this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2026

42 points (95.7% liked)

Gaming

4816 readers

3 users here now

The Lemmy.zip Gaming Community

For news, discussions and memes!

Community Rules

This community follows the Lemmy.zip Instance rules, with the inclusion of the following rule:

No NSFW content

You can see Lemmy.zip's rules by going to our Code of Conduct.

What to Expect in Our Code of Conduct:

Respectful Communication: We strive for positive, constructive dialogue and encourage all members to engage with one another in a courteous and understanding manner.
Inclusivity: Embracing diversity is at the core of our community. We welcome members from all walks of life and expect interactions to be conducted without discrimination.
Privacy: Your privacy is paramount. Please respect the privacy of others just as you expect yours to be treated. Personal information should never be shared without consent.
Integrity: We believe in the integrity of speech and action. As such, honesty is expected, and deceptive practices are strictly prohibited.
Collaboration: Whether you're here to learn, teach, or simply engage in discussion, collaboration is key. Support your fellow members and contribute positively to shared learning and growth.

If you enjoy reading legal stuff, you can check it all out at legal.lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Demigodrick@lemmy.zip

Sami@lemmy.zip

GamingBot@lemmy.zip

"Valve does not cooperate with gambling sites" - Counter-Strike publishers issue rare public defence of lootbox mechanics, following New York lawsuit (www.rockpapershotgun.com)

submitted 2 months ago by ZippyBot@lemmy.zip to c/gaming@lemmy.zip

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] GameOverFlow@lemmy.zip 20 points 2 months ago

But they enable them.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

This isn't a defense of lootbox mechanics. This is a defense of their company from this lawsuit. Don't fall for this propaganda. Valve is totally under corporate attack right now and that includes media coverage. If we want to keep the PC gaming market as great as it is we have to publicly support them.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't get how people don't see this!!! Our favorite billionaire is under SIEGE by the radical militant gambling regulators. I mean, how would YOU people feel if the state of New York was trying to take away one of your six mega-yachts?? Lootboxes aren't even gambling, because you can sell your skins. Can you sell the money you make at a casino? I think not!

It's not like a Live Service game like Counterstrike is ever gonna shut down, because who would even be big enough to buy out Valve? I swear, some of y'all act like you don't love big corpo smh smh

[+] Xenny@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Look I'm not defending billionaires or anything, but I am noting that there's blood in the water and this billionaire is being attacked by other billionaires. You're being manipulated into hating this company by other rich people. Like think for yourself.

I'm personally looking up for my own interest as a PC gamer. If this company goes under then our options are extremely limited as far as consumer protections and service in PC gaming. I really enjoy the circus that is steam. It's my favorite way to distract myself from the fall of the world.

If we tear down valve now, we're just entrenching the older corporate computing powers like microslop. Last I fucking checked it was Bill Gates in the Epstein files not Gabe Newell

Btw your own fucking example would show that Nintendo would own Counter-Strike should that happen. That's a literal nightmare scenario. Nintendo's extremely fucking terrible for consumers right now. One of the only reasons valve is in the news and getting all this flack is because they are private company and refuse to go public and feed into the publicly traded stock market system that is currently tearing our whole fucking world apart.

Many large corporate powers are nervous that they aren't bowing the knee in and instead are freeing computing power in gaming and the OS space from the shackles of the old computing world. Which by the way, if you haven't been paying attention is currently under siege, consumers are taking the back seat as far as computing is involved. The billionaires have decided we get to take their shit service and we get to pay more for it because there are no other options and they are making it that way. Valve is the only company running counter to this new market strategy.

So yeah, I'll go to bat for them until I'm shown why I shouldn't.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think you maybe missed some of the satire there, let's correct the record.

Nintendo would own Counter-Strike

Uhhhh... in that article, it is Microsoft floating the idea of buying Nintendo, not Nintendo floating the idea of buying Valve. If Microsoft is large enough to consider buying Nintendo, they are large enough to consider buying Valve. Like, our shared nightmare scenario is Microsoft owning Counterstrike. I don't want that any more than you do.

freeing computing power in gaming and the OS space from the shackles of the old computing world

This is extremely florid language to describe a for-profit company. I believe the kids call this "glazing" but I prefer the old "giving a sloppy toppy."

is currently under siege,

Hey that's my line!!

So yeah, I'll go to bat for them until I'm shown why I shouldn't.

Here, I will show you why, and I'll use Lemmy's own cultural philosophy to make the point. "There are no good billionaires, and there are no good corporations." Until 2016, Valve did not have a refund policy on Steam. If you got duped into buying shovelware, or you bought a game you just couldn't run because it was buggy or broken, you were Shit Outta Luck. Today, Valve has a pretty good refund policy. They could have made this refund policy at any time, they did not need to wait for Australia's regulators to force their hand. But they didn't. Why? Because it cost them money. "Valve’s official standing way back in 2014, when the suit was first filed, was that it had no refund policy, something that is guaranteed under Australian Consumer Law"

Valve is in the business of making money, not freeing you from your digital chains. The Steam Deck costs money. The Steam Machine is going to cost a lot of money. Steam OS as a free downloadable installer does not exist yet. I would like it to exist, but Valve has not made it so. For technical support reasons? Possibly. For monetary reasons, to entice you to buy their hardware? Very likely.

You can like Valve, you can like their products and services, I like their stuff too, I don't begrudge you any of that. Hell I share your complaints about all the other big tech companies, every one of them. But Valve is not exempt from all the bullshit those companies do, because Valve does it too. Defending them like this is embarrassing yourself, you probably know better than that.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Steam OS as a free downloadable installer does exist. The biggest argument you have against me is that they didn't have a refund policy until 11 years ago. A refund policy by the way, which is almost unheard of in a digital storefront. Sure, I read that article wrong And yes, I do believe all companies should be beholden to the law but this lawsuit right now is a targeted attack. I can't believe we're supporting weaponized law like this. They don't charge for their software like proton or their OS, and they always sell their hardware at a loss. Sure, they're in the business of making money but they definitely protect consumers as much as they can on the way to doing it. I don't care. I'll defend valve, downvote me.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How does allowing a corporation (who extra harmful monopolistic influence on the PC game market) to break gambling laws, help your personal interests? They could stop doing that shit and still name bank from their obscene cut for doing nothing but selling other people's products.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

"Extra harmful monopolistic influence on the PC game market". I'm going to need sources and I'm going to need anecdotes from developers that tell me how they are harmful before I believe your statement. Also, I do not believe they are beaking gambling laws. Maybe if you are so horny for the fucking law, we actually observe innocent until proven guilty

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You think dictating that their platform has to have the lowest non-sale price (while also take that 30% cost) doesn't set a floor for pricing on games across the industry?

Kids paying real money for the small chance to obtain items that can be traded within the same platform for lots of money...is child gambling regardless of how you want to define it.

innocent until proven guilty applies to the government, not the people observing the obvious. Speaking out your ass.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There, your logic breaks down when you say kids can then redeem the items for money within the same platform. First off, the very nature of making purchases on steam requires you to be 18 or have parental consent. Also people cannot exchange the goods on steam for USD only steam points. Steam points are not dollars and cannot be transferred back into USD or any other currency. You have to go through a third-party website to do that and valve has cracked down on those websites in the past. This is up to further legislation further up the pipe to curb this problem.

Also, I want it to be clear to everybody reading this. That steam does require developers to list steam keys STEAM KEYS at the same price they sell them on steam. Developers can mint steam keys for free.

You see this policy is in place because if someone were to start selling steam keys on a platform that wasn't steam suddenly, steam will not see any profits off those disproportionate sales because they weren't made on the platform. And once word gets out that it's cheaper somewhere else nobody will buy it on steam. And then steam is then responsible for all bandwidth now and forever into perpetuity for all of those users downloads and updates.

Many developers have actually tried this look up facepunch. They tried to sell steam keys outside of steam to get all the profit. They decided that it was ultimately worth the cost to just go through steam because hosting their own sales and refunds and support network for their game was too much. Even with the piggybacking off of steam's bandwidth. By the way, facepunch is worth millions. Steam just provides a good fucking deal.

If you wanted to have your own storefront that sold your game exclusively without steam keys. You could list it to whatever price you fucking wanted. Even if you were selling it on steam for more. But if you want the bandwidth and support network that comes with the steam deal, then you have to follow their terms of service. Go figure.

Anyway, I'm done listing the obvious.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 7 points 1 month ago

No. Defending someone doing something illegal and profiting off of it because you hate someone else more is not how you get good results. All you've done is keep corporation in the system.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You ARE the gambling site. That's the issue.

[–] _spiffy@piefed.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So should we ban pokemon cards as well?

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Probably, sorry if that hurts your nostalgia.

The one possible redeeming difference is that those cards are an integral part of playing the game.

A lot of these loot boxes are for worthless cosmetics that can then be sold for real money using the same company that sold the loot box as an intermediary.

Japan deals with the same issue with pachinko parlors. Gambling is illegal there, so they give out useless trinkets as prizes. And they all just happen to be located next to a shop (owned by the same company but legally distinct) which will buy those useless trinkets for a set amounts of money. A casino with extra steps. Sounds familiar?

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.earth 7 points 1 month ago

I've said elsewhere, but for trading card games like Pokemon, Magic, etc, at the very least there is some longevity to the game if the parent company goes under. The rules of Magic are well documented and easy to find. If you have cards, the bankruptcy or buyout of Hasbro can't stop you from playing with your friends at the kitchen table.

If Valve goes bankrupt, or gets bought out, or they shutter Counterstrike, what happens to all the skins you acquired in the game? Poof, they're all gone. Nobody can play with the things they bought (or won in a game of chance) ever again.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

The thing you're all fucking missing is no you can't sell the in-game items for real money through the service. Steam money isn't real money. It can't go back into a normal economy. You always have to sell your inventory through a third party if you want it to be USD

This whole lawsuit this whole thing is to try to get age verification checks through steam to lock down our privacy rights, while at the same time throwing another lawsuit on the pile to try to bury valve for not cooperating with the billionaire computing cabal. You're all fucking blind

[–] 87Six@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I know guys that made money selling accounts then bragged to me... Don't be foolish

It being against TOS is irrelevant if the TOS isn't enforced...

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 2 points 1 month ago

Your credit card is already tracking and selling all the purchasing data you use it for on steam. Your identity is attached to that account

[–] Aria@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They list the value in USD. You can use the money to pay your Adobe Subscription. Would you be taking the same stance if I hacked Steam to give myself Steam-wallet money? Would I be committing fraud or merely griefing a fun virtual casino-themed game for fun?

[–] _spiffy@piefed.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In a lot of countries casinos and gambling are perfectly legal. So why should loot boxes or blind packs be illegal but not casinos?

Don't get me wrong, I would rather buy a skin than risk money on a loot box, but at least with valve if you open the box and get something you don't want you can sell it or trade it for something else.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Is it legal for children to be gambling in those places?

I bet they're not paying the same taxes that those casinos are.

Regardless, this is a story about an American company being held accountable to American laws. So what is allowed elsewhere isn't all that relevant.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They aren't supporting children gambling. Every game listed in lawsuit is rated M. They ask you your age before you buy these games and before you put in any payment information into steam. It's not verified with an ID or anything but that is a whole nother can of worms in computing that will open up a box we do not want to open. Also, you can't even fucking buy anything on steam without a debit card. Which by the way you need to be 18 to have unless you have parental consent.

The solution here is more parenting. The solution here is to go after gambling culture as a whole. The solution here is to take down polymarket. The solution here is to make it so that gambling is not the main fucking commercial during our super bowl halftime.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Steam gift cards are a thing.

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which can't be purchased with steam points. What's your point?

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

...you said a debit card is required. It's not. My point: you're wrong

[–] Xenny@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Steam itself still asks your age before verifying any purchase. This is a parenting problem.

By the way, steam actually offers parental controls and family accounts to manage purchasing decisions and the like. If you're so worried about your children, then maybe be involved in their life and pay attention to them and what they're doing?