None of this is exclusive to Valve. Yeah, people can technically buy hardware and sell it, but they can also gift games or whatever and people were already using third party websites to sell their items for cash.

Lootboxes are not specific to Valve, but the way Valve has implemented lootboxes is very distinct. And I know that third party sites have been selling the skins for cash for years at this point, but that has been happening outside Valve's ecosystem. IMO Valve should've been held accountable for that years ago but so far they've been able to skirt the law.

And MMOs with random drops have historically always had an RMT market that is against the TOS where people sell in game currency or items for real currency.

Which is part of why I said the way Valve does things unique to Valve, because Valve does (for the most part) offer the infrastructure for all the trading except for turning Steam credit back into real money. IMO RMT shouldn't exist either but that is not something you legally push onto developer because like you said, it is against the TOS so players are doing something the developer has already said they shouldn't be doing.

I’m not saying that valve should be let off the hook when it comes to loot boxes, but this lawsuit kind of stinks because it is all over the place and again, valve isn’t the worst example of what they describe.

Valve isn't the worst example but they are one of the few companies where there's now some legal ground to go after the gambling, and when it comes to gambling Valve is a pretty big player. Ideally we should go after all of these companies but what is morally right and legally right doesn't really match when it comes to gambling.

The fact that it’s framed as “protecting children” and claims that valve is intentionally targeting children despite the games in question being rated M and old enough that I seriously doubt there are that many minors playing is putting a ton of red flags up for me. They also add the 90s era “violent video game” rhetoric that was always nonsense.

I could see where you're coming from but I personally didn't see the lawsuit this way. Children are a point to bring up because we shouldn't be normalizing gambling for children, but overall I see the suit as taking an issue with the gambling aspect of the lootboxes. We don't know the exact number of minors playing but there's enough for them to get into the competitive scene of CS, there are players who entered T1 of CS while still being minors.

Not sure from where you're taking the violent video game rhetoric as I didn't notice that in the actual lawsuit.

The conspiracy part of me thinks this is going to eventually lead to more age verification BS and they are targeting valve because it is the only company that is complying in a way that still protects user privacy.

I get the risk of pushing more age verification BS but I think that's unavoidable when companies decide to get into gambling. Age verification for gambling has been around before the world wide web was even a thing. I see this more as playing hardball by stating that if Valve wants to partake in gambling then gambling laws should apply to Valve. They can't legally force Valve to implement age verification unless Valve decides to double down on the gambling. Valve could just as easily prevent age verification by removing gambling from their platform. I don't think Valve should get a free pass on gambling just because there's a risk of someone malicious trying to push age verification through this door. Valve opened that door when they decided to implement gambling.

Give some examples.

You are technically correct, except no one will try to enforce it on the lobbying companies, who probably kickstarted the lawsuit in the first place.

You can use your steam wallet money to buy DDR5 RAM and HDDs!

I'm not necessarily bothered that it happened to Valve. I honestly do see the other commenters point about the secondary market Valve runs as part of their platform.

On the other hand though I'm almost certain that WoW has basically the same thing (I've never actually played WOW, so I can't be 100% positive), and if literally the only problem is them running the secondary market, the lawsuit makes more sense.

But the fact that they included selling hardware to sell the digital assets makes me suspect that they don't know you could essentially do the same thing with a switch or PlayStation and that's wild to me.

But the argument as to why valve is enabling gambling and other companies that also have lootboxes arent relies on that the skins in valve's games have monetary value that is both directly influenced by valve (by making some skins rare), that players open loot boxes in hopes of getting the rare skins (because the common skins can be bought in steam's marketplace for cents) and that the skins can be exchanged for real money (either by buying hardware with steam wallet cash and selling it, or in the third party marketplaces that valve allows, protect and promotes (yes, valve has closed accounts of some third party marketplaces, but only those with gambling. The ones that just allow buying and selling for cash are explicitly protected by valve, as shown in the filing).

I do agree that the children argument is weird. Gambling in illegal in ny for all, not just children

I do think, if gambling is to be allowed anywhere, it should only be in places that can verify age; just like alcohol delivery services. But, given the trend of using age verification as an inroad for data collection and Palentir spying, I mostly think of that requirement as a jury-rigged guillotine for the casino, or for the loot boxes. Either get rid of gambling, or set up a monolithic roadblock to users. I'd be appalled if Valve were somehow required to collect drivers' licenses of people playing Dark Souls.

Which actually makes in simple to me. They are throwing things at the wall to see what sticks while also muddying the water as if they are trying to hide something.

They are throwing very convoluted logic around for this, and I immediately distrust anyone in government who makes wild leaps to "protecting kids".

First off, I don't like loot boxes. Specifically paid loot boxes, because if you don't signify that something like this could effect any game with random drops.

Second, all the games in question are rated M. They are very much not targeted at kids. Obviously kids still play them, but that is on the parents.

That they also added "violent video games" nonsense that could have come out of the 90s is absurd. Is it about gambling or violent media? If it's about violent media, why not go after any of the other shooters that are likely going to have way more kids on them. Counterstrike is old enough that I would be surprised if it isn't a majority of millennials and gen X. At the very least I seriously doubt there are a ton of minors playing.

If it is actually about gambling targeted at kids, The Pokemon trading card game is probably the best example of "gambling aimed at kids". Sure, digital loot boxes can be more insidious, but that isn't how they've framed this and if you've seen how TCG players buy packs it's very much looks like gambling.

The framing of this is very suspicious because it doesn't make sense to go after valve exclusively for any of the things they are claiming. And the 3x fine is ridiculous. I'm all for fines actually being based on profits, but you can't tell me they would do the same for any other company.

And part of me feels this is a strong-arm tactic because valve is not publicly traded which lets them be very pro user/consumer and is the one company that is complying with age verification in a way that still protects user privacy.

I should've clarified, with "this" i mean more the general sentiment about regulation of these lootboxes that I've seen in other contexts as well - other than the general topic I don't really have an opinion on the lawsuit other than it seeming a bit ridicous to reimburse every customer in full.