this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
116 points (96.0% liked)

Games

16949 readers
762 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lud@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What are the downsides to banning it for us?

[–] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Basically, the same systems that allow Skin gambling also allow for trading and 3rd party marketplaces. You can't just disable one without disabling the other. They could ban it on paper but enforcing those bans technically will likely just lead to users/victums lossing more as casinos would be unable to payout owed earnings.

That leaves legal enforcement, but Valve isn't a government body - they don't have the authority to investigate these casinos, and have limitted ability to enforce the law. They're effectively manufacturing poker chips and releasing them into an open market where they don't have authority (nor should they). Instead, illegal casinos should be investigated and prosecuted by the government - its supposed to be their responsiblity to handle exactly this sort of thing. They have the ability to seize casino property to investigate them or collect information, and the ability to fine them and enforce fines, unlike Valve which can do neither. As even noted in the video, the have sent cease and desist letters in the past, but casinos can changed names, changed owners, ect. and nothing changed.

Edit: For clairity, free trading is what allows these sites to work. Valve will disable account's ability to trade in some cases such as where their services are directly abused on-platform, but they don't have access to trade negotiations and things obviously get messy when it comes to trying to mediate bad or unfair deals (such as the case with these casinos.) That means Valve has four options to tackle this:

  1. Do nothing.

  2. Send cease and desist notices to the casinos and/or persue legal action where possible. This leads to individual casinos closing and then a new one is immediately re-opened to take its place as there isn't any cost to then.

  3. Disable the accounts of these casinos. The problem is that this effectively freezes their cashflow both in and out. Anyone waiting on a cash-out effectively immediatly loses everything, and given the long transaction times and sizes of these casinos, this will likely hurt a lot of victims. At the same time, while they lose some of their assets, casinos can still walk away with a lot of their current profits. This just turns it into a game of whack a mole, where casios pop up, make a small fortune, then get banned and effectivly rugpull their userbase.

  4. Disable trading and possibly marketplace, which sucks for regular users and means all sales much go through Valve storefront with no room for competition or price negotiation. No more giving friends spare skins, and no more bypassing Valve's 5% royalty fee on sales. This also has the same issue as #3.

[–] glitches_brew@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Disabling trading items is a bad call. Look at epic and rocket league. The game was already dying and removing trading was a massive fuck you to a huge section of the player base.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I never said that they should disable trading. Just that they should go after gambling sites and introduce things that would make it harder to gamble.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They could try doing something. I dunno maybe trading limits and/or time-outs combined with DMCA takedowns.

Maybe the cost of setting up casinos isn't very high but it takes time to build up trust from consumers and get customers.

If they can shutdown the biggest casinos that are sponsoring YouTubers and competitions that's at least a decent win.

[–] Phunter@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

They already do this. Skins have trade restrictions in the form of time delays after specific actions. Valve also clamped down on the features of their trading API.

The bad news is that it's not an easy problem to solve and not solely in Valve's hands. But to say Valve has done nothing is straight up false. Have they done enough? Debatable, but there's no easy solutions.

[–] glitches_brew@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Introduce what things? How do you propose they stop gambling without removing trading?

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 days ago

Why? I think the only thing that is bad with the practice is involvement with kids. Enforce age limits within the gambling sites, and really that's up to the FTC and gaming commissions.