Goodeye8

No. Despite his knowledge and understanding of medicine, his claims are not credible because there are a lot of documented instances where he's used his own medical authority for personal gain.

So if you want to go down that route, start proving that the NYAG is not credible.

You're going to have to explain how Epic or Ubisoft benefit from shutting down Valve's gambling machine. If it's "Valve makes less money" then that's an irrelevant point because even if you shut down the gambling money Valve is still raking in cash. Valve simply goes from making an insane amount of money to making a slightly less insane amount of money. Valve losing gambling money is going to have zero impact on the PC storefront space. Valve losing the lawsuit in the article, now that could have an impact on the PC storefront space.

And you know, it's pretty sad that you instantly went to "she's corrupt" instead of even giving the smallest benefit of doubt to the possibility that she might be doing it because it's morally wrong. It's a sad because in your mind morality doesn't exist and corruption is everywhere.

The fuck kind of an antivaxxer argument is this? If an health expert tells you get the vaccine do you also go "better come to my own conclusion"? Just because I don't Dunning Kruger myself into believing I know enough about the subject matter to form an opinion doesn't mean I'm not interested in the case.

And how exactly does this supposed money change the legal arguments made in lawsuit?

Why would I have my own thoughts about this matter? I'm not a lawyer. I'm not even going to pretend to have the competence to understand the legal nuances necessary to analyze this lawsuit. I'm a dumbass so I'm going rely on the expertise of actual experts and the AG isn't going to file a suit on some easily dismissable grounds. So unless you can find someone credible backing up what you're saying you're just talking out of your ass.

Actually I'm sad. I'm sad I'm having a conversation with someone who thinks they know more about the law than the New York Attorney general. I've lost, there's no argument I could make that could get through the Dunning-Kruger.

Oh yeah, strawman the fuck out of my argument, that'll definitely show me.

That is a fair point. However, I must ask, what is the different between what Valve is doing with loot boxes v. every single trading card game out there. MTG, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Disney’s Lorcana? You are purchasing an item that has items in it that are random. The only reason they have value is because people have the option to just buy skin they want on Valve’s marketplace. Just like people have the option to buy a specific Pokémon card from a third party.

I don't see how that matters at this point, you've already called it gambling. Are you going to walk that back to defend Valve? After all the only reason to bring up this point is to claim it's not actually gambling. And to address your point, yes I also consider MTG, Pokemon and most trading card games the physical equivalent of a lootbox and a form of gambling. I also know they're not gambling in a legal sense but we'll get to where Valve differs in the next part.

The other thing that Valve has done is, there’s no inherent value to the item. You can sell items for Steam Wallet funds, to then use in the marketplace. So, to me it seems, it’s really easy to set up a Steam account to not be allowed to purchase items. Which would include adding money to a Steam wallet for the marketplace. So, no this is not a “think of the children” issue. It’s yet again, another people are bad parents and can’t be bothered to use parental controls on their children’s electronics. Or take steps to prevent them from spending real money. Or take steps to prevent them from playing too much.

Actually that's no longer true and that's why there was a lawsuit filed against Valve at the start of this year. The items now have a value because you sell the things to get Steam credit and then use Steam credit to buy a Steam Deck and then sell the Deck for real money. It's no longer a closed system, you can get the money out. And once again, this wouldn't be an issue if Valve either a) stopped their gambling or b) adhere to gambling laws.

Adults like gambling. It’s not Valve’s fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.

If adults want to gamble, fine. Let's enforce gambling laws and get this over with. It would also solve the children gambling problem because that would be illegal. But this is why Valve's gambling service is indefensible. Valve is actively trying to prevent the gambling classification because if it gets treated like actual gambling it most likely stops being profitable. I don't necessarily have an issue with gambling, I have an issue with it not being treated as gambling. And all the other things Valve has done that have been positive for gaming do not justify giving Valve a free pass on gambling.

To bring it back to Gaben, he isn't avoiding taxes but he is avoiding the (gambling) law because it makes him more money, so is it that different from avoiding taxes?

How?