They ought to define what they mean by "transferable." That seems the core issue. I.e. simply transferring an item to another person, or being able to sell it for real money, or something else. If they don't define that term it will be hard for Valve to know what to do.
They ought to define what they mean by "transferable." That seems the core issue. I.e. simply transferring an item to another person, or being able to sell it for real money, or something else. If they don't define that term it will be hard for Valve to know what to do.
They could have either contacted the dutch gambling authority or had them read up on dutch gambling laws in the last two months. Which they said they did, so they should understand those laws by now... but they say they don't. So is valve's legal team or their hired legal counsel so bad they can't understand 1 law in 2 months, or haven't they really tried? And what exactly do they not agree with? They said they don't even understand it.
All in all it's a bad statement. It is obviously written by some PR guy that is trying to spin the story.
Over and over the idea of "economic value" seems to come up in regards to the content of the loot boxes for it to be considered gambling. So while I could paypal you $100 for something you got out of a lootbox the fact that the game itself doesn't support this exchange within the actual function of the game means that within the context of the software the item is not exchangeable within the software and hence has no economic value in the software. Any creation of economic value takes place outside of the software where the owner no longer has control of it.
Also, the issue of vagueness seems to be inherent to the laws themselves, so it's entirely possible that Valve took a thorough look and still came away scratching their heads thanks to vague terminology.
@spinnytop Since I was commenting on what beezeeze said....I’m not sure what you are speaking of. Has there been some huge update in CO that all future items are now account bound?
In excited to see that, absolutely will celebrate. Where’s the reference??
@spinnytop Since I was commenting on what beezeeze said....I’m not sure what you are speaking of. Has there been some huge update in CO that all future items are now account bound?
In excited to see that, absolutely will celebrate. Where’s the reference??
There is no reference, beezeeze was commenting on a possible outcome of this situation. Since the problem seems to be "exchange" they could just make everything in a lockbox bound to account, instead of what it is right now which is unbound, so that none of what's in a lockbox could ever be traded. That's the only difference there would be from right now, that you couldn't ever sell or trade any of the things you get in a lockbox.
I'm curious why this would please you? Did you misunderstand and think that nothing would ever be bound-to-character anymore? Beez did say lootboxes in his quote after all, so it's clear that what he meant was items from lootboxes would be bound to account. If you would still celebrate the loss of the ability to trade lock box items I'm curious to know why.
guess the way I read it is items must be “transferable” so bound to account wouldn’t be bind on pickup, it would be bound to account upon equip.
Which would mean tradeable as well.
How would you propose to trade an item that is bound to your account? As far as I know, there's no way to trade something to another player once it is bound in any fashion.
It would have to be bound to account on pickup for it to make sense in this context. The moment it comes out of that lockbox it has to become bound to prevent you from transferring it.
Keep in mind that what beez was responding to is this:
They ought to define what they mean by "transferable." That seems the core issue. I.e. simply transferring an item to another person, or being able to sell it for real money, or something else. If they don't define that term it will be hard for Valve to know what to do.
Right, if everything in the gambleboxes were bind to account on pickup and could not be traded to anyone for anything they would have no value outside of the game and so would not be considered illegal gambling according to the law. So without a big cash jackpot being involved apparently the law doesn't care in this case.
At least that is what I gathered from reading the part in quotes in the thing from Valve that Aiqa posted.
The way I am understand the "transferable" or "economic value" thing, is that technically the platform for trading in game items do not have to be provided by the game itself, as long as the game allows it. So being able to transfer item in game, but use a different platform for payment, would also fulfill the "economic value" requirement.
So it's very much possible that any BoE items from lockboxes would be illegal in dutch law. But I also think that depends on interpretation so strongly that it will probably have to be decided by a court of law, if it ever comes to that.
For now they seem to be targeting the low hanging fruits, which are games that have a tied-in platforms to sell lockbox loot.
I would note that Valve interpreted 'disable Steam marketplace' as being equivalent to making items not transferable. Being able to buy and sell things on the Steam marketplace is very different from being able to buy and sell things in the AH, because it means you can use the proceeds from one game to buy things in a different game. The usual justification in games is that it's okay because the virtual good have a real-world value of 0 because they're only internal to the game; being able to transfer things out of the game immediately kills that argument and, honestly, Valve fully deserves to get slapped down.
The way I am understand the "transferable" or "economic value" thing, is that technically the platform for trading in game items do not have to be provided by the game itself, as long as the game allows it. So being able to transfer item in game, but use a different platform for payment, would also fulfill the "economic value" requirement.
So it's very much possible that any BoE items from lockboxes would be illegal in dutch law. But I also think that depends on interpretation so strongly that it will probably have to be decided by a court of law, if it ever comes to that.
For now they seem to be targeting the low hanging fruits, which are games that have a tied-in platforms to sell lockbox loot.
Bottom line: Their law is too vague. Vague laws like that exist so that they can pick and choose when to enforce it and never actually be consistent. It's the type of thing corruption thrives off of. Hey video game companies, send your checks so you won't be "interpreted" to be breaking our vague law.
Those poor, poor companies, they never get a break in this day and age Damn you backwards countries like Holland and your evil fight against gambling!!
Bottom line: Their law is too vague. Vague laws like that exist so that they can pick and choose when to enforce it and never actually be consistent. It's the type of thing corruption thrives off of. Hey video game companies, send your checks so you won't be "interpreted" to be breaking our vague law.
I can't honestly say I think corruption is the ONLY reason politicians write idiotically vague laws. A lot of it is probably general idiocy: IE they don't think out the full implications of the laws.
I can't honestly say I think corruption is the ONLY reason politicians write idiotically vague laws. A lot of it is probably general idiocy: IE they don't think out the full implications of the laws.
or they don't know how the thing they're writing a law about actually works. Like the US Congress and Facebook. In which case it's even worse - if the people pushing this don't even know the subject matter then how can anyone in good conscience support them?
I can't honestly say I think corruption is the ONLY reason politicians write idiotically vague laws. A lot of it is probably general idiocy: IE they don't think out the full implications of the laws.
or they don't know how the thing they're writing a law about actually works. Like the US Congress and Facebook. In which case it's even worse - if the people pushing this don't even know the subject matter then how can anyone in good conscience support them?
I can't honestly say I think corruption is the ONLY reason politicians write idiotically vague laws. A lot of it is probably general idiocy: IE they don't think out the full implications of the laws.
or they don't know how the thing they're writing a law about actually works. Like the US Congress and Facebook. In which case it's even worse - if the people pushing this don't even know the subject matter then how can anyone in good conscience support them?
Pretty much. The vagueness of EU laws is actually pretty commonplace. Also how draconian some of them can be compared to US laws (which is actually pretty hilarious with how some of our laws are) -- case in point the new GDPR--THAT thing is ridiculous!
Pretty sure this was hashed out before in here, Wrath, but the way Cryptic handles the lockboxes in their games isn't what these folks are looking at. There's nothing necessary to advance in there, nor can any of it be easily traded for real-world cash or goods (of course it's possible to circumvent this, but it's incredibly risky for both ends of the transaction, and exceptionally stupid when again the end product won't make you any better at the game). They're looking at the ones that are in games, PvP games especially, where something so advanced as to be nearly gamebreaking is locked away behind a game of chance.
"Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"
Better get rid of crane games, prize/gumball machines …. and Bingo night! Just a few off the top of my head. My bad. Looks like some of these were mentioned. Call it a refresher. This slope is so slippery ….
My lvl 40 champs in random order.
=Pieces of Stuff=Knock Dead=Cruel Yule=Cremator=Toys from the Attic=
=Gnosis Arcanum=Twenty Seven=Kama D=Critic=Creep Freeze=
=Mangled Man=G.I. John Doe=2D.=Lung the punch drunk monk=
=By the sword=Scild Truma=Shadow Puppet=Lu-7=Erysichthon=
=Nimravid=Buzzard Kill=Lorenzini=Schema=
So, I guess CO might as well go back to being subscription-based.
Unlikely. More likely they disable certain aspects of the z store if you're from Belgium, because the Belgian interpretation of gambling is very broad.
Unlikely. More likely they disable certain aspects of the z store if you're from Belgium, because the Belgian interpretation of gambling is very broad.
That's kinda the funny part here. You have these countries thinking they're gonna change the games, but it turns out the only thing that happens is their citizens lose access to parts of them. They thought they were gonna get those OP weapons out of the lockboxes and acquirable in some other way, but instead they completely lost the ability to acquire them at all
I wonder how many Belgium players CO has... wonder how they're gonna react when they lose access to lockbox goodies.
Pretty sure this was hashed out before in here, Wrath, but the way Cryptic handles the lockboxes in their games isn't what these folks are looking at. There's nothing necessary to advance in there, nor can any of it be easily traded for real-world cash or goods (of course it's possible to circumvent this, but it's incredibly risky for both ends of the transaction, and exceptionally stupid when again the end product won't make you any better at the game). They're looking at the ones that are in games, PvP games especially, where something so advanced as to be nearly gamebreaking is locked away behind a game of chance.
And yet it didn't stopped Belgium from forcing Blizzard to disable the ability to buy lootboxes in Overwatch, in spite of it only containing cosmetics like skins, sprays, voicelines and the like.
I wonder how many Belgium players CO has... wonder how they're gonna react when they lose access to lockbox goodies.
Well, it probably doesn't prevent buying keys with in-game currency, or you can just sell other things in the z for currency and buy the stuff out of the lockbox. Buying keys with in-game currency can probably evade gambling bans on the basis of being net profitable on average (buy keys, open lockboxes, sell contents of lockboxes, use proceeds to buy more keys, is the business plan of more than one CO player).
And yet it didn't stopped Belgium from forcing Blizzard to disable the ability to buy lootboxes in Overwatch, in spite of it only containing cosmetics like skins, sprays, voicelines and the like.
That's a bit backwards. Belgium didn't force Blizzard to do that - Belgium was hoping to force Blizzard to change the game for everyone, but Blizzard was smarter than that and just altered the game for Belgis. Belgis are being made to look kinda foolish here.
Now I do have a question here. So Belgium is concerned about lockboxes because they prey on people with gambling addiction issues, yes? So, do they have liquor stores in Belgium?
Better outlaw dice and cards games. Any game of chance really. As I said before. A very slippery slope indeed. Thing is addiction isn't the disease. Addiction is a symptom of something lacking in ones life. It fills a void. Its more like pain. We should see it as a warning to a bigger issue.
My lvl 40 champs in random order.
=Pieces of Stuff=Knock Dead=Cruel Yule=Cremator=Toys from the Attic=
=Gnosis Arcanum=Twenty Seven=Kama D=Critic=Creep Freeze=
=Mangled Man=G.I. John Doe=2D.=Lung the punch drunk monk=
=By the sword=Scild Truma=Shadow Puppet=Lu-7=Erysichthon=
=Nimravid=Buzzard Kill=Lorenzini=Schema=
Also why can't I have my gamble boxes just cause some other bumblesmucker has a gambling addiction? What's next, shut down all the liquor stores cause of alcoholics?
Also why can't I have my gamble boxes just cause some other bumblesmucker has a gambling addiction? What's next, shut down all the liquor stores cause of alcoholics?
This is pretty much the core of the discussion. Some people got it into their heads that it would be a good idea to protect people from themselves.
The 'children's commissioner' of the UK advocated regulating loot boxes in her 'Gaming the System' report.
Just a few days ago Valve blocked the ability to trade keys for loot boxes in Counter-Strike because reportedly 'nearly all' were being traded by criminals to launder money.
But other than a lot of talk, nothing substantial, so far as I can tell. Business as usual for politicians.
Comments
They could have either contacted the dutch gambling authority or had them read up on dutch gambling laws in the last two months. Which they said they did, so they should understand those laws by now... but they say they don't. So is valve's legal team or their hired legal counsel so bad they can't understand 1 law in 2 months, or haven't they really tried? And what exactly do they not agree with? They said they don't even understand it.
All in all it's a bad statement. It is obviously written by some PR guy that is trying to spin the story.
Your wish is granted ealford. When's the celebration?
Some interesting reads on the topic:
https://www.taylorwessing.com/download/article-loot-boxes-from-dutch-perspective.html
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0e0b24fe-2170-4995-8c78-8a4f1bdc85bc
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/267994-the-netherlands-declares-some-loot-boxes-illegal-warns-developers-to-modify-them
Over and over the idea of "economic value" seems to come up in regards to the content of the loot boxes for it to be considered gambling. So while I could paypal you $100 for something you got out of a lootbox the fact that the game itself doesn't support this exchange within the actual function of the game means that within the context of the software the item is not exchangeable within the software and hence has no economic value in the software. Any creation of economic value takes place outside of the software where the owner no longer has control of it.
Also, the issue of vagueness seems to be inherent to the laws themselves, so it's entirely possible that Valve took a thorough look and still came away scratching their heads thanks to vague terminology.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
In excited to see that, absolutely will celebrate. Where’s the reference??
There is no reference, beezeeze was commenting on a possible outcome of this situation. Since the problem seems to be "exchange" they could just make everything in a lockbox bound to account, instead of what it is right now which is unbound, so that none of what's in a lockbox could ever be traded. That's the only difference there would be from right now, that you couldn't ever sell or trade any of the things you get in a lockbox.
I'm curious why this would please you? Did you misunderstand and think that nothing would ever be bound-to-character anymore? Beez did say lootboxes in his quote after all, so it's clear that what he meant was items from lootboxes would be bound to account. If you would still celebrate the loss of the ability to trade lock box items I'm curious to know why.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Which would mean tradeable as well.
How would you propose to trade an item that is bound to your account? As far as I know, there's no way to trade something to another player once it is bound in any fashion.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
It would have to be bound to account on pickup for it to make sense in this context. The moment it comes out of that lockbox it has to become bound to prevent you from transferring it.
Keep in mind that what beez was responding to is this:
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
At least that is what I gathered from reading the part in quotes in the thing from Valve that Aiqa posted.
So it's very much possible that any BoE items from lockboxes would be illegal in dutch law. But I also think that depends on interpretation so strongly that it will probably have to be decided by a court of law, if it ever comes to that.
For now they seem to be targeting the low hanging fruits, which are games that have a tied-in platforms to sell lockbox loot.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
Bottom line: Their law is too vague. Vague laws like that exist so that they can pick and choose when to enforce it and never actually be consistent. It's the type of thing corruption thrives off of. Hey video game companies, send your checks so you won't be "interpreted" to be breaking our vague law.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
“Take a chance! Reach in and pull out our junk!”
I am immediately intrigued by the idea of a swag orb.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
or they don't know how the thing they're writing a law about actually works. Like the US Congress and Facebook. In which case it's even worse - if the people pushing this don't even know the subject matter then how can anyone in good conscience support them?
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
Pretty much. The vagueness of EU laws is actually pretty commonplace. Also how draconian some of them can be compared to US laws (which is actually pretty hilarious with how some of our laws are) -- case in point the new GDPR--THAT thing is ridiculous!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zl7A6bRKPDU
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
=Pieces of Stuff=Knock Dead=Cruel Yule=Cremator=Toys from the Attic=
=Gnosis Arcanum=Twenty Seven=Kama D=Critic=Creep Freeze=
=Mangled Man=G.I. John Doe=2D.=Lung the punch drunk monk=
=By the sword=Scild Truma=Shadow Puppet=Lu-7=Erysichthon=
=Nimravid=Buzzard Kill=Lorenzini=Schema=
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
That's kinda the funny part here. You have these countries thinking they're gonna change the games, but it turns out the only thing that happens is their citizens lose access to parts of them. They thought they were gonna get those OP weapons out of the lockboxes and acquirable in some other way, but instead they completely lost the ability to acquire them at all
I wonder how many Belgium players CO has... wonder how they're gonna react when they lose access to lockbox goodies.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
And yet it didn't stopped Belgium from forcing Blizzard to disable the ability to buy lootboxes in Overwatch, in spite of it only containing cosmetics like skins, sprays, voicelines and the like.
Epic Stronghold
Block timing explained
That's a bit backwards. Belgium didn't force Blizzard to do that - Belgium was hoping to force Blizzard to change the game for everyone, but Blizzard was smarter than that and just altered the game for Belgis. Belgis are being made to look kinda foolish here.
Interesting random article: https://massivelyop.com/2017/06/07/blizzard-is-using-a-loophole-to-keep-selling-overwatch-lockboxes-in-china/
Teehee :3c
Now I do have a question here. So Belgium is concerned about lockboxes because they prey on people with gambling addiction issues, yes? So, do they have liquor stores in Belgium?
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
=Pieces of Stuff=Knock Dead=Cruel Yule=Cremator=Toys from the Attic=
=Gnosis Arcanum=Twenty Seven=Kama D=Critic=Creep Freeze=
=Mangled Man=G.I. John Doe=2D.=Lung the punch drunk monk=
=By the sword=Scild Truma=Shadow Puppet=Lu-7=Erysichthon=
=Nimravid=Buzzard Kill=Lorenzini=Schema=
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
The 'children's commissioner' of the UK advocated regulating loot boxes in her 'Gaming the System' report.
Just a few days ago Valve blocked the ability to trade keys for loot boxes in Counter-Strike because reportedly 'nearly all' were being traded by criminals to launder money.
But other than a lot of talk, nothing substantial, so far as I can tell. Business as usual for politicians.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
My characters