiving what was promised, given the 99% probability of getting nothing would be properly displayed. That’s what they paid for, a 99% chance of getting nothing.
You may have found a loophole in the system. If you believe this is right, go for it.
If you make it big, Roblox won’t touch you, so until then, keep a low profile.
2 Likes
That’s only going to make the gambling aspect of your lootbox more obvious. Good luck getting players from Europe with that strat if you decide to follow through with it. After all, they only make up the microscopic number of 21.7 million people playing.
But that doesn’t matter. Clearly you’re set to do 
great things and become a great capitalist one of these days. Perhaps ask @BuildIntoGames if he’s hiring?
2 Likes
For this policy, the Terms of Use describes a situation where we “provide an opportunity” for users to receive a random item. The definition for a virtual item also claims that each one “may” be acquired.
The only thing I see that could argue that this must always award some kind of item is this:
before a User engages in the transaction to acquire a Random Virtual Item.
This in the sentence about disclosing odds. It’s possible that a lack of reward separates the current transaction away from the random item policy because no item was received.
1 Like
The main post is asking whether or not this violates ToS, why is there so much toxicity in this thread.
2 Likes
This is fair enough. The overall wording on this section of the ToU does read to me as that there is a “guaranteed” random item implied. Although they could’ve been more specific with it.
That’s awesome honestly, gonna set it as my bio
1 Like
Situations like this is exactly why judges exist in real life.
The law can’t cover every scenario and is open to interpretation in some cases, so we have people who are tasked to evaluate law and deliver justice.
6 Likes