Valve Faces Second, Class-Action Lawsuit Over Loot Boxes (pcgamer.com)
- Reference: 0180950308
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/11/0546238/valve-faces-second-class-action-lawsuit-over-loot-boxes
- Source link: https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/valve-facing-second-class-action-lawsuit-over-loot-boxes/
"We believe Valve deliberately engineered its gambling platform and profited enormously from it," Steve Berman, founder and managing partner at law firm Hagens Berman, said in a [3]press release . "Consumers played these games for entertainment, unaware that Valve had allegedly already stacked the odds against them. We intend to hold Valve accountable and put money back in the pockets of consumers." PC Gamer reports:
> The system is well known to anyone who's played a Valve multiplayer game: Earn a locked loot box by playing, pay $2.50 for a key, unlock it, get a digital doohickey that's sometimes worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars but far more often is worth just a few pennies. Is that gambling? If these cases go to court, we'll find out.
>
> The full complaint points out that the unlocking process is even designed to look like a slot machine: "Images of possible items scroll across the screen, spinning fast at first, then slowing to a stop on the player's 'prize.' Players buy and open loot boxes for the same reason people play slot machines -- the hope of a valuable payout." Loot boxes, the complaint continues, are not "incidental features" of Valve's games, but rather "a deliberate, carefully engineered revenue model." So too is the Steam Community Market, and Steam itself, which the suit claims is "deliberately designed" to enable the sale of digital items on third-party marketplaces through "trade URLs," despite Valve's terms of service prohibiting off-platform sales.
>
> And while the debate over whether loot boxes constitute a form of gambling continues to rage, the suit claims Valve's system does indeed qualify under Washington law, which defines gambling as "staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence." "Valve's loot boxes satisfy every element of this definition," the lawsuit alleges. "Users stake money (the price of a key) on the outcome of a contest of chance (the random selection of a virtual item), and the items received are 'things of value' under [4]RCW 9.46.0285 because they can be sold for real money through Valve's own marketplace and through third-party marketplaces that Valve has fostered and facilitated."
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/02/26/168257/new-york-sues-valve-for-enabling-illegal-gambling-with-loot-boxes
[2] https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/valve-facing-second-class-action-lawsuit-over-loot-boxes/
[3] https://www.hbsslaw.com/press/valve-loot-box-gambling-class-action/consumers-sue-valve-corporation-claiming-illegal-gambling-enterprise-in-video-game-loot-boxes
[4] https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.46.0285
Gonna sue all burger joints (Score:4, Funny)
By their definition, isn't it a gamble to see if I might get a flattened hamburger in a box?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because customer protection laws are here to help, and you are entitled to the product you actually paid for.
still not gambling (Score:2, Insightful)
Steve Berman, is a certified retarded piss baby who does not understand the basic definition of gambling. In order to be gambling, Valve would need to "buy" the loot box item back off the player and give the player cash.
Loot boxes are not gambling.
Opening TCG booster packs (Pokemon, Magic: The Gathering, etc) is not gambling.
Coin operated random candy/toy dispensers are not gambling.
Games of chance do not equate to gambling. Slot machines, poker, are not inherently gambling if there is no possibility of the
Re: (Score:2)
[1]Gambling: [wikipedia.org] Gambling (also known as betting or gaming) is the wagering of something of value ("the stakes") on a random event with the intent of winning something else of value, where instances of strategy are discounted. Gambling thus requires three elements to be present: consideration (an amount wagered), risk (chance), and a prize.
There is no reason to believe Valve would have to buy back the prize for it to be gambling. I don't know why you think that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling
Re: (Score:1)
using the dictionary to make arguments over anything besides the dictionary definition is useless and borderline bad faith
the law does not use the dictionary! it's informed by the definition but it is not the same.
please everyone stop doing this, it makes you look completely unserious.
Re: (Score:2)
> using the dictionary to make arguments over anything besides the dictionary definition
We are literally talking about the definition of words here.
Re: (Score:3)
>> using the dictionary to make arguments over anything besides the dictionary definition
> We are literally talking about the definition of words here.
When it comes to the problems of gambling and addiction, we're talking about a hell of a lot more than mere definitions that have been warped by lawyers sponsored by The House.
Perhaps we should actually think of the children. Because the grown-ass child who became a gambling addict at 14 will care about definitions about as much as an alcoholic cares about sobriety.
Re: (Score:1)
Do loot boxes lead to gambling addiction? If there is data on that topic, I'd like to see it.
As for myself, there are too many games. I just avoid the ones with loot boxes, there are better games available.
Re: (Score:2)
> Do loot boxes lead to gambling addiction? If there is data on that topic, I'd like to see it.
They don't. Mental health issues lead to gambling addiction. Those exact same mental health issues lead to people "gambling" on loot boxes or gacha games (Genshin). And some developers even abuse that fact - mostly pay-to-win games and games with loot box items that alter gameplay in some way.
So, if we are to actually "think of the children" as geekmux suggests, then the correct option isn't to punish Valve for something they have little control over outside of banning trades or getting rid of the boxes alt
Re: (Score:2)
> intent of winning something else of value
You are neither "winning" anything by opening a loot box, nor gaining something of value. The intent is to pay for a randomized item (skin) to use in the game - and hopefully you get the one that you think is really cool looking.
> consideration (an amount wagered)
Nothing. The purchasing of the key does not count as an amount wagered, or consideration, nor does the key count as having any value.
> a prize
The results of a loot box does not equate to a prize. And even if it would equate to a prize, similarly to a key, said result has no official monetary
Re: (Score:2)
> You are neither "winning" anything by opening a loot box
OK, you are just dumb lol.
When you open a loot box, you are winning something. Turn your brain on, you're not actually as dumb as you seem.
Re: (Score:2)
> When you open a loot box, you are winning something.
No, you aren't. Winning means the possibility of losing. You open a loot box, you obtain something. There is no lose. You always get something. Everyone is a "winner" - some just win harder than others. If there was also the possibility of opening the loot box and receiving absolutely nothing, then you're argument (and this retard lawyer's) would hold some water.
Re: (Score:2)
your* god damnit. Clicked too fast.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that a third party or secondary market is willing to buy/trade it does give it value by definition. Subjective value is still value.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in context of Valve, Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2.
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot dispute your "is not gambling" arguments... because you did not make any.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure did. But I'll boil it down for those too stupid to read: paying for a random result does not automatically constitute gambling.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a 'basic definition of gambling'; there are some slightly vague ones you get in dictionaries and people's opinions and specific but often easily wordsmithed ones you get in various statutes.
For the purposes of a lawsuit it's obviously the statutory definition that ends up mattering; but those typically offend common sense in one way or another, at least after the more cynical types build businesses carefully structured to demonstrate the holes(hey! did you know that you are a degenerate booki
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care. We need a hard definition on what is, or isn't, gambling as well as a hard definition on *who* is facilitating said gambling. Not a mismatch of random laws in different states/countries that all try and define gambling poorly or too broadly.
So, here is what the definition for gambling *should* be:
-Money, or a representation of it, is wagered
-A defined game of chance is played, with rules on what constitutes a "win", "loss", or, when appropriate, a "tie"
-The game's operator, or owner, pays out
Re: (Score:2)
> Valve would need to "buy" the loot box item back off the player and give the player cash.
They wouldn't. You only need a mechanism to convert the item to cash. Valve provides precisely that which is fundamentally why this is gambling. You give money to get something of random and unknown value in real cash terms.
Re: (Score:2)
No. None of that has anything to do with how gambling works.
Re: (Score:2)
> Opening TCG booster packs (Pokemon, Magic: The Gathering, etc) is not gambling.
Really? How about we not do a piss-poor job of excusing the harm with bullshit definitions and legalese loopholes, and let's have a good hard look at the end result instead.
Is the scratch-off junkie addicted to games of chance where you are chasing a prize reward, actually different from the Pokemon junkie addicted to ripping packs chasing the prized card, with the end GOAL being the exact same (money/profit)?
Put those two in a rehab facility after they've gambled away their life savings and bring in the e
Re: (Score:2)
Because what you are describing is a behavior problem of the individual and has nothing to do with the systems they use. These people have mental health issues that will lead them to problematic gambling behavior anywhere and with anything. These types of people also "gamble" on the stock markets, the results of reality TV shows, awards shows, election outcomes, etc.
Just because someone CAN gamble on "something" doesn't inherently make the "something" gambling. That's my whole point. The intent with loot bo
This will be a measure of jury intelligence (Score:3)
By the logic used by both the AG and this firm, every collectible card system is also gambling.
That includes baseball cards that my '46 Boomer dad grew up collecting.
Valve should mock the crap out of this buy just buying a collection of MTG, Pokemon, baseball cards, Marvel trading cards and random blind bags from 5 and Below, toss them at the jury and say "is this gambling too?"
Re: (Score:2)
"every collectible card system is also gambling. That includes baseball cards that my '46 Boomer dad grew up collecting."
In an original sale: no because you always receive a nominal value card. The nominal value is not contingent and the change in value occurs after you own own it.
In the secondary market: also no, because you know what card you are getting and that value is also not contingent.
It's exactly the same dynamic as collectible cards (Score:2)
I bought a ton of collectible cards when I was in middle school. I lost track of the number of times the value of the cards was worth even as much as the price paid for the pack.
Loot boxes are the same dynamic as long as they give something of intrinsic value in the game.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC it's not "if it's of value in the game" but rather "if it can be sold for money". I'll admit I'm not quite sure what "money" means in that context, but it is "something of value outside the game".
Re: (Score:2)
"Loot boxes are the same dynamic"
A card pack has some number of cards and the manufacturer claims such. If it did not have that number of cards you can claim that the product is faulty. There is a value that can be placed on it even before opening. If you paid more than that value that does not make it gambling.
A loot box may have nothing. As least with a slot machine the probability of winning outcomes is regulated and tested.
Valve loot boxes don't work that way (Score:2)
> A loot box may have nothing.
A quick search on Google and Gemini responded that you're wrong on this with Valve games. They always have give an item to the buyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Loot boxes ARE the same except the nominal value is 0 and it stays 0. Loot boxes (that cost money) ALWAYS give you something. It may be something you don't want. But they follow carnival game rules "step right up, step right up, EVERYone is a winner" - it just depends on luck on how much of a winner.
Re: (Score:1)
Hardly a gamble. Your "boomer" dad used those collectable baseball cards for the same thing we all did. "Topping"! Know what that is ? We of-course "saved" Micky Mantle and Jacki Robinson cards -- they're in lots of leather-bound Kodak photo-albums along with pics of great-granma and her cast-iron stove.
Loot boxes are gambling (Score:2)
Loot boxes are gambling. The only question is whether it's illegal or not.
really ? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting to see people DEFEND loot boxes. What are you? Retarded?
Loot boxes are pure exploitation and are intentionally designed to your disadvantage and the advantage of the company. The only honest defense of them is to reveal what most of us suspect already: That they aren't really random, but run by carefully engineered algorithms to maximize the company profits, in which case they might dodge the label "gambling" and exchange it for "scam".
Re: (Score:2)
How is that any different than blind bags or Pokemon/MTG card decks? What about the McDonald's Monopoly pieces?
Re: (Score:2)
Loot boxes are 100% garbage and shitty, but I will still defend that they are NOT gambling. They are a essentially a digital carnival game, except you don't get to actively participate in any way. Pay up front, get random result that isn't money. Just because there are a handful of people willing to pay exorbitant prices for carnival prize item doesn't carnival is now responsible for gambling.
Is it a scam? Maybe. It's something. But it isn't gambling just because some people use them to gamble.
Has anyone here actually had that feeling? (Score:2)
So I don't play that type of game. Has anyone here played those, and had the gambling feeling over these loot boxes? The summary is rather damning, but I'd like the opinion of an adult gamer.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite every rational reason to stay hidden, Jeffrey Epstein's gaming accounts are active and making purchases from an IP that surprises noone.
Then again the poster boy for the most horrific addictions might be an outlier.
I'll Happily Debate the "Gambling" Aspect, but... (Score:2)
The "think of the children" aspect is ridiculous on its face.
> Counter-Strike 2, Dota 2, and Team Fortress 2 are "carefully engineered to extract money from consumers, including children
How much money do children have? Don't you think that a purported evil gambling company (Valve?) would know that children don't have much money at all, let alone access to their own credit cards with which to purchase in-game currency?
Can we just drop that charade and say what's really going on:
1. Some ADULT MEN gambled a large amount of money using a combination of in-game currency and money-laundering sites
2. Valve crashed that illicit economy b
What about blind bags and card decks? (Score:2)
So what about blind bags and card decks? You have no clue which cards are in that Pokemon or MTG deck you bought, or which little figure is in the blind bag you bought your kid at Target. What is the difference between these and loot boxes on Steam other than loot boxes are digital?
Extremely Selective Enforcement (Score:2)
I'm not going to comment on the legality of Valve loot boxes, but I don't see how they're significantly different from trading cards, Lebubus, Funko POP! Mystery boxes, or many of other items of chance that have been targeting children for many decades. All I'm going to argue is that the law should be enforced equally across these products and right now that doesn't seem to be happening.
OK (Score:5, Insightful)
defines gambling as "staking or risking something of value upon ... a future contingent event not under the person's control or influence."
Like buying or selling stock options.
Re: (Score:1)
Its ambulance chasing. Just like all those 'news' stories about firms seeking clients for class-actions against companies whose stock price drops.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Pokemon or Chuck e Cheese
The reality of target markets. (Score:2)
> Or Pokemon or Chuck e Cheese
Not sure about the latest odds on Chuck E Cheese playing your favorite song next, but I can tell you there are plenty of people in this world right now wholly addicted to gambling their money away chasing Pokemon profits under the guise of "collecting".
That ain't no kids game anymore. And while the problem of gambling addiction isn't childish, it's certainly being abused to target children. And their parents.
Re: (Score:2)
"Like buying or selling stock options."
No, because the stock is not contingent. You know what the stock is, and you own it.
Re: (Score:2)
I see your confusion. You don't know what options are.
Re: (Score:2)
Stock options aren't supposed to be gambling though. You are supposed to be investing in a company and to be honest most people buying stocks are investing. Okay I shouldn't say most people I should say most stock purchases.
This is something Warren Buffett let's slip. The majority of his income doesn't come from trading stocks it comes from owning stocks. But that is really only effective if you can own a shit ton of them. This is why you see people who make money on the stock market being day traders a
Re: (Score:3)
> The majority of his income doesn't come from trading stocks it comes from owning stocks. But that is really only effective if you can own a shit ton of them
I don't know what you'd call significant income, but I had an essentially non-managed mutual fund account with only $100,000 and it earned close to $18,000 last year. That's higher than most years, but it doesn't take really that much money to turn it into significant income.
Re: (Score:2)
When they say stock options, they don't mean the option an employer gives you to buy stock. They're talking about stock-derivative instruments where you buy the right to either purchase or sell a stock at a certain price on a future date. A put (sell) option is straightforwardly a bet against the future value of that company's stock, while a call (buy) option is a bet in support of the future value of that stock, without even putting down enough cash to actually buy the shares today.
Remember also that pur
Re: (Score:2)
You're being dishonest, you cut out the very thing that would have pointed you to evidence that buying or selling stock options is not gambling. The "outcome" is not based on a contest of chance, and your future value is influenced by the information available to you at the time of purchase of stocks.
If you think stocks are gambling, then please don't invest in stocks since you're doing it very wrong. Stocks are a risk based game, and if you're not managing the risk through making yourself informed then you
Re: (Score:2)
If "contest of chance" were the only relevant determinant, betting on horse races and sporting events wouldn't be considered gambling. In both cases, the "future value is influenced by the information available to you [and your bookie ] at the time of purchase".
"Stocks are a risk based game" in the exact same way gambling is. Hedging your investments is fundamentally similar in structure to hedging your bets at the local sportbook. The primary difference is supposed to be that stock valuation is based on