349
Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere (www.eurogamer.net)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
519 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    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?

    Yes, that's literally how the Steam marketplace works. Where am I losing you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    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

    Conclusion. This study revealed that the prevalence of pathological gambling, especially among men, was much higher in Japan than in other countries. Pachinko was very popular and was strongly suggested to have contributed to this heightened prevalence.

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Where will you take those goalposts next?

    ^ That was rhetorical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Well, we could always go back to talking about what's best for the children? Those days were good, weren't they? It's still about the parents. We don't admonish parents with regard to other gotchas. Or if you do, then good for you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent