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This discussion has been archived.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.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(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.