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This discussion has been archived.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.
New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @04:53PM (24 children)
Somalia is a failed state; there was a single-party, socialist (indeed, "scientific communist") government.
The inevitable implosion of this kind of regime left a power vacuum; a culture that is based around authoritarianism will naturally fill such a vacuum with more authoritarians, one of the simplest forms of which is the warlord.
A warlord is a kind of government; a warlord and his men constitute an organization that allocates resources by coercion rather than well-defined agreement in advance of interaction.
Nevertheless, the dissolution of Big Government has vastly improved the lives of Somalians.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Wootery on Monday January 08 2018, @04:59PM (23 children)
That's a fine dance, AC, but you're rather missing the point.
In the absence of a strong, competent, non-corrupt government, you reliably get a chaotic hellhole. Libertopia doesn't exist, and never will. It's a few centuries too late to pretend that we don't know this by now.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:04PM (7 children)
Libertopia does exist; it's just so sophisticated that it doesn't fit into your naive notion of a particular geographic border with a particular national hymn and celebrated with particular sacred set symbols; libertopia is the voluntary exchange amongst individuals, which comprises the very phenomena that actually make society productive, and on which every government attaches itself like a parasite.
A government is like that guy who jumps in front of a parade march and pretends to lead it.
It's the height of naivete to pretend that this one particular monopoly (a monopoly built fundamentally on violent imposition, no less) is going to be different. Yes, this time, it won't be corrupt, amirite? No. Governments are just organizations of men, and men are not angels; the Dear Leader is not formed of finer clay.
It's a few millennia too late to pretend that we don't know this by now.
The only way forward is to accept that self-interest is a thing, and to build one's philosophy of society around it, rather than to ignore it naively. We got a whiff of this approach in the founding of the United States, which clearly introduced the notion of a Separation of Powers, the idea of which is to pit various authorities against each other so as to diminish the dangers of a monopoly.
Alas, the implementation is largely just smoke and mirrors, as each "branch" of this kind of Western representative democracy is itself a violently imposed monopoly.
The right way is to take this separation of powers to its limit, and that means that society should be organized as much as possible through a free market on goods and services, including the goods and services that have traditionally been the sole domain of a self-styled, self-imposed "government" (this includes the enforcement of agreements between individuals). If you view yourself as being a member of civilized society, then you should delight in asking the question "How can we do this or that with as little coercion as possible?" You should be uncomfortable with the fact that there is imposition, and you should want to do everything possible to organize society in a way that mitigates feelings of resentment.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:15PM (3 children)
Rambling rant, inherent selfishness perspective, lack of awareness about reality and human nature, yup I'll call that PAR!
Next up "FORE! Incoming libertarian screeeeed!!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:28PM (2 children)
... but you can't make him drink.
I'll leave it to the Dear Reader to decide who the horse is.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 08 2018, @06:41PM (1 child)
So using confirmation bias that is dependent on the reader's personal opinions? Quality stuff, you must be the same libertard AC who never has valid support just rambling ideas about freedom and small to non-existent government.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @08:10PM
Obviously, it would be better for you to tell us what to think, Glorious Leader AC!
But sure, blame on confirmation bias what can be better explained by an inadequate argument.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:22AM (2 children)
(First off - I've upvoted you. I didn't think that 'Flamebait' mod was fair.)
That's... just a bunch of words. What's to prevent the most brutal warlord from ruling the roost? Private security and an armed populace? We're back to Somalia.
No-one is saying government is, or needs to be, perfect. My position is that imperfect big government is generally better than too little government.
There's a lot of variety in the world's governments regarding how much corruption seeps in. Some countries, like, if I understand correctly, Singapore and Japan, seem to be doing really rather well on that front.
That's exactly what we're doing here in Europe - we want a capitalist society with enough tax to pay for big government, strong regulation, and a welfare state. There's still self-interest. It's not communism.
Yes, government is imposed by force, and you don't get to 'opt out' except by leaving the country. This doesn't strike me as terribly profound, though. The alternative is so much worse, that the observation is little more than quaint.
Sounds to me like a religious argument for extreme deregulation. No, deregulation doesn't always work out well. You want nuclear engineering and bridge engineering to be deregulated? Guns for anyone who wants one? No driving licences or pilot licences? Who pays for care for those with crippling life-long disabilities? What about externalities?
Here I agree. I'm arguing for a 'golden mean', not for unlimited totalitarianism. There is indeed a tradeoff, and as you say we should always lament the diminution of our liberty when making laws. Nonetheless, strong laws are, in my view, worth it overall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:58PM (1 child)
That's just it. Your idea of "government' does not solve any of the problems you worry about. Your house is built on sand.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @12:36PM
It does, actually. I rather like that the NHS exists, and that the state will pay to care for those who can't care for themselves. I rather like that my government regulates who gets to design skyscrapers or buy a gun.
The free market is not, as you seem to think, a silver bullet. Market failure is real. Under-regulation is real.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @08:21PM (14 children)
Which in the case of Somalia was better than the government that came before which managed to check none of those boxes.
The absence of "strong, competent, non-corrupt government" is why the libertarians are so high profile these days.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Wootery on Monday January 08 2018, @10:21PM (13 children)
I'm British, so to me, that reads like a joke. I don't really see what point you're trying to make. Libertarianism has zero traction in at least my country. We want better government, not minimal government.
In the US, it's currently the usual two-party affair, but with a cult-of-personality thrown in.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Monday January 08 2018, @11:37PM (8 children)
I second this.
Libertarianism is not a popular theory in any other Western Democracy. Why? I suspect a combination of two reasons:
It only takes a handful of sociopaths to destroy a libertarian utopia. Failing to recognise that some people are sociopaths is the fatal flaw of libertarianism IMO.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 09 2018, @12:13AM (3 children)
Higher proportion of free lunchers and authoritarians. It's not that popular in the US either for similar reasons.
Well that would explain how a libertarian movement takes root then.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:45AM (2 children)
More like the USA has a higher proportion of stupid ignorant people.
For example, the healthcare thing.
If you were one of those who had to pay taxes, universal healthcare would still be the cheaper option for you.
Even a selfish but intelligent sociopath would realize that lots of OTHER people wouldn't be able to tolerate hospitals that intentionally shove the poor out of ER to die in the streets because the poor couldn't pay for treatment.
Treating the poor in ERs is more expensive than treating them via other channels - like normal GPs and clinics.
It's also even more expensive if the poor commit crimes to get money to get healthcare or worse to go to prison and get healthcare in prison (yes it does happen - more than a few people have committed crimes to get healthcare or just "food and lodging" ).
Delivering healthcare (or food and lodging) via the prison industry is far more expensive than just giving it to them "free".
It may cost you in other ways when ERs are closed down due to costs: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/health/18hospital.html [nytimes.com]
One day you might need an ER but there are fewer ERs near you and they are too busy...
The USA's healthcare costs are really higher:
See also: https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ftotHealthExp_pC_USD_long-1.png [ricochet.com]
https://blogs-images.forbes.com/toddhixon/files/2012/02/MaryMeeker-graph-e1329513274401.jpg?width=960 [forbes.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 09 2018, @02:52PM
Than not paying US prices for universal health care? Right. My take is that even with prisons and ER care, sociopaths are paying less now than they would under a universal health care system, US-style.
Wouldn't be their problem. Don't think you're getting the point. The vast majority of people who claim on SN that people are acting against their self-interest, merely don't understand the self-interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @03:25PM
Unless that intelligent sociopath were running a long con on all of us and massively profiting from the popular delusion. I submit the health "insurance" complex.
The problem that the USA has is that too many people who aren't sociopaths (yet always temporarily embarrassed millionaires) don't understand how they're being manipulated and scammed by sociopaths. Only a gaslighting sociopath could successfully sell people individual aspirin tablets at $10 each.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @01:18AM (3 children)
You've got that backwards.
Only libertarianism embraces the reality that men are not angels, and the self-interest is the root of all motivation—your altruism, too, is selfish. If you ignore this fact, as all non-libertarian philosophies do, then you are doomed to construct a naive form of society.
Western society's success stems from the libertarian aspects of society; libertarian principles (consciously acknowledged or not) are what have made the West so successful, despite the fact that authoritarians make every effort to conceal or deny this fact.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @10:00AM (2 children)
What on Earth are you talking about? Modern moderate lefties (myself included) want a hybrid system that combines capitalism with a benevolent welfare state. You seem to want to pretend that this is the same as full-bore communism.
Disagree. Capitalism, maybe, but not libertarianism. Modern Europe is nothing short of anti-libertarian, but compared to most societies it's pretty great.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 09 2018, @11:01PM (1 child)
... compared to the ones in the field. However, he was still a slave.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @10:36AM
Very poetic. What's your point?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 08 2018, @11:45PM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday January 09 2018, @09:44AM (2 children)
There might be something there worth exploring, but as you say, it's not exactly libertarianism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 09 2018, @02:48PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday January 10 2018, @10:38AM
I suppose that's a fair point. Privatisation, for instance, has a streak of the libertarian to it.