> Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines?
Slot machines are regulated because they fall under the category of gambling and video games don't meet the legal definition of gambling. (Although, I'd agree that it's starting to seem more and more as if they should.)
There's a pretty good explanation of the criteria at https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... but the brief summary (from the article) is "Gambling consists of three elements: consideration, prize and chance. If any one of those three elements is missing, the game is simply not gambling (Rose, 1986))."
By looking at those criteria, there's a lot of ways video game companies can defend themselves. The strongest one IMO being that, from a legal standpoint, there is no prize. You "win" things or get drops but the TOS of all games say that the player does not own them (or anything else in the game) in any legal sense. The analogy would be more like a carnival ride where you are paying for the experience rather than the expectation of getting anything material in return.
Usually despite being banned by the TOS, as a black market kind of operation.
More problematicly, im not sure how youd stop it from extending to say WoW gold-selling, or even cartridges with 100% saves on them.
People will attribute value to anything for any number of reasons, but I’m not sure you can make regulation on anything beyond “encouraging” such behavior. (And I would assume these companies already actively discourage it; you’re not supposed to be able to get money back out of the system!)
This doesn't actually get money out of the system. If I sell you my WoW account, money has changed hands but none of that money has come from WoW/Blizzard.
There are some game developers looking at sanctioned RMT right now because it would be a huge selling point. "Make money playing video games" used to be a popular slogan on tacky banner ads. That could see a comeback in a different way.
Sanctioned RMT works through some official marketplace (think Diablo 3's ill-fated Auction House). Not only does the developer not pay out anything (all money flowing through the auction house is coming from buyers of items), but they even take a "transaction fee" cut. All while continuing to own all the items being traded. There's no downside for the "house".
Except perhaps suddenly running afoul of gambling regulations if they can no longer argue there's no "prize" element to the gambling?
We're well past the point where virtual entitites are imaginable by the general populace.
Getting a virtual gun, creates an actual advantage in the game your are playing online.
While ultimate ownership of the code may be fraught, but practical day to day ownership and usage is not (unless you are fighting a particularly contrived case).
So, if a player does not have a title to anything in the game, the player has control over some items, and can sell this control? I suppose tokens in casinos also don't belong to players, but they are readily exchangeable for money.
On one hand, this may be enough to consider it gambling for money.
On the other hand, many games may expressly forbid selling in-game stuff. This is not easy to enforce, though, unless you forbid to drop and pick up items, or make in-game exchanges. A number of games uses exchange as a important "social" / "multiplayer" feature, but likely those are not slot-machine-like anyway.
It is extremely easy to enforce: just make items non-transferable, so they can only be gained by actual questing. As soon as an item is gained, it is permanently associated to a given account.
Tie them to a really name and government issued photo id? Please note I hope that this does not happen but that is one logical (very scary) conclusion that regulators may reach when that question is asked.
I believe if I had a slot machine that paid out in free vacations instead of cash, there would be no doubt playing it is a form of gambling.
I think it’s that the micropayments don’t get a random return. When someone buys to complete a level it is a predictable outcome, not a gamble.
People get variable return on item drops, but you don’t generally pay with money for item drops, just time.
There is a one-step-removed way in which I think video games could be regarded as a kind of indirect or obscured gambling.
1-I pay to receive an in game item like a weapon
2-I use that investment to go out and kill monsters for treasure drops
3-I end up with some randomly variable items of value that are by definition valuable, because people will pay me for them, TOS doesn’t establish a thing’s market value.
But I think this would really require us rethinking or redefining a number of concepts.
I have no idea if there is any legal precedent for requiring resell value on a prize, but these "rare drops" definitely do constitute prizes on a human level. And they by definition DO economic value (even if you can't resell them) because people pay money specifically for a chance to win them.
If value of something is how much the market is willing to pay for it: it had value before you bought it, and none after (you can’t resell!). Is there a difference from buying an “experience”?
This is actually a rapidly developing area of law. There is a lawsuit brought by Washington State that is arguing that virtual credits, in connection with games of chance, constitutes "something of value" that is covered by the state's gambling laws.
If the state wins, it could result in an expansion of regulation of this type of mobile game.
That's interesting! Even though they are not legal tender (and cannot be exchanged for goods and services etc), the argument is that they are still OF VALUE for those who hold them.
Yes. Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey and Pennsylvania allow gambling. But I guess that at any moment local or federal regulations could be created.
> And does the regulating code specifically mention physical machines?
There is specific regulations for casinos, for on-line gambling, for jackpots, sports betting, etc. e.g. CHAPTER 69O INTERNET AND MOBILE GAMING from the linked PDF
Example of definitions:
* "Authorized Internet or mobile game" means any game authorized by the Division for use with an Internet or mobile gaming system.
* "Client terminal" means any device that is used to interact with a gaming system for the purpose of conducting server-based gaming activity.
* "Data warehouse" means a system of one or more servers located in New Jersey for the purpose of storing transactions received from the primary gaming equipment.
* "Dormant account" means an Internet gaming account, which has had no patron initiated activity for a period of one year.
Video games are protected by the first amendment right to free speech and expression. Slot machines are gambling devices that take in and pay out money. The two aren't really comparable. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the regulations on slot machines only apply when they're used in real money gambling. Presumably, if someone built a slot machine that didn't take in or dispense tokens, and could not be used in gambling in any way, it wouldn't be subject to those regulations. But obviously this is a moot point since a slot machine without a payout is just a glorified random number generator.
> if someone built a slot machine that didn't take in or dispense tokens, and could not be used in gambling in any way, it wouldn't be subject to those regulations
I did in the 1970's, and it's perfectly legal (roulette, not slots):
Yeah, that's just not right. There are 3 questions to determine gambling: whether you pay something to play, whether there is a game of chance (a random number generator) and whether the game pays out something of value. Considering companies are making billions on virtual goods, I'd argue that a virtual good counts as a thing of value, and when tied to a random number generator (e.g., a loot box or virtual slot machine) then it's gambling (assuming it's pay to play).
I think where the connection to gambling falls down is the “pay to play” aspect.
That you are never forced to pay is a defining aspect of “freemium”. You are always given the choice to wait out the timer/watch an ad for your next upgrade/level/continue/bonus/lootbox, rather than pay.
Not necessarily. Right now the industry is largely unregulated, but that's more a question of enforcement than any sort of real legal protection.
In the US you can't build a slot machine that accepts money and dispenses tokens that have value. That's often how things operate in Japan, but the same model is generally illegal in the US.
It's questionable if spending real money on virtual currency to buy "loot boxes" that randomly give things of value is legal. And if that's legal, it's not obvious if changing the rate of rewards is legal.
In game items don't have value. If they did, then effectively all games with RNG mechanics would be banned. Heck, even the original Rogue would fall under that umbrella.
That depends on the game. I believe one big trend in gaming will be connecting in-game economies to real-world economies. That might happen by tokenizing in-game assets and allowing free trade via exchanges / auction sites.
That's simply the most well known example. Blizzard had a real money auction house in DIII which they got a cut of profits from virtual item sales so they clearly understand items have value. PLEX in eve online directly links real world money with their in world currency etc.
I could go on, but saying it's virtual is not necessarily enough to protect these companies.
Certain forms of video game dynamics: e.g. some loot box mechanics have recently been identified as being covered by gambling regulations in some nations.
> You've gotten me wondering: Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines?
Probably because the problem is not perceived as bad enough to get regulated yet. The industry was getting dangerously close to this when there were all those cases of kids racking up huge bills through in-app purchases on iPhones, but that has died down enough that it's not on the radar anymore. I think if the games industry gets too aggressive again, regulation will sweep in.
This does not hold to to scrutiny. The case that was appealed to the supreme Court that establishes that video games are protected by the First Amendment was challenging a law championed by a California Democrat, but was mostly overturned by liberal justices.
What video games have to do with "white idntity politics" is beyond me.
And yet the tech industry overwhelmingly supports Democrats? Partisan politics has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But, if you want to go there, I might suggest that Cato is a libertarian organization and libertarianism is about the rights of the individual to make their own choices rather than having the state dictate those choices. Bringing the Koch brothers into a debate over addictive screens is just silly.
Your "translation" is clearly out of tone for Hacker News.
Both sides play identity politics, they just focus on different identities. Most people are blind to the identity politics of their own party because those identities feel natural or correct to them, making the identities less obviously visible. (Or, inversely, the identities of the 'other' party feel obviously wrong, making them more jarring and stand out as 'playing identity politics'.)
Tone is relative. Although the words individually are not incindiary, the post being replied to was equally incindiary in nature. Subtlety in verbal attacks does not have true distinction, other than one having (weak) deniability of malevolence. Arguably, it’s because of this it is more dishonest.
Is that a state-by-state regulation? A federal regulation? And does the regulating code specifically mention physical machines?
Thanks in advance for satisfying my curiosity.