Yes, both now and as a young kid.
Back in the day, if me and my little brother opened three ore more booster packs of the same set, we were hoping we wouldn’t get the same card 3+ times, since we both disliked duplicates.
Greetz,
Quuador
QotD: Do you consider the act of purchasing and opening of Pokemon booster packs a form of gambling?
3 Likes
The answer is dependent on the intention of the buyer, and this is why TPCi have been so successful at monetizing addiction through combining a quality IP with a hybrid version of gambling.
On the one hand, they promise to provide an exact number of cards for an exact value which is a promise fulfilled in 100% of transactions, assuming we ignore unintentional error packs. The buyer is therefore not gambling on the quantity of the product received. On the other hand, the cards are randomized and the Pokémon Company makes no guarantee of exactly which types and rarities of cards will be received through the purchase of each pack.
If one person buys Pokémon booster packs because they simply want to own as many cards as possible (by which I mean the literal number of cards overall, not the number of unique cards), then it cannot be defined as gambling, because the purchasing party has achieved their goal through the transaction; they bought 10 Pokémon cards. The randomized nature of the cards in this instance is irrelevant.
But. The majority of people obviously do not buy them with this goal in mind. They buy them in the hope to gain something of as high a collectible or monetary value as possible. Because hope and uncertainty is involved, TPCi have therefore facilitated gambling through the purchase of their product. In this instance, it meets the definition of gambling.
Because TPC do not dictate the desires and goals of their buyers, they can present one of the seemingly most innocent forms of gambling the world has seen, particularly as it’s primarily aimed at children. The reality is that this method of corporate enterprise is really quite insidious; TPC can claim that they do not dictate the desires and goals of their TCG buyers while inherently (and strongly) influencing it through the core design of the product.
6 Likes
Assuming that Pokemon would be classified as gambling (in one way or another), the only time it doesn’t feel this way for me, or at least not in the same manner as modern packs, are vintage and generally older packs.
With older packs, I enjoy grading whatever common I get (if I think it has a shot at a 10) and generally value the experience and nostalgia even if I didn’t pull anything. A random clean reverse holo from the DP era does more to me than a modern vmax, ex, and needless to say, the boring rare holos and reverses we get now.
With newer sets, you always either feel happy for a pull, or bitter for not having pulled anything, and I just can’t imagine feeling the same sense of enjoyment for today’s sets 20 years from now, the way I do for packs from 20 years ago.
TLDR: Personally, newer sets are like slots, and older sets are like a good round of roulette or poker with your friends. With the latter, I’d be much more tolerant towards losses, even if the buy-in is higher.
2 Likes
As someone who is an active sports gambler, it is absolutely gambling. My success rate with 8 leg parlays (statistically significant fail rate) is much higher than my success rate of pulling cards of value. Statistically speaking, it’s more viable to put my money into gambling versus ripping packs. I only rip packs out of the sheer love of the game 
3 Likes
For vintage packs I consider it gambling. For modern packs it feels like I’m just straight up lighting money on fire.
10 Likes
Totally gambling.
At least with Japanese booster boxes I have RR/SR or SAR/AR garunteees even though each rarity has its own potential prize pool. The potential SAR or double hit box for reg sets or god packs in special sets are the minor and major jackpots people hope for.
English though, I pull 20 packs max out of a set for the culture and then do single purchases for all the stuff I actually wanted.
The exception was Prismatic. Ripped 87 packs all at MSRP and got no SAR. Never again…probably
1 Like
I’m pretty sure I had an unpopular opinion post that it is gambling and going beyond that into shady business practices since their pull rates have never been disclosed and it is primarily marketed toward children.
If Belgium and the Netherlands (I think) have banned gacha games, TCGs - not just Pokemon - fit the criteria and do any of them actually publish pull rates in English? I guess MTG and many others could get away with saying their product is targeted at adults but Pokemon fails that test.
My main issue in the SWSH era (and looking back the SM era as well) was that there really was zero guarantees of what would be in the booster box. They have fixed it for the most part in SV since it is pretty standard now if not official.
Still, I am not a gambler and I consider packs gambling since the actually chance you hit something is minuscule. It’s not even hoping for a hit, but specific cards. At least with the release of Pocket I can open packs for free and feel the same disappointment lol.
1 Like
I would consider it to undoubtedly be gambling.
However, as far as gambling goes (granted, I never gambled outside of opening Pokemon packs), I think opening packs is somewhat clandestine relative to something like slots for two primary reasons: 1) it (and by extension tcgs) are relatively new, and thus haven’t been as legally regulated nor culturally ingrained; and 2) even if you don’t pull the “chase card,” you’ll at least get something.
While I believe that purchasing anything that only has the chance to get you what you truly desire is inherently a gamble, I can see why everyone may not concur that purchasing packs for fun rather than as an investment is gambling in the traditional sense (I.e., associating it with any negative connotations there forth).
1 Like
I think partly it has to do with the amount of effort it takes to open a pack starting from zero (at home). But with the advent of WhatNot, YouTube, Twitch, TikTok breakers, I wonder if we might see other effects closer to gambling addiction.
1 Like
Yes
2 Likes
I concur that the relatively high availability (and low financial barrier of entry) of Pokemon packs absolutely can and perhaps do contribute to gambling addictions. I appreciate your further insight on it!
1 Like
To me it all comes down to intentions. If you do buy packs in hopes of getting a particular pull (and especially if you spend a fortune in the process), then to me that is more on the gambling side. But if you’re just buying it for fun with no cares for what gets pulled (or say you give the pulls away to other people), then to me that would be less on the gambling side.
1 Like
In my opinion, yes it is gambling.
You pay money, lose it 99% of the time but that 1% gives you such a dopamine hit that you do it again (LiTeRaLlY sHaKiNg RiGhT nOw). It’s a slot machine.
3 Likes
In some circumstances it is more for nostalgia, or for science to determine where different prints originate from. Majority of people seem to do it for gambling.
2 Likes
My quick fire answer would be yes. Given the amount of money you can spend, and the rollercoaster of emotions it can lead to, then yes.
1 Like
A booster pack is intended to be opened by a tcg player to “boost” the strength of their decks. In theory, no it’s not gambling. In practice, its very much gambling lol.
3 Likes