58

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.”

all 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Flying_Penguin@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 day ago

Claw machines are gambling. Those coin machines that you get a sticker or a plastic spider out of is gambling. Kids having been gambling for decades. Hell even coin pushers is gambling.

I feel like we need to fully define gambling before any of this is settled. I believe anything where you give money for some kind of return but have a chance of recieving nothing back, then that is gambling. If you are guaranteed to get something for your money then thats not gambling. Thats just a purchase.

[-] Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

If you are guaranteed to get something for your money then thats not gambling. Thats just a purchase.

I cannot agree with this at all. If you're guaranteed a piece of candy, but on top of that you have a 0.0001% chance of getting a million dollars, then buying that candy for $100 is absolutely gambling and not a purchase.

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yep. There are too many people who don't understand addiction, and think that gambling is the root cause problem, rather than one of many systems that preys on addiction disorders.

The reality of addiction is that it will always find something to fulfill it without treatment, and banning or regulating every trend of collectibles that pops up is not an actual solution. Banning or regulating specific structures that intentionally prey on addiction is important.

Too many people mistake their feeling-based objection to gambling that was inherited from the protestant moral objections, with actually being about solving predation on addiction.

[-] Flying_Penguin@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

I honestly am not sure this is only about addiction. Instead i think this is mostly about parents who dont monitor their childs activites and want aomeone to blame for their child spending thousands of dollars on a video game.

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I mean gambling in general, not just loot boxes or TCGs. Gambling is not a bad thing. Gambling addiction is, but it's bad because it's addiction.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 23 hours ago

gambling is still fundamentally bad because the very concept is predatory and harmful

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 1 points 9 hours ago

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.

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 2 points 19 hours ago
[-] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago

Considering I hate those Labubu things, I ain't necessarily siding with Valve on loot boxes ( even if I already don't support loot boxes to begin with ), but I do not under any circumstances support NY's solution to the problem, assuming the things I've heard about it are true.

[-] Kirk@startrek.website 34 points 1 day ago

Labubus are basically gambling for kids. I'm not sure they're sending the message they want to be, here.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 day ago

I don't think they care if it's gambling or not.

They are trying to make the point that they shouldn't be targetted if other obvious known sources of illegal gambling are being actively ignored.

Either they need to go after everyone or no one. Since going after everyone is probably unlikely, targeting Valve for it would be unfair and may be dismissed.

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

WRT the US, the entire reason Labubus are not legally considered gambling is because there is no wager on the outcome of them. You pay the same amount each time (not wagering based on desired outcomes), and you always get something back. The question of whether a certain level of outcome-value randomization should instead be used as the litmus test for gambling is not one that has been asked or answered legally.

The specific state-by-state definitions of gambling in the US vary, of course, but generally it consists of a wager on a specific outcome of a contest or chance event, under an agreement to receive some value in exchange based on the result.

Changing to a definition where any payment + any random chance of loot = gambling, would open up a lot of very interesting possibilities, like potentially applying to any randomized loot in a video game (unless you start making specific carve-outs). It's important to remember that gambling's definition doesn't only apply to legal gambling, but also illegal gambling, so grey-market resales of game accounts would have to be factored into the consideration of anything in-game's value (i.e. you can't avoid "random loot in a game" being gambling in that case by saying the game can't be legally traded for the item value, because regardless, game accounts can be traded).

In more concrete terms, if I can buy Diablo 2 (pay fixed cost), get a really good item drop (random chance value outcome), and sell my Steam account to someone who wants that item (money in, money out), why would that be different than that same flow with a loot box?

[-] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 points 1 day ago

I've of course heard of Labubus, but do you not pick one to purchase? Like, are people literally paying without knowing what they'll get?

I can't imagine going to HEB and buying a random box that contains "some kind of food."

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago

Yes, they're exactly that; plush doll random chance boxes. It's funny because gachapons have actually been in the US and Europe for 50+ years, but no one ever really thought of them like this because the toys inside never had real value.

Remember these outside of supermarkets?

[-] TehPers@beehaw.org 19 points 1 day ago

Booster packs in card games like Pokemon and MTG are gambling. They contain random cards with published, known odds. The cards are worth monetary value. The consensus across the board for these games in their communities is that the packs are gambling, and it is pretty much always better to buy single cards from a third party if you need specific cards.

So are they arguing it should be "legal gambling" here? Because I'd argue the opposite - booster packs are also illegal gambling.

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 2 points 23 hours ago

One argument is that gambling requires the chance of a loss - you go to a casino, make a wager, buy a lottery ticket, bet on a horse race, you can lose your money and end up with nothing.

But buy a Labubu, a Lego minifigure blind bag, MtG booster, or a video game lootbox, and while you don't know exactly what, you will always get something in return for your money.

Then again, "taking a gamble" is a term used for many things, like when you buy a used car without extensively checking the condition first, because you don't know what exactly you are getting...

[-] Alcyonaria@piefed.world 3 points 1 day ago

Mashallah valve will pay for bringing maplestory to the west

this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
58 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

42478 readers
252 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS