Official statement from Valve.
We shared with the NYAG that these types of boxes in our games are widely used, not just in video games but in the tangible world as well, where generations have grown up opening baseball card packs and blind boxes and bags, and then trading and selling the items they receive.
You’re right! We should stop that too!
I love Valve, but I don’t think this one is going away and I don’t think it SHOULD go away. F2P games with RNG loot boxes are a scourge and I don’t play games that have them for that very reason.
I don’t care if they exist, but you’d have to make it an 18 an over type of deal. I don’t really care how adults choose to blow their money, gambling included. You want to verify you’re over 18 so you can get loot boxes, you do you.
It absolutely shouldn’t go away. My problem isn’t that Valve is being targeted, but that only Valve is being targeted. It should extend to all of the big players using gambling and addictive conditioning in video games starting with EA and Microslop/Activision, and then all of the gacha games from the east. Targeting Valve and nobody else is extremely suspicious, especially in the wake of the victory over the Rothchilds.
It’s about targeting the ones you can legally target. I’m not going to get into it again but Valve does their lootboxes differently to almost every other big developer/publisher and that way of doing things has gotten them in trouble. Should all companies that in practice are gambling get into legal trouble? Yes. Should Valve get a pass because others get away scot-free? No. If 6 people rape someone but legally there’s evidence to convict one of them you don’t give that one person a free pass because the other 5 can’t be convicted.
In this case there’s one company, Valve, where you have some legal basis to get them in the court and there’s no legal basis for other companies even though they’re largely doing the same thing. You may not like it and might consider it unfair but that’s just how the legal system works.
I’m trying to understand what’s different. If you don’t want to explain again here, that’s fine but can you link me to your other comments or something.
I haven’t played Dota or TF2. I don’t know how the loot boxes work and I’m trying to understand.
The biggest difference compared to the likes of EA and Activision is that the items have real monetary value. In Activision or EA games the money spent on the lootbox is effectively wasted. You generally can’t trade the content to recoup the costs and in some cases where you can those trades tend to happen for in-game currency which again, has no real monetary value. There’s no monetary incentive to “gamble” because from a monetary point of view it’s always a loss. The lawsuit actually makes a case that with Valve there is a monetary incentive to “gamble” because the value of the item you receive from the lootbox translates to real world money. And while the lawsuit has to take sort of a roundabout way of proving that, I think most people agree that the stuff you pull from Valve’s lootboxes has real monetary value.
The second point is supporting the infrastructure to make trades happen. One of the things that separates trading cards from gambling is that the cards themselves officially have no value. You can buy a pack of MTG cards and get something really valuable but you can’t sell that back to WotC (Wizards of the Coast, the makers of MTG) and actually WotC doesn’t even acknowledge that you pulled something really valuable because they claim all the cards have their value based on rarity and not the card itself. But it’s valuable because there’s a secondary market that has nothing to do with WotC. That’s not entirely true for Valve because all trades happen on Valve’s infrastructure and Valve literally shows the real world value of the items. Now Valve gets to claim they don’t set the price, the market does, and that’s not an acknowledgement of the value, but Valve still benefits and supports that market which itself is a vessel for gambling. Worth mentioning that it’s not an argument that is being made in the lawsuit (at least I didn’t notice it there) so it’s less relevant or even completely irrelevant from a legal perspective, at least for now.
But you don’t start 20 lawsuits for the same thing at the same time against everybody. You start with one case against one company, and if it rules in your favor, that sets stronger precedent to go after the others.
As for why Valve, I’m guessing it’s easier to demonstrate more specific examples of harm when you have a larger pool of consumers to draw from, and easier to get an American entity in an American courtroom.