Valve Faces Second, Class-Action Lawsuit Over Loot Boxes (pcgamer.com) 110
Valve is facing a new consumer class-action lawsuit two weeks after New York sued the video game company for "letting children and adults illegally gamble" with loot boxes. The new lawsuit is similar, alleging that loot boxes in games like Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2 are "carefully engineered to extract money from consumers, including children, through deceptive, casino-style psychological tactics."
"We believe Valve deliberately engineered its gambling platform and profited enormously from it," Steve Berman, founder and managing partner at law firm Hagens Berman, said in a press release. "Consumers played these games for entertainment, unaware that Valve had allegedly already stacked the odds against them. We intend to hold Valve accountable and put money back in the pockets of consumers." PC Gamer reports: The system is well known to anyone who's played a Valve multiplayer game: Earn a locked loot box by playing, pay $2.50 for a key, unlock it, get a digital doohickey that's sometimes worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars but far more often is worth just a few pennies. Is that gambling? If these cases go to court, we'll find out.
The full complaint points out that the unlocking process is even designed to look like a slot machine: "Images of possible items scroll across the screen, spinning fast at first, then slowing to a stop on the player's 'prize.' Players buy and open loot boxes for the same reason people play slot machines -- the hope of a valuable payout." Loot boxes, the complaint continues, are not "incidental features" of Valve's games, but rather "a deliberate, carefully engineered revenue model." So too is the Steam Community Market, and Steam itself, which the suit claims is "deliberately designed" to enable the sale of digital items on third-party marketplaces through "trade URLs," despite Valve's terms of service prohibiting off-platform sales.
And while the debate over whether loot boxes constitute a form of gambling continues to rage, the suit claims Valve's system does indeed qualify under Washington law, which defines gambling as "staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence." "Valve's loot boxes satisfy every element of this definition," the lawsuit alleges. "Users stake money (the price of a key) on the outcome of a contest of chance (the random selection of a virtual item), and the items received are 'things of value' under RCW 9.46.0285 because they can be sold for real money through Valve's own marketplace and through third-party marketplaces that Valve has fostered and facilitated."
"We believe Valve deliberately engineered its gambling platform and profited enormously from it," Steve Berman, founder and managing partner at law firm Hagens Berman, said in a press release. "Consumers played these games for entertainment, unaware that Valve had allegedly already stacked the odds against them. We intend to hold Valve accountable and put money back in the pockets of consumers." PC Gamer reports: The system is well known to anyone who's played a Valve multiplayer game: Earn a locked loot box by playing, pay $2.50 for a key, unlock it, get a digital doohickey that's sometimes worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars but far more often is worth just a few pennies. Is that gambling? If these cases go to court, we'll find out.
The full complaint points out that the unlocking process is even designed to look like a slot machine: "Images of possible items scroll across the screen, spinning fast at first, then slowing to a stop on the player's 'prize.' Players buy and open loot boxes for the same reason people play slot machines -- the hope of a valuable payout." Loot boxes, the complaint continues, are not "incidental features" of Valve's games, but rather "a deliberate, carefully engineered revenue model." So too is the Steam Community Market, and Steam itself, which the suit claims is "deliberately designed" to enable the sale of digital items on third-party marketplaces through "trade URLs," despite Valve's terms of service prohibiting off-platform sales.
And while the debate over whether loot boxes constitute a form of gambling continues to rage, the suit claims Valve's system does indeed qualify under Washington law, which defines gambling as "staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence." "Valve's loot boxes satisfy every element of this definition," the lawsuit alleges. "Users stake money (the price of a key) on the outcome of a contest of chance (the random selection of a virtual item), and the items received are 'things of value' under RCW 9.46.0285 because they can be sold for real money through Valve's own marketplace and through third-party marketplaces that Valve has fostered and facilitated."
OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Like buying or selling stock options.
Re: (Score:1)
Its ambulance chasing. Just like all those 'news' stories about firms seeking clients for class-actions against companies whose stock price drops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The reality of target markets. (Score:3)
Or Pokemon or Chuck e Cheese
Not sure about the latest odds on Chuck E Cheese playing your favorite song next, but I can tell you there are plenty of people in this world right now wholly addicted to gambling their money away chasing Pokemon profits under the guise of "collecting".
That ain't no kids game anymore. And while the problem of gambling addiction isn't childish, it's certainly being abused to target children. And their parents.
Re: (Score:2)
"Like buying or selling stock options."
No, because the stock is not contingent. You know what the stock is, and you own it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see your confusion. You don't know what options are.
"Zoidy wanna buy on margin!"
Re: (Score:2)
Buying options contracts is not buying on margin.
Re: (Score:2)
My error was that I failed to see the "options" after the word "stock" and responded to the wrong claim.
That's said, the form of my argument still holds. When you buy a stock option, you get the options contract. The value of an options contract is a well defined function of stock price, so it is no more contingent than the stock itself. And again, any change in value happens after you own the stock option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The *return* on a bet is a function of the final score. The value of the bet at the time of the bet cannot depends on the final score because it is not just unknown but unknowable at the time of the bet. You can't compute an expected value for a sports bet at any point in time.
Re: (Score:2)
This is something Warren Buffett let's slip. The majority of his income doesn't come from trading stocks it comes from owning stocks. But that is really only effective if you can own a shit ton of them. This is why you see people who make money on the stock market being day traders a
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of his income doesn't come from trading stocks it comes from owning stocks. But that is really only effective if you can own a shit ton of them
I don't know what you'd call significant income, but I had an essentially non-managed mutual fund account with only $100,000 and it earned close to $18,000 last year. That's higher than most years, but it doesn't take really that much money to turn it into significant income.
Re: (Score:2)
When they say stock options, they don't mean the option an employer gives you to buy stock. They're talking about stock-derivative instruments where you buy the right to either purchase or sell a stock at a certain price on a future date. A put (sell) option is straightforwardly a bet against the future value of that company's stock, while a call (buy) option is a bet in support of the future value of that stock, without even putting down enough cash to actually buy the shares today.
Remember also that pur
Re: (Score:2)
You're being dishonest, you cut out the very thing that would have pointed you to evidence that buying or selling stock options is not gambling. The "outcome" is not based on a contest of chance, and your future value is influenced by the information available to you at the time of purchase of stocks.
If you think stocks are gambling, then please don't invest in stocks since you're doing it very wrong. Stocks are a risk based game, and if you're not managing the risk through making yourself informed then you
Re: (Score:2)
If "contest of chance" were the only relevant determinant, betting on horse races and sporting events wouldn't be considered gambling. In both cases, the "future value is influenced by the information available to you [and your bookie ] at the time of purchase".
"Stocks are a risk based game" in the exact same way gambling is. Hedging your investments is fundamentally similar in structure to hedging your bets at the local sportbook. The primary difference is supposed to be that stock valuation is based on
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Betting on horses is for all but the rarest of cases a bunch of people looking at a prancing pony or guessing how good it'll be based on a name. The gambling aspect of it is consumer based and information based. There is very little information published on horses, while there is extensive information published on public companies, and the ownership of those stocks gives you an actual meaningful say in that company (which is why you get voting forms prior to AGMs for companies in which you hol
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I have "ever actually owned stock" and continue to do so. Do you repeatedly ask others that question to cover for your limited experience in the area? Or is it just a smokescreen for your arguments being plainly self-insufficient?
The information available differs only in degree, and one that varies tremendously across all the various sports you attempted to sleight-of-hand away by focusing on horse racing. It should go without saying that there is a ton of information a corporation will not and canno
Gonna sue all burger joints (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
still not gambling (Score:3, Insightful)
Steve Berman, is a certified retarded piss baby who does not understand the basic definition of gambling. In order to be gambling, Valve would need to "buy" the loot box item back off the player and give the player cash.
Loot boxes are not gambling.
Opening TCG booster packs (Pokemon, Magic: The Gathering, etc) is not gambling.
Coin operated random candy/toy dispensers are not gambling.
Games of chance do not equate to gambling. Slot machines, poker, are not inherently gambling if there is no possibility of the one who is taking money paying it back out (or if no money is involved at all). Kids playing poker for candy doesn't constitute gambling.
The existence of a secondary market, made up entirely of the players, who are willing to pay ridiculous prices for dumb looking knife skins is not Valve's problem.
Likewise, Washington's law is both too broad (as it can be applied to McDonald's happy meal toys and the stock market if it can be applied to Valve) and not applicable in this case. You are not staking or risking anything. You are paying for something that has no value (key) for a random virtual item that also has no value (skins). The fact that a 3rd party is willing to pay for it, does not give the item value.
Now, don't get me wrong, loot boxes and skins in general is exactly what is wrong with pretty much all F2P games. Too much time and attention goes into continuing to create skins that people will want to buy so the company can make money instead of improving/fixing the game - looking at you Riot Games.
Re:still not gambling (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no reason to believe Valve would have to buy back the prize for it to be gambling. I don't know why you think that.
Re: (Score:1)
using the dictionary to make arguments over anything besides the dictionary definition is useless and borderline bad faith
the law does not use the dictionary! it's informed by the definition but it is not the same.
please everyone stop doing this, it makes you look completely unserious.
Re: (Score:2)
using the dictionary to make arguments over anything besides the dictionary definition
We are literally talking about the definition of words here.
Re: (Score:3)
using the dictionary to make arguments over anything besides the dictionary definition
We are literally talking about the definition of words here.
When it comes to the problems of gambling and addiction, we're talking about a hell of a lot more than mere definitions that have been warped by lawyers sponsored by The House.
Perhaps we should actually think of the children. Because the grown-ass child who became a gambling addict at 14 will care about definitions about as much as an alcoholic cares about sobriety.
Re: (Score:1)
As for myself, there are too many games. I just avoid the ones with loot boxes, there are better games available.
Re: (Score:3)
Do loot boxes lead to gambling addiction? If there is data on that topic, I'd like to see it.
They don't. Mental health issues lead to gambling addiction. Those exact same mental health issues lead to people "gambling" on loot boxes or gacha games (Genshin). And some developers even abuse that fact - mostly pay-to-win games and games with loot box items that alter gameplay in some way.
So, if we are to actually "think of the children" as geekmux suggests, then the correct option isn't to punish Valve for something they have little control over outside of banning trades or getting rid of the boxes alt
Re: (Score:1)
Do loot boxes lead to gambling addiction? If there is data on that topic, I'd like to see it.
They don't. Mental health issues lead to gambling addiction. Those exact same mental health issues lead to people "gambling" on loot boxes or gacha games (Genshin). And some developers even abuse that fact - mostly pay-to-win games and games with loot box items that alter gameplay in some way.
So, if we are to actually "think of the children" as geekmux suggests, then the correct option isn't to punish Valve for something they have little control over outside of banning trades or getting rid of the boxes altogether..
I'll just stop you right there since you just identified exactly what can be done as a quick fix to this. When they refuse to take away the loot boxes, you will then know exactly how deluded you are about clutching onto definition semantics while the gambling junkie in the corner itching for another spin tweaks and twitches on pure denial.
WHY do you think we don't allow 12 year olds throwing down chips on the tables in Vegas? Is it purely because "mental health", or is there just maybe another massively i
Re: (Score:3)
I'll just stop you right there since you just identified exactly what can be done as a quick fix to this.
But it ISN'T a fix because it doesn't solve the underlying problems. And just unfairly takes away the loot boxes from the people who have self-control. 12yr olds don't have credit cards or jobs. If 12yr olds are "gambling" on loot boxes, then that's a talking to mommy and daddy. Plenty of people are capable of using loot boxes as they are intended without gambling behavior. And plenty of people are capable of ignore loot boxes altogether. This lawsuit has nothing to do with children and everything to do wit
Re: still not gambling (Score:2)
Anyone can publish a dictionary, you don't even have to be a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
intent of winning something else of value
You are neither "winning" anything by opening a loot box, nor gaining something of value. The intent is to pay for a randomized item (skin) to use in the game - and hopefully you get the one that you think is really cool looking.
consideration (an amount wagered)
Nothing. The purchasing of the key does not count as an amount wagered, or consideration, nor does the key count as having any value.
a prize
The results of a loot box does not equate to a prize. And even if it would equate to a prize, similarly to a key, said result has no official monetary
Re: (Score:2)
You are neither "winning" anything by opening a loot box
OK, you are just dumb lol.
When you open a loot box, you are winning something. Turn your brain on, you're not actually as dumb as you seem.
Re:still not gambling (Score:4, Insightful)
When you open a loot box, you are winning something.
No, you aren't. Winning means the possibility of losing. You open a loot box, you obtain something. There is no lose. You always get something. Everyone is a "winner" - some just win harder than others. If there was also the possibility of opening the loot box and receiving absolutely nothing, then you're argument (and this retard lawyer's) would hold some water.
Re: (Score:2)
your* god damnit. Clicked too fast.
Re: (Score:1)
Why not go after Activision Blizzard for Diablo or EA for FIFA?...If, because the secondary market exists, individuals decide to engage in gambling-like behaviors, that is the individuals' problem - not Valve's.
Yeah, you're basically just a tool for Valve. There's no point in discussing it with you, because you will defend Valve no matter what, even if you know you are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with Valve. I'll defend any company's loot boxes as NOT gambling. Or at the very least, the company is not complicit in any gambling that may or may not be happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. They're generally a scam and distract company resources from fixing bugs and improving the base game. I would never open any with the intent on trying to make a profit. If I am going to open them, it's so I can enjoy the contents for myself. And I will open them in games that give you both the loot box and the keys via normal gameplay.
If there is a chance for someone to make what seems like a significant amount of money, then there will be people who make very bad decisions trying to get that money. T
Re: (Score:2)
So if you run a casino, and every time someone loses you give them a lollipop--then it's no longer gambling?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that a third party or secondary market is willing to buy/trade it does give it value by definition. Subjective value is still value.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in context of Valve, Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2.
Re:still not gambling (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot dispute your "is not gambling" arguments... because you did not make any.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure did. But I'll boil it down for those too stupid to read: paying for a random result does not automatically constitute gambling.
Re: (Score:1)
You're shit at reading.
Re: (Score:2)
For the purposes of a lawsuit it's obviously the statutory definition that ends up mattering; but those typically offend common sense in one way or another, at least after the more cynical types build businesses carefully structured to demonstrate the holes(hey! did you know that you are a degenerate booki
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care. We need a hard definition on what is, or isn't, gambling as well as a hard definition on *who* is facilitating said gambling. Not a mismatch of random laws in different states/countries that all try and define gambling poorly or too broadly.
So, here is what the definition for gambling *should* be:
-Money, or a representation of it, is wagered
-A defined game of chance is played, with rules on what constitutes a "win", "loss", or, when appropriate, a "tie"
-The game's operator, or owner, pays out
Re: (Score:2)
Why is wagering cash directly 'gambling; but exchanging cash for nonrefundable WagerBucks that are only used for wagering just prior to wagering not gambling? It's true that being nonrefundable makes WagerBucks no longer a strict representation of cash; but that's sort of like saying that things you buy with gift cards are part of the barter economy because gift cards can't be cashed out.
I'm also unclear on point 2: people can certainly gamble on games that are directly adversarial and h
Re: (Score:3)
but that's sort of like saying that things you buy with gift cards are part of the barter economy because gift cards can't be cashed out.
They essentially are. The business already got the money "on" it. And likewise, you generally can't trade the items you get from a gift card back into cash directly.
but there's an entire category where all outcomes are wins of varying sizes(like the 'ticket' machines where you always get at least a tiny trickle of output per play; but the actual prizes are hundreds or thousands of tickets; a loss state is clearly implied by the valuation but denied by the rules; most lootboxes are this way since they are never genuinely empty.
Not gambling. You ALWAYS win some amount of tickets. And prizes cannot be directly traded for money. You'd have to sell it to someone else. If you can play ticket games, win the PS5 or whatever expensive item they have, sell it, AND make a profit - more power to you. If you can only pull it off like 10% of the time, and are in debt because of it
Re: (Score:1)
Valve would need to "buy" the loot box item back off the player and give the player cash.
They wouldn't. You only need a mechanism to convert the item to cash. Valve provides precisely that which is fundamentally why this is gambling. You give money to get something of random and unknown value in real cash terms.
Re: (Score:2)
No. None of that has anything to do with how gambling works.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes it does. Something with no monetary value isn't covered by any gambling regulation. The existence of a trading market place with actual value is what separates lootboxes that fall afoul of gambling laws from lootboxes that offer things such as random non-tradable cosmetics.
Without a trading mechanism you're not gambling as you have no gains. That's is a core tenant to gambling laws - the ability to gain monetary reward from chance.
Re: (Score:2)
That's is a core tenant to gambling laws - the ability to gain monetary reward from chance.
...from the same source that you paid. Valve is not doing the money reward, so nothing you are saying matters. It doesn't matter what argument you make. Nothing you say will suddenly make these skins have real, legal, monetary value. Nothing you say is going to change the fact that Valve is not the one giving monetary rewards, because there is no monetary reward. They paid for a random skin, they got a random skin. End of Valve's involvement. You choosing to trade that skin away for money is YOUR prerogativ
Re: (Score:2)
Opening TCG booster packs (Pokemon, Magic: The Gathering, etc) is not gambling.
Really? How about we not do a piss-poor job of excusing the harm with bullshit definitions and legalese loopholes, and let's have a good hard look at the end result instead.
Is the scratch-off junkie addicted to games of chance where you are chasing a prize reward, actually different from the Pokemon junkie addicted to ripping packs chasing the prized card, with the end GOAL being the exact same (money/profit)?
Put those two in a rehab facility after they've gambled away their life savings and bring in the e
Re: (Score:1)
Because what you are describing is a behavior problem of the individual and has nothing to do with the systems they use. These people have mental health issues that will lead them to problematic gambling behavior anywhere and with anything. These types of people also "gamble" on the stock markets, the results of reality TV shows, awards shows, election outcomes, etc.
Just because someone CAN gamble on "something" doesn't inherently make the "something" gambling. That's my whole point. The intent with loot bo
Re: still not gambling (Score:2)
The existence of a secondary market, made up entirely of the players, who are willing to pay ridiculous prices for dumb looking knife skins is not Valve's problem.
There's a marketplace literally built in to Steam. Not as popular as the third party ones, but it's there.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a marketplace literally built in to Steam. Not as popular as the third party ones, but it's there.
Irrelevant.
This will be a measure of jury intelligence (Score:3)
By the logic used by both the AG and this firm, every collectible card system is also gambling.
That includes baseball cards that my '46 Boomer dad grew up collecting.
Valve should mock the crap out of this buy just buying a collection of MTG, Pokemon, baseball cards, Marvel trading cards and random blind bags from 5 and Below, toss them at the jury and say "is this gambling too?"
Re: (Score:2)
"every collectible card system is also gambling. That includes baseball cards that my '46 Boomer dad grew up collecting."
In an original sale: no because you always receive a nominal value card. The nominal value is not contingent and the change in value occurs after you own own it.
In the secondary market: also no, because you know what card you are getting and that value is also not contingent.
It's exactly the same dynamic as collectible cards (Score:2)
I bought a ton of collectible cards when I was in middle school. I lost track of the number of times the value of the cards was worth even as much as the price paid for the pack.
Loot boxes are the same dynamic as long as they give something of intrinsic value in the game.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC it's not "if it's of value in the game" but rather "if it can be sold for money". I'll admit I'm not quite sure what "money" means in that context, but it is "something of value outside the game".
Re: (Score:2)
"Loot boxes are the same dynamic"
A card pack has some number of cards and the manufacturer claims such. If it did not have that number of cards you can claim that the product is faulty. There is a value that can be placed on it even before opening. If you paid more than that value that does not make it gambling.
A loot box may have nothing. As least with a slot machine the probability of winning outcomes is regulated and tested.
Valve loot boxes don't work that way (Score:2)
A quick search on Google and Gemini responded that you're wrong on this with Valve games. They always have give an item to the buyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Loot boxes ARE the same except the nominal value is 0 and it stays 0. Loot boxes (that cost money) ALWAYS give you something. It may be something you don't want. But they follow carnival game rules "step right up, step right up, EVERYone is a winner" - it just depends on luck on how much of a winner.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
By the logic used by both the AG and this firm, every collectible card system is also gambling.
That includes baseball cards that my '46 Boomer dad grew up collecting.
Only if you pay money and have no idea what card you're going to get or its value. That is an aspect of collecting baseball cards and guess what, it is considered a form of gambling. You may have noticed that a lot of companies involved in this practice are currently waging a marketing campaign to convince people it's not gambling. Why do you think that may be? Hint: Regulators have taken notice.
Loot boxes are gambling (Score:3)
really ? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's interesting to see people DEFEND loot boxes. What are you? Retarded?
Loot boxes are pure exploitation and are intentionally designed to your disadvantage and the advantage of the company. The only honest defense of them is to reveal what most of us suspect already: That they aren't really random, but run by carefully engineered algorithms to maximize the company profits, in which case they might dodge the label "gambling" and exchange it for "scam".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
McDonald's Monopoly pieces are not gambling because you have to answer a skill-testing question to get the prize. Therefore it is a contest of skill.
Pokemon cards are different because while you don't know what you will get, the Pokemon Company is not running a built-in marketplace for you to immediately sell and convert that item into cash.
Whether these are relevant for this legal distinction, I have no idea. I guess the lawyers will have to hash it out so they can decide who gets to take their cut.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't go to McDonalds so I don't have enough information to answer to the 2nd.
On the first two, IMHO: The "blind bags" are not gambling because at least the ones I know contain a given value of items (+/- a bit) you just don't know which ones. And in no case would you get an empty bad.
For CCG I wouldn't even claim that they aren't gambling. It's somewhere on the edge because what you get has a utility value - you can play a game with the cards. And rare cards are often better cards for the game as well. S
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Loot boxes are 100% garbage and shitty, but I will still defend that they are NOT gambling. They are a essentially a digital carnival game, except you don't get to actively participate in any way. Pay up front, get random result that isn't money. Just because there are a handful of people willing to pay exorbitant prices for carnival prize item doesn't carnival is now responsible for gambling.
Is it a scam? Maybe. It's something. But it isn't gambling just because some people use them to gamble.
and what's with the name? (Score:3)
[grumpy old man voice] If you don't gotta destroy somefing to get it, it ain't loot.
The only thing getting looted is the player's pocketbook.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you define gambling then?
I would argue that the payout does not have to be cash. If you and me play russian roulette, I'd argue that we gamble. We risk something and the outcome is determined by chance.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This guy gets it.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, got it. So the argument is basically: "Sure it's gambling and addictive as shit, we intentionally made it that way. It's just not that specific type of gambling that the law makes illegal."
Re: (Score:2)
No. More like users are taking something that isn't meant to be gambling, and then gambling with it anyway. There is nothing interesting or particularly addictive about opening loot boxes themselves. They are more addicted to the knowledge that IF they get that magical lucky pull someone out there will give them a stupid amount of money.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing interesting or particularly addictive about opening loot boxes themselves.
recent studies [nih.gov] beg to differ [mqmentalhealth.org].
These and others show a strong correlation between lootboxes and problematic gambling i.e. gambling addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the NIH didn't actually do a real study and based everything off of "Results from a Cross-Sectional Online Survey" - which is essentially useless. And the other study "highlights how anxiety and impulsivity appear to strengthen the connection between risky loot box purchases and gambling-related symptoms, while depression has a more mixed effect." Which is exactly what I've been saying, the people gambling on loot boxes have mental health issues and need help.
Loot boxes do not cause gambling addition
Re: (Score:2)
Except the NIH didn't actually do a real study and based everything off of "Results from a Cross-Sectional Online Survey" - which is essentially useless.
Someone get this one a soft chair to drop into and explain how many real studies are based on surveys.
Loot boxes do not cause gambling addition. People susceptible to gambling addiction (or just addictions in general), or those with mental health issues, are more likely to gamble with loot boxes (or anything else).
Susceptible people are exactly who need protection.
We don't make scams legal because people could just be more careful, do we?
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need protection. They need help.
Taking away a singular loaded gun from someone who wants to kill themselves doesn't stop them from killing themselves when they have 16 other weapons available. Same goes with people with gambling problems. Taking away one of their sources of gambling doesn't stop them from gambling and ruining their lives. Getting rid of loot boxes protects no one while accomplishing nothing in regards to these people and their problems. In fact, getting rid of loot boxes is just
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
a couple seconds with Google would have given you answers. Here's a meta study that is pretty clear: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov]
So yes, consensus among people doing research into this area is that it's problematic and it's gambling.
Has anyone here actually had that feeling? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Despite every rational reason to stay hidden, Jeffrey Epstein's gaming accounts are active and making purchases from an IP that surprises noone.
Then again the poster boy for the most horrific addictions might be an outlier.
I'll Happily Debate the "Gambling" Aspect, but... (Score:3)
The "think of the children" aspect is ridiculous on its face.
Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2 are "carefully engineered to extract money from consumers, including children
How much money do children have? Don't you think that a purported evil gambling company (Valve?) would know that children don't have much money at all, let alone access to their own credit cards with which to purchase in-game currency?
Can we just drop that charade and say what's really going on:
1. Some ADULT MEN gambled a large amount of money using a combination of in-game currency and money-laundering sites
2. Valve crashed that illicit economy by making it easier to obtain previously rare in-game items (https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikestubbs/2025/10/23/valve-just-crashed-the-high-end-counter-strike-skins-market/)
3. Those ADULT MEN are now they're angry.
What's that? Some children have stolen their parents' credit cards and used them online? Wow... has that ONLY happened with Valve loot boxes or has it happened with Amazon purchases, porn sites, etc.? Ya... That's a parent-child issue and not a gambling concern worthy of months of litigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether it's gambling or not doesn't depend on who actual
Re:I'll Happily Debate the "Gambling" Aspect, but. (Score:4, Informative)
How much money do children have?
You're joking right? The number you're looking for is an average of around $40/month from those under the age of 18 who participate in games that have in app purchases. It's a fucking HUUUUUUGE industry. It's not the children's money. That doesn't mean it isn't being spent. Your argument is like saying why does McDonalds offer Happymeals if children don't have jobs and can't afford burgers.
And in any case you miss the wider point of the "think of the children" part. We have a huge abundance of evidence that getting addicted to the concept of a chance reward system leads to gambling and higher spending later in life. Exposing children to games of chance is objectively and verifiably bad in many ways which is precisely *why* it is regulated.
2. Valve crashed that illicit economy
Your conspiracy fails in the fact that Valve has been in the crosshairs of both regulators and consumer interest groups LONG before their recent system change.
2018: Valve got fucked by the regulators in the Netherlands for their lootboxes.
2022: Valve got fucked by the courts in Washington for their lootboxes.
2023: Valve got fucked by the courts in Austria for their lootboxes.
2024: Australian government introduces regulations on lootboxes citing specifically Valve's implementation as a target.
2024: South Korea's GRAC took action against valve on lootboxes.
Pretending this is all because a few people lost money when Valve changed the rules in 2025 is just complete and total ignorance of what has been going on in this space in the past decade.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Some ADULT MEN are making a large amount of money using a combination of peddling in-game currency and running money-laundering sites
2. Governments around the world crashed that illicit economy by opening criminal investigations into their activities, and passing legislation banning the exploitative practices.
3. Those ADULT MEN are now they're angry. Because they want to continue exploiting kids and their parents for profit with their over-addictive scam.
Can we just drop that charade and say what's really going on
Sure, I just did. Now it's your turn: Why are you so upset about this? Do you feel that you are being threatened by this action? Why are you so quick to dismiss this as a personal fault of those affected by these "ADULT MEN"?
Re: (Score:2)
From the press release:
But they can have significant monetary value. Rare items from Counter-Strike alone have sold for thousands of dollars on third-party marketplaces, and the overall market for Counter-Strike skins has been estimated at more than $4 billion.
Nearly every user who opens a loot box receives an item worth far less than the price of the key. For example, a user who pays $2.71 to open a Counter-Strike weapons case will almost certainly receive a skin worth only a few cents — an item that could have been purchased directly for a fraction of the cost. But the remote chance of winning an item worth hundreds or thousands of dollars is what drives users to keep spending, just as with a slot machine or lottery ticket.
No loot box items have monetary value because the policy prohibits transacting digital items for real currency. One NEEDS to participate in an illicit market to turn an item into currency.
Why are you so upset about this?
I'm not "upset", per se. I just don't tolerate wrapping less popular causes in more popular causes. The goal of this lawsuit is to punish Valve for their part in crashing illicit market that I described. The "think of the children" call to action is to distract from this.
Do you feel that you are being threatened by this action?
Nope. I've never purchased a
What about blind bags and card decks? (Score:2)
Extremely Selective Enforcement (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Until then, no. There is a value in those physical items that the loot boxes do not possess, and that can't be revoked or significantly altered on the whim of it's manufacturer. Those physical items also tend to have a stabl
Chuck E Cheese Immunity (Score:1)
This fact is why Chuck E Cheese and countless arcades around the nation can get away with so-called gambling, because the prizes are not actual money. CEC has made it so that there are even more s
Two things (Score:1)
First: Valve loot boxes are unequivocally gambling
Second: the lawsuit will fail because
a) Valve will engage persuasive barristers who can convince the jury
b) the jury will have many people who look down upon the various people who are suckered by the loot boxes
c) in looking down upon them, they will vote against them i.e. in favour of Valve
Re: (Score:2)
Valve loot boxes are unequivocally gambling
In order to be a gamble, there must be the ability to lose. There is no losing at opening a loot box, no matter what personal goals people may place on themselves when opening them. Not getting the item you want is not losing. Not getting the most expensive item is not losing. Getting your 32nd copy of a common skin is still not losing. And since there is no possibility of opening an empty loot box, there is no possibility of losing. The player does not get to decide what counts as a win or a loss.
Players t