Comment on Steam :: About the New York Attorney General lawsuit against Valve
rmrf@lemmy.ml 1 day agoYou drew a really strong link between what EA did and what Valve does, and that gives me the idea that you build your stance on that. EA lootboxes gave you nothing of monetary value, whereas that’s objectively untrue with valve.
You can say that the items are virtual so they’re not really valuable, but you can say the same thing about baseball cards in a sense; they provide no tangible value, only monetary value from sentiment, which is either real and applies to virtual items equally, or it isn’t in which collectable cards are in the same camp as weapon skins.
EA’s lootboxes gave items that could not be transferred, that’s also different from csgo boxes.
EA’s lootboxes locked core gameplay content behind them, and went so far as to reduce the playtime of people without them because the contents of the boxes were so overpowered making them a must have. I don’t recall ever having a noticeably worse experience playing CS because I didn’t have a skin, and I’m not already $60 in on the game y’know?
I agree that kids should not be able to buy cases unsupervised, and parents should be aware that this exists. But I also think that about pokemon and baseball and MTG cards as well, for the exact same reason.
I know I’ve done a lot of writing, so to summarize I’m not convinced by your logic. I believe CS cases are much closer to opening a pack of cards than you’re giving them credit for, and I think they’re an entirely different product than EA’s infamous lootboxes for a number of reasons.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I just briefly mentioned EA for having lootboxes. It could have been any other company. My point is, if any other company did what Valve did, I would hate that too. Also that the items in Steam / Valve games are transferable doesn’t matter, because it is still lootbox, a chance and gamble to get something and to get addicted. In fact, being able to transfer and sell or trade makes this even worse than static micro transactions to me. It is the same problem with collectable sports or Pokemon cards (which is in my opinion worse, because kids can buy them and get addicted…).
To make that clear: To me the trade market of Valve is a huge problem. This should not be a thing with videogames. Not even EA does that, or any other company for that matter (I am not focused on EA, it was just an example).
My bro in example got addicted to CS:GO skins and wasted lot of money. Because he could get the one expensive item and could sell it for lots of money. And that is not okay!
rmrf@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
It’s good you’re consistent in your beliefs.
I don’t believe things should be illegal only because a subset of the population cannot handle themselves. I’m sorry to hear about what happened to your brother, that really sucks and I’ve seen it first hand; I know it’s devastating and I’ve felt the anger towards the beneficiary of such products. It’s a thin line to walk, though, because what happens to the rest of the population that has no issue with it? I’ve found myself addicted to weed before, and it’s had a meaningful impact on my life going so far as to dropping out of school because I wouldn’t allow myself to drive to class while high and I had bad priorities. That, though, is not grounds for everyone else that can handle themselves responsibly to be prohibited from that. With Pokemon cards I see the same problem, I don’t think irresponsible parents are sufficient grounds for regulating what the rest of the public can and cannot do. It is the exact rationale used to require age verifications online, in the OS, and a growing number of other places. In my other comment on this thread I talk about it a bit more.
TL;DR, I empathize with you and your brother. Having said that, the weaknesses of a few should not dictate the liberties of the whole. A much better and proven effective method would be social measures like public, free, and well-researched rehab and safety nets to prevent the effects of gambling addictions from ravaging the lives of those affected and their loved ones.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml 23 hours ago
I think lots of people have a problem or could get a problem with that, and don’t realize it. I mean it is similar to the shitty microtransactions situation on smartphone games. I say similar in the sense, that most people don’t have a problem with it, compared to the population and how many have a problem. This should not be an excuse for exploitation of the weak ones.
But besides that, I don’t even think its a problem with a few only. Even the potential of getting addicted is bad. There are reasons why children (i mean under 18) are not allowed in casinos. Are these games and the gambling with CS:GO and Team Fortress 2 for 18+ only? Whatever it is, we all know younger people play these games too. If not the microphone is a good indication… but I digress here. I hope the market place in Steam will go away. There is no good reason for, other than Valve making money. There is not benefit for humanity or the people.
BTW the situation with my bro was not that too bad, just saying. It was a slight problem, but one that showed me first hand (or is it second hand?). I am also glad you made it through your difficult times.
rmrf@lemmy.ml 22 hours ago
I appreciate your message at the end :) One of the things I appreciate about lemmy is the conversations are not assumed adversarial like they are on most socials.
I see what you’re saying, and I agree microtransactions deserve to burn in hell. I also realize that people have an issue with realizing an addiction, even their own, and even when they’re “aware” of it. I don’t want to point the finger at other larger societal issues as a default strategy, but we do have hard evidence from other countries where these issues get caught earlier because of public campaigns combating the stigma around such problems in tandem with the social safety net required to truly fix them.
I don’t think gambling is good, I’m not even fully convinced that the csgo cases should persist, and my intent is not to convince you they should. My stance is purely philosophical/logical in the sense that limitations should not be placed on the public with the sole justification of protecting a subset, especially children, since it is the parents’ entire role as guardian to protect them from the hardships in life. I’m sure I’m ignoring the nuance in my stance by saying that, but the general idea is there; something being bad for some people should not be the only reason nobody can have it, and that goes for drugs, art, communication, bed times, expression, etc. I know they’re problems worth protecting the affected subsets from, but legislative blanket bans are not the correct tool.
Glad to hear all is well, by the way. Addiction is a hell of a disease and gambling especially can have quite the blast radius. I hope you don’t see me as an enemy