Comment

Comment on Valve compares its loot boxes to Labubus in lawsuit defense

By this definition, buying anything is a wager.

Mostly correct. Buying anything which retains value after the purchase is a wager. This includes shares in a company, collectible items, even a shipping crate of RAM.

You’re not betting on a specific outcome in that definition, which is the “gamble” part of “gambling”.

In the case of TCGs, the bet is that the value of the cards contained in the pack exceed the money spent on the pack. This is very common. And within TCG communities, there is a common understanding that this is gambling.

That’s of course not to say that all purchases of a booster pack are with the intent to gamble. I’ve also played poker and blackjack for fun, and those games are full of wagers, bets, and outcomes. But the bar has never been that all possible reasons to do something are to gamble, just that gambling is a common motivation to do it.

source

Sort:hotnew top

t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
[deleted]
source
- TehPers@beehaw.org ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  And yet are not “gambling” as the colloquial understanding of the regulated activity stand, nor certainly things that people want to be covered under gambling regulations.
  
  I didn’t say they were gambling, though trading shares is often associated with gambling. But in all of those examples, you receive something with value that changes in a way that is impossible to accurately predict.
  
  And since this is about what should fall under the regulated activity, doubly-irrelevant.
  
  And here you’re changing the topic to suit your needs. I replied to a comment discussing the definition of the word “wager”. As I’ve told you not long ago today, I don’t care much about the semantics of specific words. I’ll engage in the discussion though.
  
  And since this definition is irrelevant to the regulated activity, it’s irrelevant to TCGs or loot boxes if you are pushing for those to be considered regulated gambling.
  
  What? I’d like to remind you that you responded to me and solo’d out TCG boosters. In my response, I said very clearly that I am not a lawyer, nor do I make any claims as to what they should say in their case.
  
  If you are only arguing about what is or isn’t legal, then you’re wasting your time. I’m not a lawyer, nor in a position to rule on laws. I don’t know if something gave you the impression otherwise.
  
  If you’re arguing about what should or shouldn’t be legal, then it’s not an unpopular opinion that TCG booster packs should be regulated to some extent.
  
  Anyway, I’m disengaging. As you mentioned before, we assume good faith here. That is my initial assumption, so I engaged with the discussion. At this point, I believe you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
  
  source