After the CS:GO betting scandal, Nick Xenophon wants tougher video game laws to combat teen gambling - Polidicks

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50810336]My sister's boyfriend has a Charizard pokemon card which is worth over £500. Some pokemon cards are far rarer than other cards and some of them are of high value and some of very little. Should pokemon cards be banned as gambling? [/quote] They shouldn't be banned as gambling but they're just as much gambling as anything else. Gambling is arbitrary as hell. [QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50810357]except when you buy a key you always get a skin just like with the toy ball the comparison isn't for the websites its for the crates, the websites are [B]obviously[/B] bad.[/QUOTE] not really [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50811833]She was more or less. She had a key logger and [B]a program that took screen shots every 5 seconds[/B], knew exactly what I was doing, and immediately blocked sites she didn't approve of.[/QUOTE] Are you confident that she didn't just convince you that that was what she was doing? A screenshot every 5 seconds would probably lag old clunker systems.

I'm glad to know my parents actually gave me some freedom instead of being so controlling as to install keyloggers

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50811949]Maybe im just super dumb and ive completely misunderstood everything but people gamble for items on these websites, spending ludicrous amounts of money. I want to just point out that people who buy those items to gamble them away buy them on Steam. The money spent gambling for those items never sees Valve, when if those sites were removed, the only way to get those items would be through Valve, and thus would get them more money than if the gambling sites remained operational. How is that hard to understand?[/QUOTE] What? First off you say that people who gamble away their items buys them on Steam, then you say that they make no money out of it? That's a direct contradiction. The way those gambling sites are made is such that they make a profit out of the total pool of gambling games. Which means that V1, the combined value of the items they acquire through the entirety of the gambling games they set up -items that are first bought on Steam- is superior to V2, the combined value of the items they offered as prize and lost -the items you argue would have been bought via Steam in a gamble-free environment, thus are lost profit because of these sites' existence- thus the total profit from Valve's point of view is 0.15*(V1-V2) which is a net positive considering V1>V2. Which means that Valve's profit margins benefit from the existence of such sites.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50812275]What? First off you say that people who gamble away their items buys them on Steam, then you say that they make no money out of it? That's a direct contradiction. The way those gambling sites are made is such that they make a profit out of the total pool of gambling games. Which means that V1, the combined value of the items they acquire through the entirety of the gambling games they set up -items that are first bought on Steam- is superior to V2, the combined value of the items they offered as prize and lost -the items you argue would have been bought via Steam in a gamble-free environment, thus are lost profit because of these sites' existence- thus the total profit from Valve's point of view is 0.15*(V1-V2) which is a net positive considering V1>V2. Which means that Valve's profit margins benefit from the existence of such sites.[/QUOTE] I haven't seen any significant shifts in the values of my own items as a result of this. The only way in which it would help valve would be by increasing the values of skins, and seen as I haven't seen any change in skin prices since all these sites shut down, I'm not sure that was the case.

[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50810349]Care to elaborate? I've said how the marketplace is tied into Valve's operation in how they handled the gambling case of CSGO. They were the main hand from Kids buying Steam vouchers and buying skins to then gamble them on CS GO Betting websites, then turning said skins into cash via OPSkins. All of the information I've put in this thread has basis in the CSGOLotto lawsuit in Florida court. [URL="https://www.scribd.com/document/317712965/C-B-N-B-vs-Valve-Corporation-CSGO-Lotto-Trevor-Martin-and-Thomas-Cassell"]CSGOLotto Lawsuit[/URL][/QUOTE]I could name you, the pope, David Cameron, and Xenu as defendants in a lawsuit over me getting food poisoning at a Denny's Restaurant. It'd be completely stupid but I can certainly try.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50812371]I could name you, the pope, David Cameron, and Xenu as defendants in a lawsuit over me getting food poisoning at a Denny's Restaurant. It'd be completely stupid but I can certainly try.[/QUOTE] The annoying thing is you still won't elaborate properly. A law document is no joke, why are you taking it as one? Defendants can be whoever, the actual content of the document pertains to what I've been ringing through this entire thread. Valve has a 15% take on marketplace transactions, kids bought steam vouchers traded them into skins they bought on valves owned marketplace they took a cut, kid gambled, lost or won if won then cashed out via OPSkins. That's basically how this worked, yet it seems like its' really hard to understand for some people in this thread

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50812309]I haven't seen any significant shifts in the values of my own items as a result of this. The only way in which it would help valve would be by increasing the values of skins, and seen as I haven't seen any change in skin prices since all these sites shut down, I'm not sure that was the case.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about changes in the values of individual items, you're missing the point. I'm saying that the difference between the amount of money Valve gains from the sale of items used as chips by the gamblers (thus 15% of the value of all those items combined) and the amount of money they lose because the gambling prizes are traded outside of the steam market and would have been bought through Valve channels otherwise (thus 15% of the value of all the prizes lost by those sites) is a net positive. Thus Valve profits from the existence of these gambling sites.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50811949] [B]I want to just point out that people who buy those items to gamble them away buy them on Steam.[/B] [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AaronM202;50811949][B]The money spent gambling for those items never sees Valve[/B][/QUOTE] [URL="https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=6088-UDXM-7214"]https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=6088-UDXM-7214[/URL] Fees section: [QUOTE]What is the "Steam Transaction Fee"? The Steam Transaction Fee is collected by Steam and is used to protect against nominal fraud incidents and cover the cost of development of this and future Steam economy features. The fee is currently 5% (with a minimum fee of $0.01). This fee may be increased or decreased in the future.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]What is the "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Fee"? The CS:GO Fee is a game specific fee that is determined and collected by the game publisher. The Fee is currently set at 10%.[/QUOTE] That equals a 15% fee that goes directly to Valve who did indeed get to see some money off this gambling industry.

Kids bet because it's CSGO, not because it's gambling. I was sucked into the case frenzy craze and I've spent more money than I should have. I never went onto one of the gambling sites. I've unboxed a handful of rare weapons, most expensive one is $50. I've never sold an actually expensive skin. Why? Because I like playing CSGO. It's the most played game in my library by a longshot. I enjoy playing the actual game. I have to disagree with people that say that CSGO is a slot machine with a shooting minigame. It has a massive following on basically every platform whether it be YouTube, eSports, or just real life. It's an extremely in-depth game but everyone looks past everything that makes CSGO complex and boils it down to a point and click shooting gallery. Kids shouldn't be gambling but fuck, I don't think countries should be making laws about it, especially since governments don't know anything about video games. I really don't want to be seeing companies like Valve getting into legal trouble. The game is rated M anyways. Maybe add gambling to the ESRB description.

[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50812501]The annoying thing is you still won't elaborate properly. A law document is no joke, why are you taking it as one? Defendants can be whoever, the actual content of the document pertains to what I've been ringing through this entire thread. Valve has a 15% take on marketplace transactions, kids bought steam vouchers traded them into skins they bought on valves owned marketplace they took a cut, kid gambled, lost or won if won then cashed out via OPSkins. That's basically how this worked, yet it seems like its' really hard to understand for some people in this thread[/QUOTE]But Valve's actual part in it was entirely irrelevant to the skin gambling, they did nothing to participate in or promote it. You don't understand that the chain doesn't go all the way back to Valve. Just because they may have been the original source of something that would eventually go on to be used in gambling does not actually make them culpable for said gambling. That is the thing you don't get or refuse to admit to. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50812545][URL]https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=6088-UDXM-7214[/URL] Fees section: That equals a 15% fee that goes directly to Valve who did indeed get to see some money off this gambling industry.[/QUOTE] That is for sales on the market, an actual marketplace where you get what you pay for without some stroke of luck or chance involved, with clearly stated prices. It has literally zero to do with gambling because it is literally a marketplace for the exchange of goods and services, something entirely 100% legal. Like, you literally have no clue how the things you are arguing about even work.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50812660]But Valve's actual part in it was entirely irrelevant to the skin gambling, they did nothing to participate in or promote it. You don't understand that the chain doesn't go all the way back to Valve. Just because they may have been the original source of something that would eventually go on to be used in gambling does not actually make them culpable for said gambling. That is the thing you don't get or refuse to admit to. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] That is for sales on the market, an actual marketplace where you get what you pay for without some stroke of luck or chance involved, with clearly stated prices. It has literally zero to do with gambling because it is literally a marketplace for the exchange of goods and services, something entirely 100% legal.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying Valve did profit from this gambling industry in some way indirectly, they are in every right to keep their marketplace and do whatever with it and I don't think Valve should be punished even if they truly delayed any actions against this new gambling industry for their games for far too long. Their freaking SSA states that you should not use steam to profit. Yet, they kept this going on for far too long. They've allowed this for far too long with other games, but when a gambling industry is at their footsteps. They let it pass through because they take a 15% cut from all the kids with steam vouchers buying AWP Redlines? Okay. I just think its' immoral to profit from an industry that could be stopped on day one by the same company. Its' understandable though theres' no way anyone can be punished under law since none of them apply to virtual gambling services with betting skins from a video game.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50812660]That is for sales on the market, an actual marketplace where you get what you pay for without some stroke of luck or chance involved, with clearly stated prices. It has literally zero to do with gambling because it is literally a marketplace for the exchange of goods and services, something entirely 100% legal. Like, you literally have no clue how the things you are arguing about even work.[/QUOTE] It doesn't have "zero to do with gambling", people who want to gamble buy items through the market to gamble with them, and the more they lose, the more items they buy in an attempt to recoup their losses. Everytime that happens, Valve takes 15%. How can't you see that gambling sites benefit Valve financially? Don't accuse others of having no clue what they're talking about whike demonstrating you don't either.

Valve doesn't profit from the actual gambling. AFAIK, these sites use the trading API to actually move items around, and valve makes [b]no money[/b] off of that. Legally, they are in the clear. Trying to argue that Valve is liable because they make money on their marketplace is like arguing that a Pog company is liable for Pog gambling because people buy more Pogs when they lose (It doesn't have to be Pogs, it could be any item).

[QUOTE=_Axel;50812701]It doesn't have "zero to do with gambling", people who want to gamble buy items through the market to gamble with them, and the more they lose, the more items they buy in an attempt to recoup their losses. Everytime that happens, Valve takes 15%. How can't you see that gambling sites benefit Valve financially? Don't accuse others of having no clue what they're talking about whike demonstrating you don't either.[/QUOTE]Because that's entirely irrelevant to the actual gambling aspect. Literally anyone who supplies something potentially of value can have said things used in gambling. It literally makes no difference because they do nothing to contribute to the gambling itself. They just sell a product. That is their own interest in it. You keep trying to pass this as somehow Valve condone or contributed to it with literally zero evidence other than, "They didn't do it by the time I think they should have relative to when I deemed it a problem." [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FezianEmperor;50812695]Their freaking SSA states that you should not use steam to profit. Yet, they kept this going on for far too long. They've allowed this for far too long with other games, but when a gambling industry is at their footsteps. They let it pass through because they take a 15% cut from all the kids with steam vouchers buying AWP Redlines?[/QUOTE] Again, this is an issue of "They didn't fix it in the time I think they should have relative to when I deemed it a problem." Its an assumption they were willfully condoning it.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;50812742]Because that's entirely irrelevant to the actual gambling aspect. Literally anyone who supplies something potentially of value can have said things used in gambling. It literally makes no difference because they do nothing to contribute to the gambling itself. They just sell a product. That is their own interest in it. You keep trying to pass this as somehow Valve condone or contributed to it with literally zero evidence other than, "They didn't do it by the time I think they should have relative to when I deemed it a problem."[/QUOTE] That's not "entirely irrelevant" when the channels through which these transactions operate are monitored by Valve. There is a possibility of conflict of interest here. Not that I argue that Valve is responsible for those gambling sites, contrary to what you seem to think I said. I'm merely responding to people who claim that Valve made literally no profit from all this, which is patently false.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50812701]It doesn't have "zero to do with gambling", people who want to gamble buy items through the market to gamble with them, and the more they lose, the more items they buy in an attempt to recoup their losses. Everytime that happens, Valve takes 15%. How can't you see that gambling sites benefit Valve financially? Don't accuse others of having no clue what they're talking about whike demonstrating you don't either.[/QUOTE] Valve does benefit from gambling sites, [I]indirectly[/I]. However, this is completely inconsequential. If I meet a girl who absolutely loves Amiibos, and agrees to fuck with me if I buy her amiibos, does this mean that Nintendo is benefiting from prostitution? Yes, [I]indirectly[/I]. I don't even find anything particularly wrong with the fact that Valve knew about gambling sites and decided not to crack at them before. It's not their job to care what people do with their money.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50812786]That's not "entirely irrelevant" when the channels through which these transactions operate are monitored by Valve. There is a possibility of conflict of interest here. [/QUOTE] How could you possibly tell who's buying what and trading what for the purposes of gambling, thats insane. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] Theres no point in pointing out that just because it goes through their service that its monitored by them because theres literally no way for them to know what you intend to do with those items you got or trade.

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50812793]Valve does benefit from gambling sites, [I]indirectly[/I]. However, this is completely inconsequential. If I meet a girl who absolutely loves Amiibos, and agrees to fuck with me if I buy her amiibos, does this mean that Nintendo is benefiting from prostitution? Yes, [I]indirectly[/I]. I don't even find anything particularly wrong with the fact that Valve knew about gambling sites and decided not to crack at them before. It's not their job to care what people do with their money.[/QUOTE] Yes, and I agree with that. My point was directed at those who claimed they didn't indirectly profit from it. [editline]2nd August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AaronM202;50812794]How could you possibly tell who's buying what and trading what for the purposes of gambling, thats insane. [editline]1st August 2016[/editline] Theres no point in pointing out that just because it goes through their service that its monitored by them because theres literally no way for them to know what you intend to do with those items you got or trade.[/QUOTE] There was the whole API thing though. And regardless they seem to be doing something about it now that it's common knowledge, so I don't see your point? Evidently they have ways of tackling the issue.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50812537]I'm not talking about changes in the values of individual items, you're missing the point. I'm saying that the difference between the amount of money Valve gains from the sale of items used as chips by the gamblers (thus 15% of the value of all those items combined) and the amount of money they lose because the gambling prizes are traded outside of the steam market and would have been bought through Valve channels otherwise (thus 15% of the value of all the prizes lost by those sites) is a net positive. Thus Valve profits from the existence of these gambling sites.[/QUOTE] The vast majority of all big csgo gamblers bought skins through OP skins, rather than buying them off the market. No one spending significant money payed that 15% fee. Some small time, generally less invested gamblers would, but they would make up a small portion of the overall betting investment. I can't back this up with numbers, but it's pretty evident if you've seen the gambling scene. So secondly, there is the argument that the gambling market created demand for skins, which indirectly increased spending on keys and traffic in the marketplace. If it were the case that gambling sites had a significant effect on the demand for csgo skins, then you'd expect prices to fall once that demand disappeared overnight. This doesn't seem to have happened. Valve certainly profited off it, I'd just expect it would be such a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things for valve that it wasn't the reason for their action being so late, rather the cost, time consumption and general hassle of potentially suing these companies.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50812815] There was the whole API thing though. And regardless they seem to be doing something about it now that it's common knowledge, so I don't see your point? Evidently they have ways of tackling the issue.[/QUOTE] The API that ive heard, uh, anyone can use, and doesnt need special privileges until you hit around 100k people logged in at once or so.

Skins are bought with money - the money is first converted into Steambux (chips) either directly through Steam or via gift cards, and then the money is given to the owner of the skin [I]minus the transaction fee Valve directly profits off of.[/I] The skins are then used for bets via a third party website. [quote= Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006]This section covers money transfers. The bill states "no person engaged in the business of betting or wagering may knowingly accept" any money transfers in any way from a person participating in unlawful Internet gambling. This includes credit cards, electronic fund transfers, and even paper checks. But the restriction on transfers is limited to Internet gambling businesses, not mere players. [B]It also would not cover payment processors or ISPs, even under a theory of aiding and abetting. [I]The Act clearly does not make it a crime to knowingly transmit funds for illegal gambling.[/I] Neither the player nor the intermediary can be charged with this crime. The language of the Act even eliminates the possibility of charging financial institutions and computer hosts under a theory of aiding and abetting, since it explicitly states, in the definitions section, that being in the business of gambling does not include a "financial transaction provider," or an ISP.[/B][/quote] Even though Valve is profiting off of it, they can't be held liable for the skins being used for gambling. However, the companies that are hosting these betting schemes are illegal. I detest gambling and lottery, as they solely exist to make money via tricking people. The Skinner box style crates, where the odds aren't even known by the person buying a key, encourage problem gambling, and Valve has no system in place to offer help for problem gamblers and to stop selling to them like casinos do. A bartender isn't allowed to serve an alcoholic, no casino can legally accept the business of a gambling addict, but Valve is in this grey area where they're not a casino but they use token currency for a chance game that is not really chance, as they directly control the algorithms for winning.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;50812876]Skins are bought with money - the money is first converted into Steambux (chips) either directly through Steam or via gift cards, and then the money is given to the owner of the skin [I]minus the transaction fee Valve directly profits off of.[/I] The skins are then used for bets via a third party website. Even though Valve is profiting off of it, they can't be held liable for the skins being used for gambling. However, the companies that are hosting these betting schemes are illegal. I detest gambling and lottery, as they solely exist to make money via tricking people. The Skinner box style crates, where the odds aren't even known by the person buying a key, encourage problem gambling, and Valve has no system in place to offer help for problem gamblers and to stop selling to them like casinos do. A bartender isn't allowed to serve an alcoholic, no casino can legally accept the business of a gambling addict, but Valve is in this grey area where they're not a casino but they use token currency for a chance game that is not really chance, as they directly control the algorithms for winning.[/QUOTE] Again, would you ban pokemon card packs? If not, then banning crates is inconsistent, as both can contain very valuable things at an unknown frequency but normally drop things worth less in real money than they cost to buy. Also, please read my post above explaining how skins for gambling aren't bought through the steam market.

So many people in this thread getting mad that don't even know what was happening jeez [editline]2nd August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SleepyAl;50812876] I detest gambling and lottery, as they solely exist to make money via tricking people. [/QUOTE] So what, like most business ever? Also, there's no trickery involved. None. The odds are right in front of you. With betting it's even LESS tricking, the odds are just against you for the payout sizes etc.

[QUOTE=J!NX;50807076]I'm going to assume that I confused GSGO gambling with the gambling websites though THOSE websites are rigged and not similar to toy machines Opening crates, I'm not even sure about. You see what you can get and pay for a linear amount, and that's what you get. Only issue is that people start gambling with what the crates produce.[/QUOTE] Gonna have to jump in here maybe every so often one Gambling site is a bit dodgy, but you have to be aware that in the modern day these sites are under such strict legislation that there's no way you can get away with shit like 'rigging' games. Sportsbook is the same as it is offline, there are traders who establish odds and they do it the exact same way. Poker can't be fixed, because it's largely customer vs. customer, and there's no way to rig that in a direction on the spot. Any money won in Poker does not go back to the gaming site. Online Casino I could see why suspicions might arise, but you have to understand these websites are audited all the time, and if any even slightly dodgy is discovered, the site gets shit on by the regulating body to the point that they might lose their license. Fuck most gambling sites hate Casino games.They're the place most Fraudsters go to and it's much harder to track gameplay patterns that with Poker or Sportsbook

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;50812952]Again, would you ban pokemon card packs? If not, then banning crates is inconsistent, as both can contain very valuable things at an unknown frequency but normally drop things worth less in real money than they cost to buy. Also, please read my post above explaining how skins for gambling aren't bought through the steam market.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing for a ban, I'm just expressing distaste. It's just an anti-consumer tactic. You could put all the items from a crate into an in game store and charge per item, and all players would be able to buy what they want. The crate system solely exists to make people spend more money to have a chance at getting something they want. It's just scummy, just like those free 2 play games with the whole "game is unrealistically grindy unless you pay money" scheme where if they just sold the game itself instead of relying on bought currency it'd be more fair. And yes, I've never been a fan of trading card packs, loot crates, etc. for the same reasons. I'm not suggesting a ban by any means, I just think its shitty to do and ultimately harms the consumer. Also, I still think that at some point Valve got money indirectly via the skins, either by people unboxing to later give the skins to OPSkins, or unboxing, putting them on the market, and then the person buying the skin off the market putting it on OPSkin. Either way Valve is not liable. [QUOTE=phygon;50813326] So what, like most business ever? Also, there's no trickery involved. None. The odds are right in front of you. With betting it's even LESS tricking, the odds are just against you for the payout sizes etc.[/QUOTE] Uh, no, the odds are not in front of you. You get to see which items are in the crate, which ones are "legendary" and thus more rare, but the way Valve decides the odds is not clear. How do they determine what is in which crate, if it's determined on time unboxed, RNG based on various factors, or is it determined on the crate entering the drop system, what are the ratios of chance for one quality or another, can Valve manipulate the chance in any way, etc. I'm not against betting aside from collusion, throwing matches, etc. I just think crates and other lotteries have too many unknown factors and chances for manipulation to be fair, and just making the items purchaseable in a store as an option would make me have no qualms whatsoever. Again, not asking for a ban, just think it's a shitty anti consumer tactic to squeeze money out of people by relying on exploiting the human psyche. I feel the same about false advertising, paid reviews, bait and switch, and those pandering ads that clearly are aiming at basal human psychology rather than describing why their product is good (i.e alchohol ads showing you hot women, fast cars, lots of money, and then at the end showing the drink. the whole ad is so transparent about what it wants you to think, but the viewer still has no clue about the product other than what it looks like). That last one is a persona pet peeve of mine, and again I have to state this a million times because somebody will take it out of context, I'm not asking for a ban on the latter example, but I think it's scummy.