316
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
316 points (85.3% liked)
Technology
85136 readers
4511 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Mate, I did not know parents were not responsible for their own children. That is on me. I'm glad to hear all the work I've done on my network and computers to make them safe for my children was a moot point.
Adults like gambling. It's not Valve's fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.
As far as the DRM stuff goes, that's all based on the publisher. And it's not that difficult to bypass. Valve has shown time and time again, that they are a business for their customers. Their customers like a solid platform that works and is easy to use and has a community.
Let's take a look a Linux real quick. If it wasn't for Valve, Linux gaming wouldn't be what it is today. They did that and gave it to the community. I'm sorry other platforms can't be bothered to put in that kind of effort. If you wanna play with the big dogs, you gotta get off the porch. And Ubisoft wants to take the easy way out through a lawsuit. They need to do better with their storefront. Offer good exclusives. Try to actually appeal to your customers.
I still remember when everybody bitched about Steam when half-life 2 came out. It was kinda bad, and people were mad about it. But Valve was just ahead of the curve. It allowed them to publish updates, patches, anti-cheating. And soon enough, the community grew to love it. It just worked. If something broke in your game, it was probably fixed in a week if it was a Valve game. It gave so much to PC players.
If adults want to gamble, fine. Let's enforce gambling laws and get this over with. It would also solve the children gambling problem because that would be illegal. But this is why Valve's gambling service is indefensible. Valve is actively trying to prevent the gambling classification because if it gets treated like actual gambling it most likely stops being profitable. I don't necessarily have an issue with gambling, I have an issue with it not being treated as gambling. And all the other things Valve has done that have been positive for gaming do not justify giving Valve a free pass on gambling.
To bring it back to Gaben, he isn't avoiding taxes but he is avoiding the (gambling) law because it makes him more money, so is it that different from avoiding taxes?
That is a fair point. However, I must ask, what is the different between what Valve is doing with loot boxes v. every single trading card game out there. MTG, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Disney's Lorcana? You are purchasing an item that has items in it that are random. The only reason they have value is because people have the option to just buy skin they want on Valve's marketplace. Just like people have the option to buy a specific Pokémon card from a third party.
The other thing that Valve has done is, there's no inherent value to the item. You can sell items for Steam Wallet funds, to then use in the marketplace. So, to me it seems, it's really easy to set up a Steam account to not be allowed to purchase items. Which would include adding money to a Steam wallet for the marketplace. So, no this is not a "think of the children" issue. It's yet again, another people are bad parents and can't be bothered to use parental controls on their children's electronics. Or take steps to prevent them from spending real money. Or take steps to prevent them from playing too much.
I don't see how that matters at this point, you've already called it gambling. Are you going to walk that back to defend Valve? After all the only reason to bring up this point is to claim it's not actually gambling. And to address your point, yes I also consider MTG, Pokemon and most trading card games the physical equivalent of a lootbox and a form of gambling. I also know they're not gambling in a legal sense but we'll get to where Valve differs in the next part.
Actually that's no longer true and that's why there was a lawsuit filed against Valve at the start of this year. The items now have a value because you sell the things to get Steam credit and then use Steam credit to buy a Steam Deck and then sell the Deck for real money. It's no longer a closed system, you can get the money out. And once again, this wouldn't be an issue if Valve either a) stopped their gambling or b) adhere to gambling laws.
Holy fuck, didn't realize so many kids were buying and selling steam decks. Damn, got me. I admit defeat. Later, friend.
Oh yeah, strawman the fuck out of my argument, that'll definitely show me.
Ugh, fine. The lawsuit is gonna bust because there's too many steps to exchange the wallet into cash. Most notably, selling the Deck. So, there is no real gambling danger. Those extra steps are what keeps it removed from being considered gambling legally. There, you happy?
Actually I'm sad. I'm sad I'm having a conversation with someone who thinks they know more about the law than the New York Attorney general. I've lost, there's no argument I could make that could get through the Dunning-Kruger.
That is an appeal to authority. Every one is susceptible to a mistake. And I believe this one is. I think the court will rule in favor of Valve if they don't dismiss it. The way the economy works inside of Steam is what insulates it from being gambling. NY is arguing that being able to redeem your wallet for a Deck and then selling that deck, introduces the cash component of gambling. Not only that, but third party sellers are brought up and that adds several other layers that will be harder to make the case for. In addition, they claim Valve knowingly doesn't care about the third party sellers. That, in and of itself, is not Valve's problem specifically. If people want to pay money for a cosmetic item, it's no different than Pokémon. Again, an insulating layer. That is a far cry from an open and shut case, as you seem to think it to be.
Multiple lawyers would point out that introducing steps to acquire cash insulates it. Especially since one of those steps is selling an item. This economy that they are trying to build out is shaky at best. But that's just like, my opinion man. Do you have any of your own thoughts regarding the case? Have you read the case documents and come to a conclusion for yourself? Or are you just reading an article and calling it a day?
Why would I have my own thoughts about this matter? I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even going to pretend to have the competence to understand the legal nuances necessary to analyze this lawsuit. I'm a dumbass so I'm going rely on the expertise of actual experts and the AG isn't going to file a suit on some easily dismissable grounds. So unless you can find someone credible backing up what you're saying you're just talking out of your ass.
Jeez dude, didn't realize you weren't interested in this case. If so, then why are you so passionate about something of which you know so little?
You are willing to put utter faith in articles and people rather than reading the case, looking into it, and coming to a conclusion? And then vehemently defending those opinions of of others. Why?
The fuck kind of an antivaxxer argument is this? If an health expert tells you get the vaccine do you also go "better come to my own conclusion"? Just because I don't Dunning Kruger myself into believing I know enough about the subject matter to form an opinion doesn't mean I'm not interested in the case.
Do you listen to Dr. Oz? He's a surgeon. Practiced. Does that make his medical opinion gospel?
No. Despite his knowledge and understanding of medicine, his claims are not credible because there are a lot of documented instances where he's used his own medical authority for personal gain.
So if you want to go down that route, start proving that the NYAG is not credible.
Credibility does not imply infallibility.
Well you're neither credible nor infallible so why should I even care about your opinion.
Y-yes. So, you should read the case for yourself, so you can make an estimation. The case is a rough outline of how the State is going to attack. You can then, try your best to think of any legal explanation against it. Then judge for yourself if Valve is in the wrong. But I already said that and I feel the looping starting. whoaaaaaa
Yeah, the loop is starting again because you clearly don't see what is wrong with the "don't listen to the expert, do your own research" argument. Fucking genius conversation. You, without a law degree, arguing with me, without a law degree, about a very specific legal gray area like we know what the fuck we're talking about. No, it's stupid which is why I'm refusing to partake in it. I'm not going to act like I know how to make a legal argument which is why I'm pointing at someone who is supposed to know what the fuck they're talking about. I don't get why you want to drag this conversation into something neither of are even remotely qualified to talk about.
Why are you acting like legal arguments are so convoluted? They're usually straightforward and boring. Because they have to be. You're just choosing to not put in effort and instead look at articles. If you want James' actual opinion, read the case.
Dunning Kruger in full effect. "How hard could this thing be that takes years to work through by 6 figure professionals? I can totally make those arguments myself."
And just for your information, I have read the complaint in full. It's another example of you just assuming you know things.
Okay, since you've read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I'm asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.
I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?
Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I'll be honest, James' makes a good case. But that doesn't matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let's keep going!
Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It's the same argument I've aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you've read the case?
Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve's responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don't like that.
The listing of selected enforcement opens James' case to a lot of attacks. I think it's a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve's lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.
Section V just feels like TCG all over again.
Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That's starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that's just bad parenting.
The Causes won't hold water. They're not air tight and are very vulnerable to attacks. But hey, I'm just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?
Bro what the actual fuck?
Do you even understand what I-22 and 23 mean? There's nothing to judge, there's nothing to relate to Steam because those two points establish the definition of gambling and the law that regulates gambling. This is just laying the foundation for which the rest of the suit is built upon. At this point I don't know if you're throwing out some sort of a gotcha or if you're really that stupid to think those two points have anything to do with Steam or whether there's anything to judge.
I have no idea what you're even referencing here. Section II seems to establish who Valve is and I think does that but once again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea why it's worded the way it is. Clearly there's some reason to do it that way.
You're going to have to cite the source for the NY v. Nintendo of America lawsuit. Beyond that I can't comment on anything else.
Of course it does seem like a stretch to you and according to you it's the same argument to the lawsuit that you haven't cited, so I can't comment anything about that. As for the rest, once again not a lawyer, so it's not up to me define when the system closes. I can only give my dumbfuck opinion which is that the system is closed when there's no official way to get monetary value out of the system. You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out. And what is a fair comparison? 87 explains how CS skins are used as an investment, there's nothing to compare. The rest of what you said is not to me to decide because those are very specific legal points and for the third time, not a lawyer.
You know, just for the fuck of it let's say this point shouldn't be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?
You've done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?
And? Your grand analysis stops there?
Okay, so you don't actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.
Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I'm giving up the chance to be smart.
What? Didn't expect an actual, quick read through of the case file, you claim to have read?
Dude, if you can't see how it relates, you literally can't even continue this conversation. That's how cases work. You lay out the law and prove how the plaintiff is breaking it. So, how does the law relate to Steam is a valid question that will be asked in court.
Okay, so you have no thoughts of your own. Cool. I'm asking you to use critical thinking skills to deduce why? I asked you about the equivalence. That is the key word. Look for the comparison. If you can't, just say so, like you did, and leave it at that. Don't hide behind, "there's some reason to do it that way". Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. What does that add to the debate other than, you don't know how to debate. And you continue to engage, thus continuing the debate, so I'm a little judgemental about this.
Okay, I admit fault here. I was thinking about a 1991 lawsuit that was NY v. NoA. The 1999 is several cases brought from parents against NoA that went nowhere. Here
So, "You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out". Where is the limit on can't get it out? At what level of extra steps does it become, "can't get it out"?Because there will always be a way to sell the skins for cash outside the market. That's the whole point here. No, it's not for you to decide, but the people deciding have opinions that may contradict the AG; especially if it gets to jury. So, why have you been acting like James' suit is without fault? I'm pointing out faults and you're hiding behind, I don't know enough and I'm not a lawyer; to prevent having an actual opinion. That's all I'm doing is playing Plaintiff. If you don't want to play Prosecution, then stop playing.
Again, that's the insulating layer protecting Valve. It is literally the crux of the three cause case against Valve. They have to satisfy all three causes to win. Valve just has prove the third one wrong. Because that's the insulating layer. Dude, like, how many times have I made this point?
Oh, buddy. You said you read the case, so I got tired and thought you could use your intelligence to look it up. Should've been easy. But daddy can do it for you. It won't take a minute. Section IV-A-90. The fact that it was three lines down from my last point is hilarious that you couldn't be bothered. Though, of course, you have no thoughts of your own. You are such a lazybones.
I mean, yeah. It's a point I've made multiple times.
And your counter has convinced me. Great job. Why don't you read this study from 2003? It might enlighten you why TCGs are a big point from me. But you won't, because you are a lazybones.
"In other words, not only is the Dunning-Kruger effect not merely a statistical artifact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants.” Source That's a recent study from 2021. Feel free to read about it. Or don't, I don't give a shit, mate. I'm just here to have fun.
Can't even bother to link the right lawsuit the rest of your arguments hinge on. Good job.
Did you read the link? Did you try at all? I'm willing to admit a mistake, can you not?
First of all, that is not the lawsuit. That's an article about the lawsuit, something you criticized me for (unfoundedly I might add). And secondly, the lawsuit you referenced was NY v. NoA not whatever lawsuit that article reference because that seems something that was filed in 1999 not 1991 like you claim. Ready to admit your mistake?
The mistake was calling it NY v NoA. It was a civil suit brought by parents. One of many, that ultimately went nowhere. That's the only proof I have to attest to my actual memory of those events happening. Sorry, I don't have the individual case files. I'll go looking for them. But dismissed cases are hard to find without knowing the docket info.
You don't have to go find it. I think we've done enough to prove my point.
There it is. Trying to exit the debate without addressing the topics. Your relationships in life must be difficult ;)
I told you before I'm not going to get into this moronic conversation where neither of us know what we're talking about. Not only did you prove that you want to steer the conversation into that idiocracy you also proved that you don't know what you're talking about. And that was my point, that you can't refute the argument presented in the lawsuit because you keep talking out of your ass and there's no hope of changing your opinion on the matter because you're not interested in any discussion except the one where you get to talk out of your ass. As far as I'm concerned this conversation is over.
Are you disputing a lawsuit even existed? What specifically about my 1999 NYT article verifying my claim of a lawsuit in 1999 against NoA with allegations of gambling. I think it was RICO specifically in that case, but like that's just law stuff.
You keep saying I'm talking out of my ass, but you haven't disproven my points. You're continuing to reply, which means you definitely are invested in this, because you are refusing to admit that you got in too deep with someone who knew too much. So now, the only thing you can do is say we both know nothing. So that way, we are equal. Why are you doing that? I'm sure there are plenty of things you have more knowledge than me in. Just because I'm not a lawyer, does not inherently mean I do not know law. You do realize anybody can pick up textbooks, case studies, and e-mail professors with questions? Like, I don't have to have a degree to know what I'm talking about. I just need knowledge.
You're just not good at this, are you?
lmao im sure there is no money involved at all helping the ag care
And how exactly does this supposed money change the legal arguments made in lawsuit?
because why should anyone care about the legal arguments or any ags actual knowledge about said laws if they only serve garbage companies like epic or ubi (and while pretending companies like draft kings dont exist) and that epic hasn’t attempted the same control that steam has, they just suck at the actual service part
and more to my point, this is really what the ny ag thinks is the best use of their time right now, lmao, not any kind of major fraud going on right now that maybe they want to look into if gambling is so very bad
epic games and its ‘coalition of state attorney generals’ is not self serving at all, epic just just really really cares about consumers!
if you can’t compete, litigate
You're going to have to explain how Epic or Ubisoft benefit from shutting down Valve's gambling machine. If it's "Valve makes less money" then that's an irrelevant point because even if you shut down the gambling money Valve is still raking in cash. Valve simply goes from making an insane amount of money to making a slightly less insane amount of money. Valve losing gambling money is going to have zero impact on the PC storefront space. Valve losing the lawsuit in the article, now that could have an impact on the PC storefront space.
And you know, it's pretty sad that you instantly went to "she's corrupt" instead of even giving the smallest benefit of doubt to the possibility that she might be doing it because it's morally wrong. It's a sad because in your mind morality doesn't exist and corruption is everywhere.
if you can’t see how hurting valve is a direct benefit to epic or ubi we're wasting my time
irrelevant point? lol that’s not at all how business works
i don’t care about the gambling money beyond the hypocrisy of it while sports betting, digital currency markets and fucking polymarket exist, and i’m claiming shadiness because epic has its hand up multiple ags asses in multiple markets, just take a look at apple or google stores as well as valve, epic is funding this politic to its own benefit because it failed so fucking hard competing the real way and the ags see it as an easy target since coalitions cost money
if she actually gave a damn about gambling we’d be seeing her go after sports betting first by sheer volume, draft kings is fucking disgusting
steam is actually doing some positive things for consumers and it’s asinine to start with valve
if you think morality is involved in the american legal system you live a charmed life
Did you even read what I said? Valve losing it's gambling money is going to have no impact on their market share in the PC storefront market space because Valve is already making boatloads of money even without the gambling money. Valve doesn't need to do anything to make up for the loss because they don't need to be greedy. They can eat "the loss" and continue business as usual which means there is no direct benefit for any competing storefront. If anything it might end up being a net negative because (while it probably won't directly impact Epic or Ubisoft) some big studios still use lootboxes and this ruling would further push getting them banned. There's an indirect benefit to Epic of Ubisoft in the form of Valve making less money but when you make insane amounts of money making slightly less insane amounts of money isn't anything Epic of Ubisoft will feel. So yeah, I'd like to see you explain how the gambling lawsuit would directly benefit Epic of Ubisoft.
So she shouldn't go after Valve where there's a legitimate case to be made? Because she should be going after some other nondescript entity that she may not even have a case against? Yeah, makes total sense.
So according to you SKG movement isn't driven by the moral point that we should own the things we buy? So who is funding that initiative? Who gains to benefit from it? Come on, give me the juice. Let me suckle on that conspiracy teat. It's all conspiracies, no good guys ever exists. Ross Scott is a paid actor.
That's a whole lot of distraction from the point, mate. If you found out that a casino was allowing children to gamble on their property, would you not want to shut down that casino?
Yes, the parents shouldn't be allowing the kids to gamble. But parents don't always "allow" their kids to do the things they do in the first place. You know damn well you did things as a child that you weren't "allowed" to do, things that you were told specifically not to do. You know that you successfully hid things from your parents, but expect other parents to find everything? Most of this happens completely under the parents' radar.
Addicts steal, and that's no different for children, either. Often they'll take their parent's credit card in hopes that the charge goes unnoticed, or they'll obfuscate the charge by spending money on another currency that gets converted after the fact to one used for lootboxes.
There are even worse things that an addict will do for money. Some may resort to scams; sometimes they'll set up catfish social media profiles to bait gooners into paying them gobs of money for fake pictures. Some may resort to worse behavior; I've seen instructional TikTok videos for children to lure adults onto Roblox for sexual acts, to be paid in Robux, which can then easily be converted into just about any other game's currency. Literal child prostitution.
But sure. Let's blame the parents, instead of the billionaire's child casino.
I could not give a shit. I am a parent of two and no, you cannot watch them every second. But you can watch your bank accounts. You can watch your child play. You can watch your child's behavior change if they start getting really into gambling.
I had an older child I kinda took care of, who thinks of me as a father figure; he has none. He called me one night cause he was 16 and drunk and high and didn't want to drive home. He said, "I called you, because you always said to call you if this happened. I'm so sorry“. I picked him up and helped his hangover the next morning and we had a long talk. That kid is on the ocean sending underwater robots to explore as an electrical engineer. Cause he liked that I did that. EE, not the water stuff lol.
Parents are responsible for their children and children have to learn responsibility for their actions. And that is a lesson that you have to teach your children. The best way is through learning. I've watched my mom raise an addict, so don't you fucking dare try to appeal to me. She was the perfect mom. He just got in with the wrong crowd and went downhill. He's sober now, but it was rough growing up. But she put in a hell of a lot of work into him.
I tell you that, because I'm not here to say we should ban public schools, because that's where my brother tried heroin. I'm not here to say we should fund private schools with taxpayer money, because there are drugs in our schools. It's a fucking bad stroke of luck. Fire and damnnation, this got me hot. Don't fall off your pedestal as you get on your high horse.
I can tell, since nothing else about your comment was at all related to what I was saying.
You're right, I just gave you my personal experiences about parenting children. I even brought up my brother in recovery, distinctly because you brought up addicts. I still stand by it being a parental issue. Don't have kids if you don't want that responsibility. This kind of argument has the same vibes as, "we need age verification on websites". No, we don't. Parents need to be better. I'm a millennial parent and I know how the internet works. I also know that every app nowadays has parental controls built in. Moreso, I can specifically block things on the router. The tools are there. Just be a parent. How many children do you have?
We're really far from the point now.
Remember how you found ways to circumvent those things in your youth without your parents knowing? Guess what? Kids still do that. Parental controls only work on children who lack creativity.
You aren't going to be there 100% of the time for your kids. No parent would be. It would be abusive to be present 100% of the time. You're going to trust your kids with a certain level of autonomy, and they're occasionally going to do things with that autonomy that you disapprove of; that's an important part of growing up. Maybe it's swearing, maybe it's getting into fights, maybe it's cheating on homework, or maybe it's buying lootboxes. You can't block everything.
Nobody's saying that you shouldn't try to prevent your kids from falling into these traps. By all means, you should. But you shouldn't expect to be successful 100% of the time. You're going to slip. They're going to slip. That's life.
However, the fucking CHILD CASINO still exists. Maybe you can keep your kids out of it, but there are still kids getting addicted to gambling because nobody is shutting down the child casino. The fact that it exists, at all, should be appalling to any parent; but instead, some of them are defending it because "ohh but they did some good things for Linux gaming". Get real, my guy.
You're right, we are far from the point. At what step in the loot box/gambling process is money exchanged. Then tell me how gambling works. Then tell me if they are the same.
Holy shit, Gabe's really got you by the balls, eh. We've reached the "actually lootboxes aren't gambling" arc.
Insane, the lengths some will go to defend shitty behavior from shitty billionaires.
If it's gambling, loot boxes should be items of value, redeemable for cash, correct? And Valve should be the one providing that cash, as they are the child casino, correct?
The fact that you aren't answering is an answer in and of itself. You can reduce yourself to insults, but it only harms your arguement.
It is gambling, but only as much as Pokémon and Disney's Lorcana. And that's perfectly legal. You would need to go after those practices too. But I think you'd find a hard time with that. You know why? Cause it was dismissed in 1999 in New York v Nintendo of America. Gotta change the law for what you want, friend.
Yes, that's literally how the Steam marketplace works. Where am I losing you?
Play game. Get loot box. purchase key. get skin...fuck how do I get actual money. Got it, I'll sell it on the market. DAMN, I got steam wallet funds. Okay, if I get $750 worth of items on the store. Okay, that took forever. Now I can purchase a Steam Deck and then I can sell it when it gets here. But let's try to use a different method. There's some third party sites that buy directly, cool. I'll just go through this shady as fuck trade to a random Steam not and get some money in my PayPal.
At which point in either of these processes are you getting USD cash for the items, directly from Valve?
Oh, so now we're at the "pachinko isn't gambling because you have to go across the street to get cash for your prizes" argument. Knew we'd eventually get there.
You see, in Japan, pachinko parlors are "technically" not gambling because you exchange your winnings for cheap toys, similar to exchanging tickets at the Chuck E Cheese counter. Except there's a store directly across the street from the pachinko parlor that buys those toys for, well wouldn't you know it, the exact amount of your winnings!
And since it's "not gambling" in the eyes of the law, it's not damaging, right?
https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article-abstract/49/suppl_1/i17/105541
Oof.
Yes, it's still gambling even if you have to access a grey market to obtain fiat currency. Why? Because obtaining fiat currency isn't a defining factor of gambling.
Where will you take those goalposts next?
Okay, let's get rid of all TCG too. I never argued against the dangers of gambling. I never said it wasn't, it is gambling. But that's not what this post is about. This post is specifically about a NY case against Valve. That requires knowledge of the NY Penal Code. But if you want to continue being self-righteous rather than actually debating the points, then you're welcome to continue this debate with me.