While hardly relevant, I took a look at what the Finnish Lotteries Act (unofficial translation) has to say on the matter and as far as I can see it, the judgement would hang upon whether we count the supply and demand of the Steam Marketplace as "winning" or "losing" from buying the case & key. Common sense of course says no.Areloch said:
Senator calls for gambling legistaion against CS:GO
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, one part your argument seemed to be that this the situation is absurd because you said things like "In this case, Valve is apparently managing to profit by just shuffling around items that don't even exist." My argument was that whether they exist or not doesn't matter, and that skins have become virtual casino chips. You agree with this, so I think we can move on.LegendaryGamer0 said:
Okay, so if it's possible to pay a fixed amount of money to receive a random amount of money in skins, that's essentially identical to a slot machine. These skins can instantly be turned into real cash which people get into their bank accounts. The exact mechanics of this are unimportant. Whether Valve offers this service themselves also doesn't matter. The point is that a person can pay some money, and after all that shit has been converted from money to skins and back, they get some randomized amount of money, so when all is said and done, the game CS:GO doesn't even matter anymore. It's merely a vessel. Do you disagree with any of this?
If somebody offered this (a slot machine) on a regular internet site, they would be subject to regulations. So far CS:GO hasn't been. That makes no sense. Whether you like the regulations or not, everyone should be subject to the same ones. Disagree?
Now to be clear one more time: I don't think the proposed legislation is good. If there was a vote and I was included, I wouldn't vote for it. It would be smarter if the Australian government actually talked to Valve, and they could work out a solution which stops people from using this system to gamble, instead of classifying CS:GO as a gambling game, since so many people play it without gambling (I know: no shit. But people seem to be misunderstanding me.)
HOWEVER: Since I'm purely a spectator, and have on influence whatsoever in this, it brings me a certain joy to see Valve be the victim of some deserved repercussions when they did jack-shit and instead enjoyed the increased profits these gambling activities were bringing to CS:GO. It's my hope this motion doesn't pass, but makes Valve get their asses into gear and finally do something.
Casino chips in the sense that people are accepting these things as such, yes. I think it's funny that they're supposedly making assloads off of so little effort. I have to give them props for it.Fat_Hippo said:
Same as a card pack. Just think that similarity is quite important here.
That's pretty damn amazing and I want to know the specifics on that which I must look at later.
Actually, in legal terms, they are.
It's barely even a vessel but I'm getting your logic.
I disagree in that this has nothing to do with the actions of Valve or CS:GO. This has to do with gambling using items involving the game. If you're arguing that CS:GO should be regulated based on what people are doing with in game items using third party sites, then I'm going to say that argument is not reasonable.
The issue here is that Valve is indeed doing something about it. They're going after these sites. There is no need for regulation on this front.
Either way, you're experiencing joy at the use of terrible laws to bring undeserved restrictions to someone because they are doing something you dislike that has nothing to do with the legislation. That is not the function of law and I hope the senator buys a damn clue so if anything gets done here, it's reasonable and makes some goddamn sense. This is bordering on "US engagements in the Middle East" levels of stupid on how all of this is working. This is a total misuse and bastardization of what law is supposed to be.
If anyone wants something to be done about gambling using skins, the people that should be pursued are the owners of the websites, not Valve.
In your previous posts you multiple times used his lack of knowledge, alleged incompetence and not complete cluelessness as talking points to why this whole thing was absurd. Now that you're being asked to source any of that nonsense, he's suddenly not worth a mention? I think that says all I need to know.LegendaryGamer0 said:
Please bear with me as I'm posting from mobile. If this looks like a train wreck when posted, that'll be why.
This is where I got my info of his statement from as I plucked it from Google. All I can see from that is the senator wanting CS:GO classified as a gambling game because kids are "being groomed to gamble" through these sites. If you have a source with more of his statements I'd appreciate it.
I never said nor meant to imply he's not worth sourcing. I was questioning your wording.Elijin said:
This is where I got my info of his statement from as I plucked it from Google. All I can see from that is the senator wanting CS:GO classified as a gambling game because kids are "being groomed to gamble" through these sites. If you have a source with more of his statements I'd appreciate it.
Eh, so what's your point? You want me to feel bad about my Schadenfreude? If you want the moral high ground, good for you. I already agreed with you that it's not a good law and I wouldn't even support it, but if you wanna tear into me for where I get my kicks from, have at it.LegendaryGamer0 said:
Genuine question: What, exactly, is "shitty" about the case-and-key system? You pay a flat rate for a chance to get one of several, optional, purely cosmetic items. What exactly is "shitty" about that?Saelune said:
Right, because "questionable design decisions" are of the utmost concern for politicians...
Agreed, but please point to where Valve is "abusing their power" with the case-and-key system.
And you've come to this conclusion...how? People enjoy buying cosmetics for games like CS:GO, Dota 2, and TF2. The communities have even built an entire ecosystem around making and trading them.
The only thing to be accomplished by a "gambling tax" on these systems is either forcing Valve to end the cosmetics entirely or universally raising prices across the board. And I'm struggling to see how that would "benefit" us.
Tax what? The MTG Booster Packs?
S'far as I'm aware, they don't. No more than whatever taxes are inherent in shipping, distribution, etc.
There are no 'gambling taxes' on TCGs/CCGs.
Am I? Got some proof of that? I'll grant I'm not 100% up-to-snuff on all gambling regulations across the US, Australia, etc, but from what I do know, things like the CS:GO Case system and MTG's Booster Packs are not gambling.Strazdas said:
If you can provide evidence to prove me wrong, I'll stand corrected.
Fuck, I hope not. Not only do such laws NOT apply to these sorts of games, but enforcing such laws against these sorts of games will pretty much ring the death knell for community-supported cosmetic items.
RIP my favorite custom music packs in CS:GO and Dota 2....
I bought the game, why do I need to keep paying for it? Microtransactions are shitty. They literally nickel and dime you. And FOR FUCKING SKINS! My god they are worthless, yet here we are. http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=300 A VG Cats comic that shows my issue with it, and that's way back when it was just TF2 doing it, and in TF2 you atleast get actual things sometimes, not JUST crates. They "give" you something, then extort you to actually open it. Whatever the fuck happened to unlockables? Where you did something and got something for it that didn't take your money.Vigormortis said:
When games are designed to abuse the consumer, then yes, regulators need to step in. Valve has no love for its community, only our money.
I don't want a gambling tax. I want...no gambling. I want to play games and not feel extorted, I want to buy a game, and not have to keep buying the game. I want a full package.
I want games to be art and entertainment. Not a business model.
Just because people are ok with it, doesn't mean its ok. People as a whole are stupid. They buy into a lot of things, literally and figuratively that is toxic to them, but they don't think about the issues or ramifications. And those of us who don't buy into it still get punished.
You...don't? Where are you being forced to keep paying for it?Saelune said:
Not by default, they aren't.
When abused, yes they can be. But purely optional microtransactions are not inherently 'shitty'.
Only if A: you opt to buy them and B: only if you consider what you're getting to not be worth the asking price.
To you, maybe. But who are you to decide what value they have to others? Why do you get to decide what does or doesn't have intrinsic value to other people?
And by the way, the prices of the skins in CS:GO are determined by the community, not Valve.
Extortion? Really? That's...a tad extreme.
You get a case and you can...open it or ignore it. Or, even better, sell it on the Market.
You get something for free AND you can make money on it. Hardly what I would call "extortion".
You still have that. But the cosmetics you're referencing in CS:GO are not unlockables because they weren't made by Valve. These are items made by members of the community. Proceeds for item sales (like keys for cases) go to the members of the community that made the items.
Are you saying these people shouldn't be paid for their creations? That's quite greedy of you.
Besides, NONE of these things prevent you from modding the client side of your game. You can still put as many custom skins, HUDs, etc, as you want into it. They just won't be displayed within anyone else's version.
So again, I'm still failing to see the 'abuse' or 'extortion'.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me how the game 'abuses' the players. I keep seeing you say it abuses the players, but I'm yet to see proof of that.
Which I suppose is why they never, ever listen to the community. Not once. And I suppose that's also why they never, ever conceive of, sponsor, and host dozens and dozens of free community events, updates, and other such things.
They just...hate the community and only want our money. That's why I've had to spend SO MUCH MONEY on getting content updates to Dota 2, CS:GO, and TF2, instead of getting it all for free.
So then talk to the jerkoffs hosting the gambling sites, instead of lambasting Valve over something that isn't gambling?
Do you get this vehemently angry at WOC over their model of inserting random cards into booster packs? Do you consider those gambling? Do you demand legislators step in and regulate those?
How are the cosmetics in CS:GO different than booster packs in MTG? (besides the skins being digital and the MTG cards being required to play at all)
Are you the sort of person who has no control over the impulse to buy optional, community-created items? If not, then how are you being extorted? How are you being forced to buy anything?
You bought the game. You have the game. Play it as you will. You don't have to take part in any of the item trading.
Seriously. You don't need to resort to hyperbolic language to get your point across. 'Extortion', 'abuse', et al are hardly applicable here. Come on.
These things are mutually exclusive?
And 'art' that fails to repay the creators efforts rarely lasts long. Especially in the mass entertainment market.
Which I agree with, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the Case-and-Key system is not "okay".
And consequently, you not liking the system does not automatically make it 'not okay'.
That's kind of mean.
You're not entirely wrong, but I'm still not seeing how what's applicable to the situation.
How?! No really, how? How are you being punished? If anything, the implementation of legislation (and likely taxes) into these games will be the thing that punishes people like you and not just those who buy optional cosmetics.
I would like to point out that 15% of the proceeds go to Valve themselves. Quoting from a Bloomberg article: "According to research firm Eilers & Krejcik Gaming, more than 3 million people wagered $2.3 billion worth of skins on the outcome of e-sports matches in 2015. This, too, has contributed to Valve's bottom line. The gambling sites run on software built by Valve, and whenever CS:GO skins are sold, the game maker collects 15 percent of the money." (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-virtual-guns-counterstrike-gambling/)Vigormortis said:
So Valve most definitely has a strong financial stake in all of this, and did not create this skin system purely for the benefit of skin makers.
Personally, I think one solution for this (without classifying CS:GO as a gambling game) which would still allow for people to create and equip cosmetics would simply be to disable the trading of skins between accounts. People could still unlock skins and wear them, but since they could no longer be transferred between accounts, it would kill any possibility of gambling. Some F2P games don't allow skins to be traded anyway, and I haven't heard people complaining about this, e.g. in League of Legends.
I don't think disabling the trading would be a terrible limitation of freedom either, since the buying and wearing of skins would still be available to all. It would just kill the 3rd party market, which is kind of the point here anyway.
I'm just saying that path fucks us all over in the end.Fat_Hippo said:
I'm broke until payday so I'd appreciate someone footing the bill!fisheries said:
That's being very generous. Do you mean his overall legislation involving gambling, or this in particular? Both would fit on a fingernail but in the latter case, that's because I can barely find a paragraph from the man.
Who did that?
I call out specific stupidity from any given person, no matter their background.
That's a bad idea.
I find it legitimately funny that you guys rate it lower than we do.
This is all just sounding like people are wanting an end to crate drops by any means necessary.
But stupid legislation is stupid legislation.
Thank you. That provides a tad more detail, but still not a lot. It seems like Xeno himself didn't actually say a whole lot on this.
That's what I did in the first place.
Good for him. He sticks to his guns even if he makes bad shots.
...Really?
So, Big Tobacco became Big Gambling down there?
No, that's legitimately stupid. Explain to me how this specific case requires regulation while these two have drawn no ire. Or how these are not the exact same thing as crates. The first two have an obvious difference but I want to see what your argument against those, if any, is or would be. The latter is the actual rebuttal and shows the legislation as it stands is stupid and Xeno jumped the gun the moment he heard the word "gambling". Even in the article you linked it sounds like a case of the websites just needing to be held accountable to regulation already in place and that parents still need to get off their ass and not let their kid have access to their financials, or preferably in general actually being a parent.
Well, that's pretty obvious though isn't it?Fat_Hippo said:
Or just hold the websites accountable for what they are. There is no reason to bar trading of skins when the issue here is just websites going up and breaking the law.
I'm a broken record at this point, but there is another particular game that also has a skin system and also has third party gambling websites set up for in game items and skins and no one is attacking them. There are key differences here but I don't think that actually matters to most people. The overall system is the same, so I want to know why people are being very selective in their support of regulation. Is it the crates? It's the crates isn't it?
I know the exact differences but I want to see if this is all consistent.
Well of course, that goes without saying. But the amount being wagered on the skins isn't proportional to the cut Valve takes from item sales via the market. Also, Valve takes no cut from direct item trades, which is often the system employed by those running gambling sites. So, in effect, Valve often gets nothing from those trades.Fat_Hippo said:
Point being: Valve gains nothing from those sites operating. However, their response was not brought on because they wish to shut down the sites' ability to make money. The sites in question were breaking the terms of use for the OpenID API, which gives Valve legal precedent to act. Otherwise, Valve is literally powerless to do anything to them.
And the item market in its entirety. Part of the appeal of the Steam Market is to allow users to freely buy, trade, and sell items they accumulate through various means within their games. Some people may have an item they don't want. The Market allows them to sell the item to someone who does want it, and to make a tiny bit of money in the process. Others may have a set of items they've been seeking for some time, but didn't have the means or funds to acquire them through conventional means. The Market would theoretically allow them to acquire the items from other users for discounted prices.
Tearing down the Item Market on Steam, just because a few assholes decided to illegally take advantage of the OpenID API, seems like the "cutting off the leg when a Bandaid would do" response.
The point of Valve's response isn't to shut down 3rd party item sites. It's to shut down those taking advantage of the OpenID and related systems, and those taking advantage of Steam users through the Steam client.
Bingo. Everything else is just an overly extreme response to a set of 'issues' that don't necessarily even exist.LegendaryGamer0 said:
You realise the entire situation is your fault, right?
Not yours, specifically, but gamers.
A system is set up and someone immediately looks for and eventually finds a way to twist it to their own advantage and then spreads the news. And then people like this muppet get up in arms and proceed to make it everyone else's problem.
Not yours, specifically, but gamers.
A system is set up and someone immediately looks for and eventually finds a way to twist it to their own advantage and then spreads the news. And then people like this muppet get up in arms and proceed to make it everyone else's problem.
You say it's the fault of gamers but then state why exactly it isn't the fault of gamers, so I don't know if you're joking or not.. This is the usual instance of people dancing with the letter of the law/outright breaking it.Cap said:
Of course, politicians always want to add more laws whether they're needed/wanted or not. Makes them look like they're earning their paycheck.
Well there are the regulations that keep the casinos from blatanly cheating or marketing to children who don't know any better. It's entirely possible for example to program slot machines to pay out small amounts at specific intervals to keep the person playing but to never pay out anything big, guaranteeing that the casino will come out ahead every time. There's also a ton of different ways the dealer could control what cards get dealt in blackjack. I may be biased though, since I'm already against casinos for tossing people out over counting cards (which isn't even cheating, all you are is more aware of the odds you don't manipulate them to your favor), or even just because they feel your winning too much, though I suppose it's fortunate they're even required to let you cash in your chips first.LegendaryGamer0 said:
What you're saying in terms of regulation is about the only thing I agree with. Though I'd quite enjoy a session of the house and the player cheating and seeing who comes out on top.archvile93 said:
Hell, you can have a game that's blatantly unfair. Just don't advertise it as winnable if it isn't. And don't even get me started on casinos and card counting.
+1. Companies cant force you to pay for things. They do pretend that you "need" their product. You have to use self control.Vigormortis said:
First, its not just politicians, lawyers make more money off making laws. They come in to draft the laws and have incentives to make it as murky as possible so they are needed.LegendaryGamer0 said:
Second, the whole point of being an entrepreneur is to be innovative which includes skirting and breaking laws. Look at Uber and Airbnb. Or Min-Maxing in your favourite game.
I would say it also the gamers fault (I would limit it to the gamers who used the site but I am also slightly responsible for not finding out before the news broke.) Self-regulation in not just a corporate responsibility. Supporting such site just leads to more sites.