Senator calls for gambling legistaion against CS:GO

[Leg End]

Well, one part your argument seemed to be that this the situation is absurd because you said things like "In this case, Valve is apparently managing to profit by just shuffling around items that don't even exist." My argument was that whether they exist or not doesn't matter, and that skins have become virtual casino chips. You agree with this, so I think we can move on.

Casino chips in the sense that people are accepting these things as such, yes. I think it's funny that they're supposedly making assloads off of so little effort. I have to give them props for it.

Okay, so if it's possible to pay a fixed amount of money to receive a random amount of money in skins, that's essentially identical to a slot machine.

Same as a card pack. Just think that similarity is quite important here.

These skins can instantly be turned into real cash which people get into their bank accounts.

That's pretty damn amazing and I want to know the specifics on that which I must look at later.

The exact mechanics of this are unimportant.

Actually, in legal terms, they are.

Whether Valve offers this service themselves also doesn't matter. The point is that a person can pay some money, and after all that shit has been converted from money to skins and back, they get some randomized amount of money, so when all is said and done, the game CS:GO doesn't even matter anymore. It's merely a vessel. Do you disagree with any of this?

It's barely even a vessel but I'm getting your logic.

If somebody offered this (a slot machine) on a regular internet site, they would be subject to regulations. So far CS:GO hasn't been. That makes no sense. Whether you like the regulations or not, everyone should be subject to the same ones. Disagree?

I disagree in that this has nothing to do with the actions of Valve or CS:GO. This has to do with gambling using items involving the game. If you're arguing that CS:GO should be regulated based on what people are doing with in game items using third party sites, then I'm going to say that argument is not reasonable.

Now to be clear one more time: I don't think the proposed legislation is good. If there was a vote and I was included, I wouldn't vote for it. It would be smarter if the Australian government actually talked to Valve, and they could work out a solution which stops people from using this system to gamble, instead of classifying CS:GO as a gambling game, since so many people play it without gambling (I know: no shit. But people seem to be misunderstanding me.)

The issue here is that Valve is indeed doing something about it. They're going after these sites. There is no need for regulation on this front.

HOWEVER: Since I'm purely a spectator, and have on influence whatsoever in this, it brings me a certain joy to see Valve be the victim of some deserved repercussions when they did jack-shit and instead enjoyed the increased profits these gambling activities were bringing to CS:GO. It's my hope this motion doesn't pass, but makes Valve get their asses into gear and finally do something.

Either way, you're experiencing joy at the use of terrible laws to bring undeserved restrictions to someone because they are doing something you dislike that has nothing to do with the legislation. That is not the function of law and I hope the senator buys a damn clue so if anything gets done here, it's reasonable and makes some goddamn sense. This is bordering on "US engagements in the Middle East" levels of stupid on how all of this is working. This is a total misuse and bastardization of what law is supposed to be.

If anyone wants something to be done about gambling using skins, the people that should be pursued are the owners of the websites, not Valve.

 

[Elijin]

Are we still talking about the senator? I feel like this isn't in relation to my point on him.

In your previous posts you multiple times used his lack of knowledge, alleged incompetence and not complete cluelessness as talking points to why this whole thing was absurd. Now that you're being asked to source any of that nonsense, he's suddenly not worth a mention? I think that says all I need to know.

 

[Leg End]

Please bear with me as I'm posting from mobile. If this looks like a train wreck when posted, that'll be why.

In your previous posts you multiple times used his lack of knowledge, alleged incompetence and not complete cluelessness as talking points to why this whole thing was absurd. Now that you're being asked to source any of that nonsense, he's suddenly not worth a mention? I think that says all I need to know.

I never said nor meant to imply he's not worth sourcing. I was questioning your wording.

This is where I got my info of his statement from as I plucked it from Google. All I can see from that is the senator wanting CS:GO classified as a gambling game because kids are "being groomed to gamble" through these sites. If you have a source with more of his statements I'd appreciate it.

 

[Fat Hippo]

Either way, you're experiencing joy at the use of terrible laws to bring undeserved restrictions to someone because they are doing something you dislike that has nothing to do with the legislation. That is not the function of law and I hope the senator buys a damn clue so if anything gets done here, it's reasonable and makes some goddamn sense. This is bordering on "US engagements in the Middle East" levels of stupid on how all of this is working. This is a total misuse and bastardization of what law is supposed to be.

If anyone wants something to be done about gambling using skins, the people that should be pursued are the owners of the websites, not Valve.

Eh, so what's your point? You want me to feel bad about my Schadenfreude? If you want the moral high ground, good for you. I already agreed with you that it's not a good law and I wouldn't even support it, but if you wanna tear into me for where I get my kicks from, have at it.

 

[Vigormortis]

Maybe if games stopped having shitty ways to squeeze money out of people,

Genuine question: What, exactly, is "shitty" about the case-and-key system? You pay a flat rate for a chance to get one of several, optional, purely cosmetic items. What exactly is "shitty" about that?

it would be less likely to catch the eyes of law makers.

Right, because "questionable design decisions" are of the utmost concern for politicians...

Sometimes abuses of power need to be met by laws and regulations.

Agreed, but please point to where Valve is "abusing their power" with the case-and-key system.

Sure, it could end up going bad, but it could crazy as it sounds, actually be beneficial to us as consumers.

And you've come to this conclusion...how? People enjoy buying cosmetics for games like CS:GO, Dota 2, and TF2. The communities have even built an entire ecosystem around making and trading them.

The only thing to be accomplished by a "gambling tax" on these systems is either forcing Valve to end the cosmetics entirely or universally raising prices across the board. And I'm struggling to see how that would "benefit" us.

Plus don't they already tax those?

Tax what? The MTG Booster Packs?

S'far as I'm aware, they don't. No more than whatever taxes are inherent in shipping, distribution, etc.

There are no 'gambling taxes' on TCGs/CCGs.

Then you are wrong, because under current definition of gambling under law the case/key system IS gambling.

Am I? Got some proof of that? I'll grant I'm not 100% up-to-snuff on all gambling regulations across the US, Australia, etc, but from what I do know, things like the CS:GO Case system and MTG's Booster Packs are not gambling.

If you can provide evidence to prove me wrong, I'll stand corrected.

They dont need NEW regulation, they just need to enforce existing ones.

Fuck, I hope not. Not only do such laws NOT apply to these sorts of games, but enforcing such laws against these sorts of games will pretty much ring the death knell for community-supported cosmetic items.

RIP my favorite custom music packs in CS:GO and Dota 2....

 

[Vigormortis]

Here he's suggesting the applicability to gambling regulation to a game which involves slot machine mechanics and has also attracted a larger gambling scene. Not nearly as stupid as people who can't be bothered researching "the senator"'s name would make it out to be.

Mmm, no....it's still catastrophically stupid.

:/

 

[Saelune]

Maybe if games stopped having shitty ways to squeeze money out of people,

Genuine question: What, exactly, is "shitty" about the case-and-key system? You pay a flat rate for a chance to get one of several, optional, purely cosmetic items. What exactly is "shitty" about that?

it would be less likely to catch the eyes of law makers.

Right, because "questionable design decisions" are of the utmost concern for politicians...

Sometimes abuses of power need to be met by laws and regulations.

Agreed, but please point to where Valve is "abusing their power" with the case-and-key system.

Sure, it could end up going bad, but it could crazy as it sounds, actually be beneficial to us as consumers.

And you've come to this conclusion...how? People enjoy buying cosmetics for games like CS:GO, Dota 2, and TF2. The communities have even built an entire ecosystem around making and trading them.

The only thing to be accomplished by a "gambling tax" on these systems is either forcing Valve to end the cosmetics entirely or universally raising prices across the board. And I'm struggling to see how that would "benefit" us.

Plus don't they already tax those?

Tax what? The MTG Booster Packs?

S'far as I'm aware, they don't. No more than whatever taxes are inherent in shipping, distribution, etc.

There are no 'gambling taxes' on TCGs/CCGs.

I bought the game, why do I need to keep paying for it? Microtransactions are shitty. They literally nickel and dime you. And FOR FUCKING SKINS! My god they are worthless, yet here we are. http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=300 A VG Cats comic that shows my issue with it, and that's way back when it was just TF2 doing it, and in TF2 you atleast get actual things sometimes, not JUST crates. They "give" you something, then extort you to actually open it. Whatever the fuck happened to unlockables? Where you did something and got something for it that didn't take your money.

When games are designed to abuse the consumer, then yes, regulators need to step in. Valve has no love for its community, only our money.

I don't want a gambling tax. I want...no gambling. I want to play games and not feel extorted, I want to buy a game, and not have to keep buying the game. I want a full package.

I want games to be art and entertainment. Not a business model.

Just because people are ok with it, doesn't mean its ok. People as a whole are stupid. They buy into a lot of things, literally and figuratively that is toxic to them, but they don't think about the issues or ramifications. And those of us who don't buy into it still get punished.

 

[Vigormortis]

I bought the game, why do I need to keep paying for it?

You...don't? Where are you being forced to keep paying for it?

Microtransactions are shitty.

Not by default, they aren't.

When abused, yes they can be. But purely optional microtransactions are not inherently 'shitty'.

They literally nickel and dime you.

Only if A: you opt to buy them and B: only if you consider what you're getting to not be worth the asking price.

And FOR FUCKING SKINS! My god they are worthless,

To you, maybe. But who are you to decide what value they have to others? Why do you get to decide what does or doesn't have intrinsic value to other people?

And by the way, the prices of the skins in CS:GO are determined by the community, not Valve.

A VG Cats comic that shows my issue with it, and that's way back when it was just TF2 doing it, and in TF2 you atleast get actual things sometimes, not JUST crates. They "give" you something, then extort you to actually open it.

Extortion? Really? That's...a tad extreme.

You get a case and you can...open it or ignore it. Or, even better, sell it on the Market.

You get something for free AND you can make money on it. Hardly what I would call "extortion".

Whatever the fuck happened to unlockables? Where you did something and got something for it that didn't take your money.

You still have that. But the cosmetics you're referencing in CS:GO are not unlockables because they weren't made by Valve. These are items made by members of the community. Proceeds for item sales (like keys for cases) go to the members of the community that made the items.

Are you saying these people shouldn't be paid for their creations? That's quite greedy of you.

Besides, NONE of these things prevent you from modding the client side of your game. You can still put as many custom skins, HUDs, etc, as you want into it. They just won't be displayed within anyone else's version.

So again, I'm still failing to see the 'abuse' or 'extortion'.

When games are designed to abuse the consumer, then yes, regulators need to step in.

I'm still waiting for someone to show me how the game 'abuses' the players. I keep seeing you say it abuses the players, but I'm yet to see proof of that.

Valve has no love for its community, only our money.

Which I suppose is why they never, ever listen to the community. Not once. And I suppose that's also why they never, ever conceive of, sponsor, and host dozens and dozens of free community events, updates, and other such things.

They just...hate the community and only want our money. That's why I've had to spend SO MUCH MONEY on getting content updates to Dota 2, CS:GO, and TF2, instead of getting it all for free.

I don't want a gambling tax. I want...no gambling.

So then talk to the jerkoffs hosting the gambling sites, instead of lambasting Valve over something that isn't gambling?

Do you get this vehemently angry at WOC over their model of inserting random cards into booster packs? Do you consider those gambling? Do you demand legislators step in and regulate those?

How are the cosmetics in CS:GO different than booster packs in MTG? (besides the skins being digital and the MTG cards being required to play at all)

I want to play games and not feel extorted, I want to buy a game, and not have to keep buying the game. I want a full package.

Are you the sort of person who has no control over the impulse to buy optional, community-created items? If not, then how are you being extorted? How are you being forced to buy anything?

You bought the game. You have the game. Play it as you will. You don't have to take part in any of the item trading.

Seriously. You don't need to resort to hyperbolic language to get your point across. 'Extortion', 'abuse', et al are hardly applicable here. Come on.

I want games to be art and entertainment. Not a business model.

These things are mutually exclusive?

And 'art' that fails to repay the creators efforts rarely lasts long. Especially in the mass entertainment market.

Just because people are ok with it, doesn't mean its ok.

Which I agree with, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove that the Case-and-Key system is not "okay".

And consequently, you not liking the system does not automatically make it 'not okay'.

People as a whole are stupid.

That's kind of mean.

They buy into a lot of things, literally and figuratively that is toxic to them, but they don't think about the issues or ramifications.

You're not entirely wrong, but I'm still not seeing how what's applicable to the situation.

And those of us who don't buy into it still get punished.

How?! No really, how? How are you being punished? If anything, the implementation of legislation (and likely taxes) into these games will be the thing that punishes people like you and not just those who buy optional cosmetics.

 

[Fat Hippo]

But the cosmetics you're referencing in CS:GO are not unlockables because they weren't made by Valve. These are items made by members of the community. Proceeds for item sales (like keys for cases) go to the members of the community that made the items.

Are you saying these people shouldn't be paid for their creations? That's quite greedy of you.

I would like to point out that 15% of the proceeds go to Valve themselves. Quoting from a Bloomberg article: "According to research firm Eilers & Krejcik Gaming, more than 3 million people wagered $2.3 billion worth of skins on the outcome of e-sports matches in 2015. This, too, has contributed to Valve's bottom line. The gambling sites run on software built by Valve, and whenever CS:GO skins are sold, the game maker collects 15 percent of the money." (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-virtual-guns-counterstrike-gambling/)

So Valve most definitely has a strong financial stake in all of this, and did not create this skin system purely for the benefit of skin makers.

Personally, I think one solution for this (without classifying CS:GO as a gambling game) which would still allow for people to create and equip cosmetics would simply be to disable the trading of skins between accounts. People could still unlock skins and wear them, but since they could no longer be transferred between accounts, it would kill any possibility of gambling. Some F2P games don't allow skins to be traded anyway, and I haven't heard people complaining about this, e.g. in League of Legends.

I don't think disabling the trading would be a terrible limitation of freedom either, since the buying and wearing of skins would still be available to all. It would just kill the 3rd party market, which is kind of the point here anyway.

 

[Leg End]

Eh, so what's your point? You want me to feel bad about my Schadenfreude? If you want the moral high ground, good for you. I already agreed with you that it's not a good law and I wouldn't even support it, but if you wanna tear into me for where I get my kicks from, have at it.

I'm just saying that path fucks us all over in the end.

I think someone should probably buy you a "damn clue".

I'm broke until payday so I'd appreciate someone footing the bill!

I'm betting that your knowledge of Nick Xenophon, and his anti gambling legislation, could probably fit on a candy wrapper.

That's being very generous. Do you mean his overall legislation involving gambling, or this in particular? Both would fit on a fingernail but in the latter case, that's because I can barely find a paragraph from the man.

It is rather galling to see complaints about "didn't do the research", and talks about how terrible the legislation is meant to be, to the extent of literally comparing it to war crimes,

Who did that?

from people who clearly have never researched Mr. Xenophon, nor have any substantial criticism of any legislation.

I call out specific stupidity from any given person, no matter their background.

He's asking for them to be classed as gambling, which will mean that only adults can access it in Australia,

That's a bad idea.

which means a bump from the current 15+ standard to an 18+ one.

I find it legitimately funny that you guys rate it lower than we do.

It may also mean an end to crate drops, which many have criticised, and may include warnings.

This is all just sounding like people are wanting an end to crate drops by any means necessary.

That's it. It's hardly violating another nations sovereignty and mass murdering innocents.

But stupid legislation is stupid legislation.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/games/just-when-we-got-used-to-kids-dying-or-killing-on-screen-something-worse-came-along-20160728-gqfp5x.html

Thank you. That provides a tad more detail, but still not a lot. It seems like Xeno himself didn't actually say a whole lot on this.

Google. It's your friend.

That's what I did in the first place.

Nick Xenophon has a strong anti-gambling principle,

Good for him. He sticks to his guns even if he makes bad shots.

because gambling is a severe issue in Australia,

...Really?

typically causing serious harm to the elderly, and drains millions from the economy. It's also a source of corruption in government, with both parties having been involved in gambling corruption issues, and many of their branches having actually been fitted with poker machines. It's also been an issue with Crown Casinos, which seem to be able to violate any sort of regulation they like. And the gambling industry has made strong campaigns against any legislation.

So, Big Tobacco became Big Gambling down there?

Here he's suggesting the applicability to gambling regulation to a game which involves slot machine mechanics and has also attracted a larger gambling scene. Not nearly as stupid as people who can't be bothered researching "the senator"'s name would make it out to be.

No, that's legitimately stupid. Explain to me how this specific case requires regulation while these two have drawn no ire. Or how these are not the exact same thing as crates. The first two have an obvious difference but I want to see what your argument against those, if any, is or would be. The latter is the actual rebuttal and shows the legislation as it stands is stupid and Xeno jumped the gun the moment he heard the word "gambling". Even in the article you linked it sounds like a case of the websites just needing to be held accountable to regulation already in place and that parents still need to get off their ass and not let their kid have access to their financials, or preferably in general actually being a parent.

 

[Leg End]

So Valve most definitely has a strong financial stake in all of this, and did not create this skin system purely for the benefit of skin makers.

Well, that's pretty obvious though isn't it?

Personally, I think one solution for this (without classifying CS:GO as a gambling game) which would still allow for people to create and equip cosmetics would simply be to disable the trading of skins between accounts. People could still unlock skins and wear them, but since they could no longer be transferred between accounts, it would kill any possibility of gambling. Some F2P games don't allow skins to be traded anyway, and I haven't heard people complaining about this, e.g. in League of Legends.

I don't think disabling the trading would be a terrible limitation of freedom either, since the buying and wearing of skins would still be available to all. It would just kill the 3rd party market, which is kind of the point here anyway.

Or just hold the websites accountable for what they are. There is no reason to bar trading of skins when the issue here is just websites going up and breaking the law.

I'm a broken record at this point, but there is another particular game that also has a skin system and also has third party gambling websites set up for in game items and skins and no one is attacking them. There are key differences here but I don't think that actually matters to most people. The overall system is the same, so I want to know why people are being very selective in their support of regulation. Is it the crates? It's the crates isn't it?

I know the exact differences but I want to see if this is all consistent.

 

[Vigormortis]

I would like to point out that 15% of the proceeds go to Valve themselves. Quoting from a Bloomberg article: "According to research firm Eilers & Krejcik Gaming, more than 3 million people wagered $2.3 billion worth of skins on the outcome of e-sports matches in 2015. This, too, has contributed to Valve's bottom line. The gambling sites run on software built by Valve, and whenever CS:GO skins are sold, the game maker collects 15 percent of the money." (Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-virtual-guns-counterstrike-gambling/)

So Valve most definitely has a strong financial stake in all of this, and did not create this skin system purely for the benefit of skin makers.

Well of course, that goes without saying. But the amount being wagered on the skins isn't proportional to the cut Valve takes from item sales via the market. Also, Valve takes no cut from direct item trades, which is often the system employed by those running gambling sites. So, in effect, Valve often gets nothing from those trades.

Point being: Valve gains nothing from those sites operating. However, their response was not brought on because they wish to shut down the sites' ability to make money. The sites in question were breaking the terms of use for the OpenID API, which gives Valve legal precedent to act. Otherwise, Valve is literally powerless to do anything to them.

I don't think disabling the trading would be a terrible limitation of freedom either, since the buying and wearing of skins would still be available to all. It would just kill the 3rd party market

And the item market in its entirety. Part of the appeal of the Steam Market is to allow users to freely buy, trade, and sell items they accumulate through various means within their games. Some people may have an item they don't want. The Market allows them to sell the item to someone who does want it, and to make a tiny bit of money in the process. Others may have a set of items they've been seeking for some time, but didn't have the means or funds to acquire them through conventional means. The Market would theoretically allow them to acquire the items from other users for discounted prices.

Tearing down the Item Market on Steam, just because a few assholes decided to illegally take advantage of the OpenID API, seems like the "cutting off the leg when a Bandaid would do" response.

which is kind of the point here anyway.

The point of Valve's response isn't to shut down 3rd party item sites. It's to shut down those taking advantage of the OpenID and related systems, and those taking advantage of Steam users through the Steam client.

Or just hold the websites accountable for what they are. There is no reason to bar trading of skins when the issue here is just websites going up and breaking the law.

Bingo. Everything else is just an overly extreme response to a set of 'issues' that don't necessarily even exist.

 

[Cap'nPipsqueak]

You realise the entire situation is your fault, right?

Not yours, specifically, but gamers.

A system is set up and someone immediately looks for and eventually finds a way to twist it to their own advantage and then spreads the news. And then people like this muppet get up in arms and proceed to make it everyone else's problem.

 

[Leg End]

You realise the entire situation is your fault, right?

Not yours, specifically, but gamers.

A system is set up and someone immediately looks for and eventually finds a way to twist it to their own advantage and then spreads the news. And then people like this muppet get up in arms and proceed to make it everyone else's problem.

You say it's the fault of gamers but then state why exactly it isn't the fault of gamers, so I don't know if you're joking or not.. This is the usual instance of people dancing with the letter of the law/outright breaking it.

Of course, politicians always want to add more laws whether they're needed/wanted or not. Makes them look like they're earning their paycheck.

 

[archvile93]

Australian gubment people can't into video games. In other news, Jack Thompson gets disbarred Is anyone surprised by this?

It will be a bad thing, as noted, Valve are not complicit nor do they encourage it. This is like to trying to declare a shop a gambling venue because someone made a bet for a snickers bar bought there.

This in a nutshell. If the senator saw EVE Online's gambling sites, he'd have a fucking stroke.

Classifying CS:GO as a gambling game isn't the best way to handle this, but there IS a massive amount of gambling going on through CS:GO. Just take a look at something like this and see how many betting sites revolve around the random drops of this game: http://betcsgo.org/ (looks innocuous, but probably still a shady site, so be warned!)

The important distinction is around, not through the game itself.

So before you follow your kneejerk reactions and declare "Damn those politicians!" know that they are not simply imagining things. This is actually happening, and large sums of money are being played for. And while in most western countries, gambling is regulated in various ways, stuff like random drops from games, which do trade for real-world money, have been exempt from these regulations. This is a problem, because it has even led to minors gambling over their steam wallets without the knowledge of their parents (note that many of these sites allow you to log in through your steam account).

That's an issue with parents giving their kids free access to their credit cards, which is as old as online buying itself. Actually even older but I digress.

So I agree that something should be done. You might find it silly that people pay actual money for CS:GO random drops, but it's the reality, and a lot of money is being moved without any kind of oversight.

If people want to be stupid with their money, let them. We don't need regulation for every little thing and barely anything.

Valve is going to have to deal with this sooner or later, because this kind of thing is only going to grow in any popular game that allows players to trade their items,

Again, it's not quite the game itself but the entire system around inventories itself. You can do the same thing with Team Fortress 2 or anything else.

and we have gambling regulations for a reason.

Multiple and most of them are bad. I'd say all but I might be missing some so I'm not going to be that absolute.

Well there are the regulations that keep the casinos from blatanly cheating or marketing to children who don't know any better. It's entirely possible for example to program slot machines to pay out small amounts at specific intervals to keep the person playing but to never pay out anything big, guaranteeing that the casino will come out ahead every time. There's also a ton of different ways the dealer could control what cards get dealt in blackjack. I may be biased though, since I'm already against casinos for tossing people out over counting cards (which isn't even cheating, all you are is more aware of the odds you don't manipulate them to your favor), or even just because they feel your winning too much, though I suppose it's fortunate they're even required to let you cash in your chips first.

 

[Leg End]

Well there are the regulations that keep the casinos from blatanly cheating or marketing to children who don't know any better. It's entirely possible for example to program slot machines to pay out small amounts at specific intervals to keep the person playing but to never pay out anything big, guaranteeing that the casino will come out ahead every time. There's also a ton of different ways the dealer could control what cards get dealt in blackjack. I may be biased though, since I'm already against casinos for tossing people out over counting cards (which isn't even cheating, all you are is more aware of the odds you don't manipulate them to your favor), or even just because they feel your winning too much, though I suppose it's fortunate they're even required to let you cash in your chips first.

What you're saying in terms of regulation is about the only thing I agree with. Though I'd quite enjoy a session of the house and the player cheating and seeing who comes out on top.

Hell, you can have a game that's blatantly unfair. Just don't advertise it as winnable if it isn't. And don't even get me started on casinos and card counting.

 

[Trunkage]

I bought the game, why do I need to keep paying for it?

You...don't? Where are you being forced to keep paying for it?

+1. Companies cant force you to pay for things. They do pretend that you "need" their product. You have to use self control.

You realise the entire situation is your fault, right?

Not yours, specifically, but gamers.

A system is set up and someone immediately looks for and eventually finds a way to twist it to their own advantage and then spreads the news. And then people like this muppet get up in arms and proceed to make it everyone else's problem.

You say it's the fault of gamers but then state why exactly it isn't the fault of gamers, so I don't know if you're joking or not.. This is the usual instance of people dancing with the letter of the law/outright breaking it.

Of course, politicians always want to add more laws whether they're needed/wanted or not. Makes them look like they're earning their paycheck.

First, its not just politicians, lawyers make more money off making laws. They come in to draft the laws and have incentives to make it as murky as possible so they are needed.

Second, the whole point of being an entrepreneur is to be innovative which includes skirting and breaking laws. Look at Uber and Airbnb. Or Min-Maxing in your favourite game.

I would say it also the gamers fault (I would limit it to the gamers who used the site but I am also slightly responsible for not finding out before the news broke.) Self-regulation in not just a corporate responsibility. Supporting such site just leads to more sites.

 

[Leg End]

First, its not just politicians, lawyers make more money off making laws. They come in to draft the laws and have incentives to make it as murky as possible so they are needed.

Basically.

Second, the whole point of being an entrepreneur is to be innovative which includes skirting and breaking laws. Look at Uber and Airbnb. Or Min-Maxing in your favourite game.

Yes. This is a natural process.

I would say it also the gamers fault (I would limit it to the gamers who used the site but I am also slightly responsible for not finding out before the news broke.) Self-regulation in not just a corporate responsibility. Supporting such site just leads to more sites.

It'd be the people who use the sites, not gamers as a whole, which is what I objected to. People don't seem to understand how Capitalism works anymore.

 

[Trunkage]

I would say it also the gamers fault (I would limit it to the gamers who used the site but I am also slightly responsible for not finding out before the news broke.) Self-regulation in not just a corporate responsibility. Supporting such site just leads to more sites.

It'd be the people who use the sites, not gamers as a whole, which is what I objected to. People don't seem to understand how Capitalism works anymore.

The unfortunate thing is that people who engage in this behaviour wont report it. That is a given. The money is too lucrative. So who will? In our own self interest as gamers who don't want our industry ruined, its probably going to be us. Otherwise, the government will feel that need to step in. The only other people who might report it is "victims" and if the justice system has proven to us anything, they aren't going to listen to something that hasn't got any regulations attached.

 

[Vigormortis]

You have to use self control.

Something that is sorely missing nowadays. Or...since the beginning of time, I suppose.

It makes little sense to me to have a governing body step in to regulate a specific set of products, thereby essentially punishing the makers of that product and those that use it, just because a handful of jerk-asses only tangentially affiliated with the product decided to take advantage of users of the product.

It's like deciding that dice should be taxed and regulated, just because some thugs decide to use them for illegal betting in some back alleys.