So, a link to an interesting video discussing the continued problem of
loot-box inspired gambling (and specifically, Valve's role in the
problem). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMmNy11Mn7g

Well, I thought it was interesting, but I enjoy reading about the game
industry as much (possibly more at this point) as I do about the games
themselves. It's 36 minutes, so it's not too long, although it's
apparently done by a single guy so I can't verify its accuracy.

But it raises some interesting points about the problem of lootboxes
and how they lead to gambling. It's not just that the lootboxes
themselves are, in essence, digital slot machines. Rather, the article
points out that the 'winnings' of these lootboxes can then be traded -
to third-party websites in exchange for further attempts at the
slot-machine. And since this occurs outside of Valve's ecosystem,
there's absolutely no control or moderation. The end result is all the
corruption and scumminess you'd expect, and most of it aimed at kids.

I - probably like most people here - was aware of the problem, but
unaware of how big it had grown, with some third-party websites
earning billions of US dollars. And while Valve is not directly
responsible, it enables these websites, partners with them, and
profits from that partnership. Valve frequently claims it is powerless
to stop it, and anyway, there's no direct connection between the two
ecosystems, it could easily end it all by simply disabling the API
that allows the websites to access players inventories (thus keeping
items - and money - inside Steam). Yet they don't.

Regardless of Valve's complicity, the video does explain why games
like "Counterstrike:GO" and "Team Fortress 2" perennially remain on
top of the most-active multiplayer games list. I've never understood
those title's continued popularity, and that's because I was judging
their success by the games themselves. But the gameplay is almost
incidental; they remain popular because they are the source of the
lootboxes and the cosmetics that are used as 'chips' on these gambling
sites. It's why people keep buying (and rebuying, if they get banned)
the same game. The fans don't care as much about the mechanics as
using it as a source of money and to get their next gambling-inspired
dopamine rush.

It also points out the source of some of Valve's extraordinary wealth;
it isn't just because they act as middlemen and get a cut from the
sale of every game. They get $2.50 every time a lootbox is opened, and
a 5-10% cut out of the sale of every cosmetic (whether it's a digital
hat or skin for a shotgun, or whatever). Valve has money to waste
because it's making bank off of people's (often teen's) gambling
addictions.

Of course, this is a single-sourced viewpoint of the problem, so take
it all with a grain of salt. Still, like I said, I thought it was
interesting.

On 07/11/2022 23:54, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> So, a link to an interesting video discussing the continued problem of
> loot-box inspired gambling (and specifically, Valve's role in the
> problem). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMmNy11Mn7g
>
> Well, I thought it was interesting, but I enjoy reading about the game
> industry as much (possibly more at this point) as I do about the games
> themselves. It's 36 minutes, so it's not too long, although it's
> apparently done by a single guy so I can't verify its accuracy.
>
> But it raises some interesting points about the problem of lootboxes
> and how they lead to gambling. It's not just that the lootboxes
> themselves are, in essence, digital slot machines. Rather, the article
> points out that the 'winnings' of these lootboxes can then be traded -
> to third-party websites in exchange for further attempts at the
> slot-machine. And since this occurs outside of Valve's ecosystem,
> there's absolutely no control or moderation. The end result is all the
> corruption and scumminess you'd expect, and most of it aimed at kids.
>
> I - probably like most people here - was aware of the problem, but
> unaware of how big it had grown, with some third-party websites
> earning billions of US dollars. And while Valve is not directly
> responsible, it enables these websites, partners with them, and
> profits from that partnership. Valve frequently claims it is powerless
> to stop it, and anyway, there's no direct connection between the two
> ecosystems, it could easily end it all by simply disabling the API
> that allows the websites to access players inventories (thus keeping
> items - and money - inside Steam). Yet they don't.
>
> Regardless of Valve's complicity, the video does explain why games
> like "Counterstrike:GO" and "Team Fortress 2" perennially remain on
> top of the most-active multiplayer games list. I've never understood
> those title's continued popularity, and that's because I was judging
> their success by the games themselves. But the gameplay is almost
> incidental; they remain popular because they are the source of the
> lootboxes and the cosmetics that are used as 'chips' on these gambling
> sites. It's why people keep buying (and rebuying, if they get banned)
> the same game. The fans don't care as much about the mechanics as
> using it as a source of money and to get their next gambling-inspired
> dopamine rush.
>
> It also points out the source of some of Valve's extraordinary wealth;
> it isn't just because they act as middlemen and get a cut from the
> sale of every game. They get $2.50 every time a lootbox is opened, and
> a 5-10% cut out of the sale of every cosmetic (whether it's a digital
> hat or skin for a shotgun, or whatever). Valve has money to waste
> because it's making bank off of people's (often teen's) gambling
> addictions.
>
> Of course, this is a single-sourced viewpoint of the problem, so take
> it all with a grain of salt. Still, like I said, I thought it was
> interesting.
>

Yeh, it's pretty shitty behaviour from Valve especially as it would seem
quite simple for them to be more proactive in preventing these sites
from functioning. It also certainly feels that they are skirting the
grey areas of the law in regards to gambling as in the UK* and other
countries the sticking point of whether it's gambling is that you can't
'cash out' on the contents of a lootbox.

As an aside, I did think I recognised the presenter and then thought oh
I occasional watch them for their boardgame reviews.

*Interesting enough we had a government select committee look into the
lootboxes (sorry surprise mechanics) issue for two years and their
recommendation was that they had enough of the elements of gambling that
the law should be changed to cover them as such. Our government's
response, we need to go back to the gaming companies to see what they
think.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 11:17:31 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>Yeh, it's pretty shitty behaviour from Valve especially as it would seem
>quite simple for them to be more proactive in preventing these sites
>from functioning. It also certainly feels that they are skirting the
>grey areas of the law in regards to gambling as in the UK* and other
>countries the sticking point of whether it's gambling is that you can't
>'cash out' on the contents of a lootbox.
>
>As an aside, I did think I recognised the presenter and then thought oh
>I occasional watch them for their boardgame reviews.

His video seemed quite professional and well researched, but I wasn't
familiar with him, and it's always wiser to take news you hear from
the Internet with a grain of salt. I don't doubt any of his stated
facts, but can't attest to his conclusions. That's not to say he's
being inaccurate, just that I can't vouch for the news. Such is the
world we live in today.

>*Interesting enough we had a government select committee look into the
>lootboxes (sorry surprise mechanics) issue for two years and their
>recommendation was that they had enough of the elements of gambling that
>the law should be changed to cover them as such. Our government's
>response, we need to go back to the gaming companies to see what they
>think.

The topic comes up every now and again but I don't think most people
are aware of how big the industry has become. I mean, when I hear
lootboxes equated to gambling, I think 'sure', because the randomness
of the lootbox is akin to a slot-machine. But I was awestruck at how
much further the industry has grown, where the winnings from those
lootboxes are then used as chips in third-party websites that both
purposely distance themselves from cash (to make it easier to lose
without feeling you're actually losing your shirt), and how they use a
format designed to be attractive to teens

(not that this should entirely be a "think about the children!" issue,
but these sites are focusing on them as their primary audience)

It's beyond "a sorta gambling mechanic built into games" and has
become an out-and-out mechanic that just happens to use game cosmetics
as the chips for their gambling machines that - for a variety of
reasons - is completely unregulated. So while I've little sympathy for
the lawmakers, I do have some understanding for their slowness to
respond. Aside from the usual "old people don't understand video
games" (or "bureaucrats don't understand), things are changing quite
quickly. I'd like to believe I have at least a little understanding of
the industry, but even I was taken aback by its scale. But perhaps I'm
just out of touch.

Of course, Valve isn't the only one to benefit from this - I'm sure EA
has similar problems - so arguably it's unfair to 'pick' on them
alone. Still, Valve does benefit to some degree from its reputation as
being 'for the gamer' more than its competitors, so this transparency
into this aspect of their business was welcome.

On 11/8/2022 10:59 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 11:17:31 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Yeh, it's pretty shitty behaviour from Valve especially as it would seem
>> quite simple for them to be more proactive in preventing these sites
>>from functioning. It also certainly feels that they are skirting the
>> grey areas of the law in regards to gambling as in the UK* and other
>> countries the sticking point of whether it's gambling is that you can't
>> 'cash out' on the contents of a lootbox.
>>
>> As an aside, I did think I recognised the presenter and then thought oh
>> I occasional watch them for their boardgame reviews.
>
> His video seemed quite professional and well researched, but I wasn't
> familiar with him, and it's always wiser to take news you hear from
> the Internet with a grain of salt.

Shirley you meant "with a pound of salt" there....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 08/11/2022 18:59, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 11:17:31 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Yeh, it's pretty shitty behaviour from Valve especially as it would seem
>> quite simple for them to be more proactive in preventing these sites
>>from functioning. It also certainly feels that they are skirting the
>> grey areas of the law in regards to gambling as in the UK* and other
>> countries the sticking point of whether it's gambling is that you can't
>> 'cash out' on the contents of a lootbox.
>>
>> As an aside, I did think I recognised the presenter and then thought oh
>> I occasional watch them for their boardgame reviews.
>
> His video seemed quite professional and well researched, but I wasn't
> familiar with him, and it's always wiser to take news you hear from
> the Internet with a grain of salt. I don't doubt any of his stated
> facts, but can't attest to his conclusions. That's not to say he's
> being inaccurate, just that I can't vouch for the news. Such is the
> world we live in today.
>

The internet is a great resource but it's also a complete minefield when
it comes to misinformation and the one I really don't like opinion
dressed up as news. Generally I employ the smell test of does what's
being said sound plausible. So to take the video you linked to, I think
the hard facts are probably correct but some of the conclusions - not so
sure about that.

The real problem I have though is the amount of people who seem to take
their news source from something that read on Facebook and 'the truth'
is based more on someone wanting it to be true than whether it is
actually true.

>> *Interesting enough we had a government select committee look into the
>> lootboxes (sorry surprise mechanics) issue for two years and their
>> recommendation was that they had enough of the elements of gambling that
>> the law should be changed to cover them as such. Our government's
>> response, we need to go back to the gaming companies to see what they
>> think.
>
> The topic comes up every now and again but I don't think most people
> are aware of how big the industry has become. I mean, when I hear
> lootboxes equated to gambling, I think 'sure', because the randomness
> of the lootbox is akin to a slot-machine. But I was awestruck at how
> much further the industry has grown, where the winnings from those
> lootboxes are then used as chips in third-party websites that both
> purposely distance themselves from cash (to make it easier to lose
> without feeling you're actually losing your shirt), and how they use a
> format designed to be attractive to teens
>
> (not that this should entirely be a "think about the children!" issue,
> but these sites are focusing on them as their primary audience)
>

I knew it still went on but I was surprised, like you, by the scale of it.

> It's beyond "a sorta gambling mechanic built into games" and has
> become an out-and-out mechanic that just happens to use game cosmetics
> as the chips for their gambling machines that - for a variety of
> reasons - is completely unregulated. So while I've little sympathy for
> the lawmakers, I do have some understanding for their slowness to
> respond. Aside from the usual "old people don't understand video
> games" (or "bureaucrats don't understand), things are changing quite
> quickly. I'd like to believe I have at least a little understanding of
> the industry, but even I was taken aback by its scale. But perhaps I'm
> just out of touch.
>
> Of course, Valve isn't the only one to benefit from this - I'm sure EA
> has similar problems - so arguably it's unfair to 'pick' on them
> alone. Still, Valve does benefit to some degree from its reputation as
> being 'for the gamer' more than its competitors, so this transparency
> into this aspect of their business was welcome.
>

The impression I get in part is that the people who actually have the
power to change the law are relatively out of touch with what goes in
some games. Everyone knows that gambling can be bad so needs to be
regulated but gambling is going down the bookies to bet on a horse not
what goes on in games, there can't be gambling can there as they are
just games?

On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 10:28:15 +0000, JAB wrote:

>The internet is a great resource but it's also a complete minefield when
>it comes to misinformation and the one I really don't like opinion
>dressed up as news. Generally I employ the smell test of does what's
>being said sound plausible. So to take the video you linked to, I think
>the hard facts are probably correct but some of the conclusions - not so
>sure about that.

We're more or less on the same wavelength on this topic, I think. At
this point we seem to just be repeating each other. Not that will stop
me from repeating what you said. I have a reputation for loquacity
(and being sesquipedalian) that I need to uphold ;-)

In truth, as eye-opening as this video was, I'm much more interested
in the next video that he teased throughout this one, where he reports
on the inner workings of Valve as told to him by a number of employees
there. He gave some hints to it in the gambling video (for example, a
key 'rule' of working there is never to create anything that will
cause more work for somebody else, unless they've agreed to it
beforehand. Another example is that there's a very libertarian bent to
Valve's policies and ethos) and we've had some clues from previous
reporting by other agencies. Still, on the whole the 'how' of Valve's
development and business processes has remained very black-box to
anyone outside it.

Valve has a general reputation of being 'good for PC gaming', but it
is possible it only has that because we don't know much about what it
is doing. Epic Game's has been a lot more transparent with its errors;
Valve is something of a black hole.

Hopefully I don't miss out (or just forget about) the next video. I'm
really quite interested in seeing it. I'll likely post the url to that
one here as well.

>The real problem I have though is the amount of people who seem to take
>their news source from something that read on Facebook and 'the truth'
>is based more on someone wanting it to be true than whether it is
>actually true.

I think that if your news is sourced from Facebook, you can probably
assume it is inaccurate at best, or outright false at worse. Even
without any connivance on the part of its administrators, the whole
place was created to pass along rumors, memes and gossip - largely for
their entertainment value - with accuracy being not even an
afterthought. ;-)

>The impression I get in part is that the people who actually have the
>power to change the law are relatively out of touch with what goes in
>some games. Everyone knows that gambling can be bad so needs to be
>regulated but gambling is going down the bookies to bet on a horse not
>what goes on in games, there can't be gambling can there as they are
>just games?

Just my point. We're all - I'd like to think - reasonably intelligent
people who pay attention to the PC gaming industry as a whole. Sure,
we might be slightly older than the average and don't dive as deeply
into more kid-oriented titles like "Roblox" or "Fortnite", but we're
generally aware of them and how they work. Yet despite all of this, I
wouldn't be too surprised if everyone here had no idea as to the
extent of gambling's influence on some games and companies. And if
long-time, hard-core hobbyists such as ourselves don't know, how can
we expect casual gamers - much less outsiders like Politicians - to
understand the scale and scope of the problem.

Worse, given that much of it is targeted towards teens /and/ is
digital, the pace at which things change is accelerated. So even when
the government does get a handle on the problem, it's a problem that's
five or ten years out of date, and the industry has already found
loopholes before the rules are even written, much less tested and
enforced.

Unfortunately, I don't have a solution either. Well, I do - Valve and
other companies could outright prevent the trading of items for cash
outside their ecosystem by changing their APIs - but that would hurt
their bottom lines, so I don't expect that to happen.

Still, the first thing necessary to fix a problem is to become aware
of it, so I'm grateful to the video. Hopefully it will be followed up
by other journalists so some pressure is put onto both lawmakers and
the industry.