Valve compares its loot boxes to Labubus in lawsuit defense
Last month, the New York Attorney General (NYAG) brought a lawsuit against Valve accusing the company of promoting “illegal gambling” through its randomized in-game loot boxes. On Wednesday, Valve issued its first public comment on the case, comparing its digital loot boxes to randomized real-world purchases like blind-bagged toys or packs of trading cards.“Generations have grown up opening baseball card packs and blind boxes and bags, and then trading and selling the items they receive,” Valve wrote. “On the physical side, popular products used in this way include baseball cards, Pokemon, Magic the Gathering, and Labubu.”
Though that may seem like an apt comparison on the surface, Valve’s loot boxes differ from these real-world examples in large part because of Valve’s control of the Steam Marketplace, which serves as the only legitimate way to exchange or resell those items. While owners of real-world items are free to trade or sell them however they want, Valve has cracked down on many third-party sites that enable the exchange of in-game items—especially when those items are used as glorified chips for gambling games.
Lawyers told Ars last month that Valve’s control of that marketplace—and its 15 percent commission on item resale—helps establish the inherent economic value of the randomized items it sells, both to players and to Valve itself. That could be a crucial legal element in a courtroom in turning a mere “random purchase” into legally defined “gambling.”
Valve compares its loot boxes to Labubus in lawsuit defense
Steam maker says settling the case would be easier but would set a bad precedent.Kyle Orland (Ars Technica)
like this
Lasslinthar likes this.
TehPers
in reply to Powderhorn • • •Booster packs in card games like Pokemon and MTG are gambling. They contain random cards with published, known odds. The cards are worth monetary value. The consensus across the board for these games in their communities is that the packs are gambling, and it is pretty much always better to buy single cards from a third party if you need specific cards.
So are they arguing it should be "legal gambling" here? Because I'd argue the opposite - booster packs are also illegal gambling.
like this
deliriousdreams likes this.
t3rmit3
in reply to TehPers • • •Edit: Hey everyone, you can disregard the above comment by TehPers, because they clarified that they actually aren't claiming booster packs are illegal gambling (though they're now very upset I pointed that out here, rather than leaving it buried further down):
;P
In US law, at least, there's no gambling because there's no wager on an outcome involved. You are paying a fixed price, and there is no bet on a specific outcome. So while socially and culturally we might view TCGs as a form of gambling merely due to the random-chance-of-good-prize aspect, legally they do not fulfill the definition, including in NY State.
As the article notes, NYAG is likely to argue that loot boxes and TCGs are not the same, because of Valve's ownership of the resale market, unlike TCGs (and in fact,
... Show more...Edit: Hey everyone, you can disregard the above comment by TehPers, because they clarified that they actually aren't claiming booster packs are illegal gambling (though they're now very upset I pointed that out here, rather than leaving it buried further down):
;P
In US law, at least, there's no gambling because there's no wager on an outcome involved. You are paying a fixed price, and there is no bet on a specific outcome. So while socially and culturally we might view TCGs as a form of gambling merely due to the random-chance-of-good-prize aspect, legally they do not fulfill the definition, including in NY State.
As the article notes, NYAG is likely to argue that loot boxes and TCGs are not the same, because of Valve's ownership of the resale market, unlike TCGs (and in fact, Valve even brags about shutting down accounts and sites that try to work outside of their market). That could be used to draw a parallel to "bookies", who oversee the exchange of prize monies, and for which there is no equivalent in TCGs or physical gachapons like Labubus.
TehPers
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •US law does not view TCGs as gambling, but by the colloquial definition, it is gambling. You say there's no wager on an outcome. The wager is the price you spend on a pack, and the outcome is the resale value of the contents of the pack.
As for the case against Valve in particular, I make no claims as to what they should or shouldn't argue in the case. I am not a lawyer. I can't imagine most people in this instance are either.
t3rmit3
in reply to TehPers • • •By this definition, buying anything is a wager. You're not betting on a specific outcome in that definition, which is the "gamble" part of "gambling".
What I think you mean is something akin to, "the wager is that the price you spend is less than the resale value of the cards you receive", but that also makes e.g. buying items at a yard sale in hopes of reselling for more "gambling", which is definitely not something people would all be colloquially aligned on. Gambling in regards to the regulated activity can't simply mean "taking a financial risk in hopes of profiting".
TehPers
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •Mostly correct. Buying anything which retains value after the purchase is a wager. This includes shares in a company, collectible items, even a shipping crate of RAM.
In the case of TCGs, the bet is that the value of the cards contained in the pack exceed the money spent on the pack. This is very common. And within TCG communities, there is a common understanding that this is gambling.
That's of course not to say that all purchases of a booster pack are with the intent to gamble. I've also played poker and blackjack for fun, and those games are full of wagers, bets, and outcomes. But the bar has never been that all possible reasons to do something are to gamble, just that gambling is a common motivation to do it.
t3rmit3
in reply to TehPers • • •And yet are not "gambling" as the colloquial understanding of the regulated activity stand, nor certainly things that people want to be covered under gambling regulations.
And since this is about what should fall under the regulated activity, irrelevant.
And since this definition is irrelevant to the regulated activity, it's irrelevant to TCGs or loot boxes if you are pushing for those to be considered regulated gambling.
Yes, I believe I pointed out that you meant to say that, and why the simple act of taking a financial risk can't be the definition of regulated gambling.
TehPers
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •I didn't say they were gambling, though trading shares is often associated with gambling. But in all of those examples, you receive something with value that changes in a way that is impossible to accurately predict.
And here you're changing the topic to suit your needs. I replied to a comment discussing the definition of the word "wager". As I've told you not long ago today, I don't care much about the semantics of specific words. I'll engage in the discussion though.
... Show more...What? I'd like to remind you that you responded to me and solo'd out TCG boos
I didn't say they were gambling, though trading shares is often associated with gambling. But in all of those examples, you receive something with value that changes in a way that is impossible to accurately predict.
And here you're changing the topic to suit your needs. I replied to a comment discussing the definition of the word "wager". As I've told you not long ago today, I don't care much about the semantics of specific words. I'll engage in the discussion though.
What? I'd like to remind you that you responded to me and solo'd out TCG boosters. In my response, I said very clearly that I am not a lawyer, nor do I make any claims as to what they should say in their case.
If you are only arguing about what is or isn't legal, then you're wasting your time. I'm not a lawyer, nor in a position to rule on laws. I don't know if something gave you the impression otherwise.
If you're arguing about what should or shouldn't be legal, then it's not an unpopular opinion that TCG booster packs should be regulated to some extent.
Anyway, I'm disengaging. As you mentioned before, we assume good faith here. That is my initial assumption, so I engaged with the discussion. At this point, I believe you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
t3rmit3
in reply to TehPers • • •Okay, I must have just imagined that.
If you can't keep track of the claims you made, such that you contradict yourself within a single thread, please don't accuse me of posting in bad faith.
TehPers
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •Thank you for clarifying to all of us that you do not comment in good faith. It makes it much easier for me to know which people to block.
t3rmit3
in reply to TehPers • • •Frankly, I don't mind. I don't love being accused of posting in bad faith and berated just because you forgot what you originally posted. Cheers.
Powderhorn
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •Flagging @TehPers@beehaw.org on this response, as it applies to both of you. You're reasonable, longtime, constructive members on Beehaw. Maybe someone's having a bad day, but it saddens me to see the two of you going at each other. I don't feel there's a rift here, just disagreement over wording.
This said, we're all adults. I'm just more confused than anything, and I'm sure as fuck not going to take a side. This interaction wasn't Beeing nice.
TehPers
in reply to Powderhorn • • •Seeing as I can't see the thread anymore for previously mentioned reasons (yet oddly I can reply to you because you pinged me), I'm not sure which mod currently holds the reins over this community, but feel free to just delete the whole thread.
There's a discussion in another post that is almost certainly related to this one. I alluded to it when I came to that conclusion, which might have confused you.
JohnEdwa
in reply to TehPers • • •One argument is that gambling requires the chance of a loss - you go to a casino, make a wager, buy a lottery ticket, bet on a horse race, you can lose your money and end up with nothing.
But buy a Labubu, a Lego minifigure blind bag, MtG booster, or a video game lootbox, and while you don't know exactly what, you will always get something in return for your money.
Then again, "taking a gamble" is a term used for many things, like when you buy a used car without extensively checking the condition first, because you don't know what exactly you are getting...
Flying_Penguin
in reply to Powderhorn • • •Claw machines are gambling. Those coin machines that you get a sticker or a plastic spider out of is gambling. Kids having been gambling for decades. Hell even coin pushers is gambling.
I feel like we need to fully define gambling before any of this is settled. I believe anything where you give money for some kind of return but have a chance of recieving nothing back, then that is gambling. If you are guaranteed to get something for your money then thats not gambling. Thats just a purchase.
t3rmit3
in reply to Flying_Penguin • • •Yep. There are too many people who don't understand addiction, and think that gambling is the root cause problem, rather than one of many systems that preys on addiction disorders.
The reality of addiction is that it will always find something to fulfill it without treatment, and banning or regulating every trend of collectibles that pops up is not an actual solution. Banning or regulating specific structures that intentionally prey on addiction is important.
Too many people mistake their feeling-based objection to gambling that was inherited from the protestant moral objections, with actually being about solving predation on addiction.
Flying_Penguin
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •t3rmit3
in reply to Flying_Penguin • • •Swedneck
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •t3rmit3
in reply to Swedneck • • •Kissaki
in reply to t3rmit3 • • •Gambling systems always play into human psychology, and are always not in your favor.
CS loot boxes in particular have many systems designed to catch human pyschology.
Even the most simple single shot gambling like roulette is not in your favor. Any content box randomizes what you get, incentivizing more pulls, duplicates and unwanteds.
t3rmit3
in reply to Kissaki • • •So is poker not gambling? Mahjong? When it's 4 people playing together (not at a casino, for instance), how can it always be you who has worse odds? That's of course rhetorical; you actual have equal odds, barring cheating or simple skill differences.
And once you make "playing a game that you are likely to lose" as the litmus test for what is gambling, why would you play any competitive games? Half of a competitive bracket has to lose more than they won, by definition.
You are conflating gambling as it happens within controlled, predatory, capitalist institutions, with Gambling as a concept. Gambling is not immoral or harmful intrinsically, but gambling institutions that intentionally exploit addiction to Gambling, are. Institutions that intentionally exploit addiction to alcohol or cigarettes or hoarding or whatever, also are. But it doesn't make alcohol as a chemical compound itself, immoral.
And just in case it needs to be stated, merely enjoying Gambling doesn't equate to gambling addiction.
Powderhorn
in reply to Swedneck • • •I disagree. I'm not much of a gambler ... never done anything but nickel slots. I put in $5 and generally get about a half-hour of entertainment. If I get above break-even, I cash out and am done. I got a free lunch out of it at a Montana gas station in college.
It's generally more like $5.15 than $10, but on a road trip, who doesn't like free food?
I've been to Vegas once. Same deal. Put $5 in a nickel slot. This time, I got free booze, so even though I lost all of my $5, I still came out ahead.
I am very much an addictive personality, but for some reason, I never caught the gambling bug. So I'm throwing stones at a glass house while residing in one ... in my case, I'm envious of anyone who can have just one or two beers.
If you're gambling to try to fix your economic situation or recoup prior losses, you're no longer seeking entertainment. But if you know your limits and stick with them (something I absolutely cannot do with alcohol), I don't see how spending $30 gambling for a few hours is materially different than going to a movie and buying popcorn. Yo
... Show more...I disagree. I'm not much of a gambler ... never done anything but nickel slots. I put in $5 and generally get about a half-hour of entertainment. If I get above break-even, I cash out and am done. I got a free lunch out of it at a Montana gas station in college.
It's generally more like $5.15 than $10, but on a road trip, who doesn't like free food?
I've been to Vegas once. Same deal. Put $5 in a nickel slot. This time, I got free booze, so even though I lost all of my $5, I still came out ahead.
I am very much an addictive personality, but for some reason, I never caught the gambling bug. So I'm throwing stones at a glass house while residing in one ... in my case, I'm envious of anyone who can have just one or two beers.
If you're gambling to try to fix your economic situation or recoup prior losses, you're no longer seeking entertainment. But if you know your limits and stick with them (something I absolutely cannot do with alcohol), I don't see how spending $30 gambling for a few hours is materially different than going to a movie and buying popcorn. You can't get a soda included in that $30 these days.
My college roommate is a bit more adventurous. Both of us were there with our fiancees to see Penn & Teller, and he was more of a $25 buy-in blackjack player. He won enough to pay for their entire trip on his last hand before the airport shuttle. And then didn't do any gambling at the airport.
To say that gambling as a concept is inherently predatory doesn't square with my experience. But instilling it in kids via video games definitely is.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
in reply to Flying_Penguin • • •This is a bit more complicated, imo. In the US, I would agree they are gambling. They are literally programmed to only close the claw strongly enough to grab shit after X amount of money has been put into the machine.
However, in Japan this is against the law. They are games of skill without the bullshit. You can even ask the clerks operating the establishment to reset the prizes to make it easier to get something if it falls over or is pushed too close to the glass. IIRC, you can also just ask to buy a prize outright without even playing the game.
Flying_Penguin
in reply to 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 • • •Sure Japan has a way to protect people in regards to the claw machine. But gacha games and gachapon are huge in japan. And those are more predatory than loot boxes. So we still need to draw the line and sort out what actually is and isnt gambling.
Look at carnaval games, a mobile gambling group that targwts children? If we have loot boxes be labeled as gambling who is to say that we wont label everything else as gambling.
Where is the line?
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮
in reply to Flying_Penguin • • •Games of Chance vs games of skill.
"But poker is a game of skill!"
No it fucking isn't. You can mitigate your losses by folding early or bluffing, but you can not guarantee a win by being "better" when the luck of the draw is still against you, unless you're counting cards.
Flying_Penguin
in reply to 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 • • •I still believe that is too broad of a definition. I go back to carnaval games. Those are games of skill but they are made in away to reduce your chance of winning, so luck is still a major factor.
Meanwhile loot boxes are neother a game of chance or a game of skill. They are a purchase and you get what you get. What are those mystery box toys called that everyone was going crazy for last year? LuLu dolls or whatever. Those are loot boxes. Should we regulate them like we are trying with video game loot boxes?
TehPers
in reply to 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 • • •I would narrow this down to including monetary cost and reward.
A game of primarily chance, such as slots, roulette, poker, blackjack, or even MTG's Ante variation where something of value is offered (money, chips, resellable cards) and something of value is rewarded would be gambling. Note that chance would be a primary mechanic of the game, but skill may still be involved.
Ante - Magic: The Gathering Wiki
Magic: The Gathering WikiPowderhorn
in reply to TehPers • • •TehPers
in reply to Powderhorn • • •I hate her. She has the worst initials.
Also, she's generally a bad person, but that's irrelevant.
Powderhorn
in reply to TehPers • • •I never got into trading cards or tabletop gaming. My college roommate, on the other hand, when running out of disposable cash, would traipse down to the WotC on The Ave with his Warhammer figurines and enter competitions. He was no longer short on money afterward.
(apologies to the rest of Beehaw for going Seattle-specific)
Kissaki
in reply to Flying_Penguin • • •Undvik
in reply to 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 • • •like this
Undvik likes this.
Mirodir
in reply to Flying_Penguin • • •I cannot agree with this at all. If you're guaranteed a piece of candy, but on top of that you have a 0.0001% chance of getting a million dollars, then buying that candy for $100 is absolutely gambling and not a purchase.
Flying_Penguin
in reply to Mirodir • • •There has been a lot of posts about how people order a single SSD from amazon and end up with a whole box of SSDs. And if i go to amazon and order just a single SSD in hopes amazon screws up and sends me a full box instead, then i just gambled.
Should we go after amazon for encouraging gambling?
ulterno
in reply to Flying_Penguin • • •Amazon should be giving a full box of SSDs to every customer buying a dingle SSD, with 100% probability.
And complementary RAM
oatscoop
in reply to Flying_Penguin • • •Any useful discussion of gambling needs to take into account its potential and actual scale of addiction, along with degree of harm. Not everything that falls under the "technically it's gambling" definition is created equal.
So yes, claw machines are gambling -- but I don't think very many people are wasting hundreds or thousands of dollars on them every month. They're a little harder to constantly have in your pocket as well.
Alcyonaria
in reply to Powderhorn • • •AceFuzzLord
in reply to Powderhorn • • •