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!
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.
I think they’re referring to valves community market in tandem with loot boxes.
Valve drops boxes in cs2, which you pay to open. You get a weapon skin. But the difference is that I can sell that skin on the steam marketplace, and then turn around and buy Helldivers 2 with that credit.
Valve provides a pipeline for skins and ingame items to be traded for goods and services outside the game ecosystem.
I assume that makes them easier to go after in some way.
deleted by creator
The example NYAG was providing was:
Which I think is a bit far fetched to “launder” or somehow convert a digital item to physical cash.
I mean the simpler option is likely just selling a cs2 skins for crypto or just a direct paypal payment on one of many skin gambling or exchange sites. But sure, you could scalp hardware once valve has it back in stock, especially considering pc part prices and shortages.
Well that is against the Steam TOS.
Buying a Steam Deck and reselling it, isn’t.
I think that’s what the NYAG was trying to get at here.
Again, far fetched.
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.