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.”
gambling is still fundamentally bad because the very concept is predatory and harmful
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.
How so?