SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
cmn32480
on Monday January 08 2018, @03:34PM
from the 1-in-365,214,231-chance-of-getting-the-good-stuff dept.
from the 1-in-365,214,231-chance-of-getting-the-good-stuff dept.
Loot boxes in video games give the player a random item, perhaps a weapon or a skin, typically in exchange for payment. Should they be viewed as a legal sweepstakes or as an illegal lottery? This video examines the legal issues and explains how loot boxes could be structured to avoid running afoul of gambling laws (which vary by state) in the U.S.. The video concludes that many current implementations of loot boxes are really illegal lotteries, and conjectures that major game companies use them anyway because the risk of being prosecuted isn't enough to dissuade them.
Previously: Belgium Moving to Ban "Loot Boxes" Throughout Europe, Hawaii Could Restrict Sale to Minors
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Are Loot Boxes in Games a Violation of Gambling Laws?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 92 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 3, Informative) by chewbacon on Monday January 08 2018, @04:24PM (6 children)
Some people need mommy and daddy (government) to step in and tell them they need to stop or protect them. Then some guys just can’t stand others paying to get an advantage on Battlefront II, they wind up smashing their mom’s salt shaker collection she keeps stored in their basement bedroom. Don’t like the game? Don’t fucking play it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @04:30PM (3 children)
You cannot protect a person from himself without constructing a Tyranny.
At most, without a Tyranny, you can protect one person from another person (but, of course, only in a way that does not try to protect a person from himself).
If you want a Civilized Society, you must allow a person to destroy himself.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Monday January 08 2018, @04:55PM (2 children)
So let me rephrase what nanny-staters appear to really want: What should a civilized society do to protect dependents from the harmful effects of the self-destruction of their caregivers?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @05:43PM
There's nothing wrong with defending a Dependent from an Abuser, or finding a Dependent new guardianship; society already does that.
The problems occur when you try to help the Dependent by controlling the Abuser, including by forcing the Abuser to support the Dependent; if you want a civilized world, help each Dependent,* but allow each Abuser to destroy himself and to cut himself out of society.
* Ideally, this help should not be coerced from anyone, just as it shouldn't be coerced from an Abuser. A civilized society must be built on the will of each individual, not on the will of a particular group.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @08:07PM
The problem is not in the question, it's in the definition of who is a dependent. Some go as far as to make everyone wards of the state. That has the obvious implication that none of the "dependents" should have a say, the State knows best - a classic authoritarian maneuver. The problem that your question evokes is what happens when the "civilized state" is the self-destructive caregiver? Who will rescue the dependents in that case?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday January 08 2018, @05:42PM (1 child)
You can't protect someone from himself. But you can and probably should protect him from being taken advantage of. Now where to draw the line is not easy.
If someone messes up their life and becomes unemployable by, let's just say, gaming, is that worse than if they used drugs instead to destroy their life? We pass laws against (certain) drugs. Maybe we shouldn't? We don't pass laws against gamers. Maybe we should? Probably not as they seem to be harmless except the swatters.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @07:43PM
Line-drawing is quite easy: when someone lies to someone else and profits from it, that crosses the line into criminal fraud.
Good news! We already have laws against fraud.