Actually I’m sad. I’m sad I’m having a conversation with someone who thinks they know more about the law than the New York Attorney general. I’ve lost, there’s no argument I could make that could get through the Dunning-Kruger.
That is an appeal to authority. Every one is susceptible to a mistake. And I believe this one is. I think the court will rule in favor of Valve if they don’t dismiss it. The way the economy works inside of Steam is what insulates it from being gambling. NY is arguing that being able to redeem your wallet for a Deck and then selling that deck, introduces the cash component of gambling. Not only that, but third party sellers are brought up and that adds several other layers that will be harder to make the case for. In addition, they claim Valve knowingly doesn’t care about the third party sellers. That, in and of itself, is not Valve’s problem specifically. If people want to pay money for a cosmetic item, it’s no different than Pokémon. Again, an insulating layer. That is a far cry from an open and shut case, as you seem to think it to be.
Multiple lawyers would point out that introducing steps to acquire cash insulates it. Especially since one of those steps is selling an item. This economy that they are trying to build out is shaky at best. But that’s just like, my opinion man. Do you have any of your own thoughts regarding the case? Have you read the case documents and come to a conclusion for yourself? Or are you just reading an article and calling it a day?
Actually I’m sad. I’m sad I’m having a conversation with someone who thinks they know more about the law than the New York Attorney general. I’ve lost, there’s no argument I could make that could get through the Dunning-Kruger.
That is an appeal to authority. Every one is susceptible to a mistake. And I believe this one is. I think the court will rule in favor of Valve if they don’t dismiss it. The way the economy works inside of Steam is what insulates it from being gambling. NY is arguing that being able to redeem your wallet for a Deck and then selling that deck, introduces the cash component of gambling. Not only that, but third party sellers are brought up and that adds several other layers that will be harder to make the case for. In addition, they claim Valve knowingly doesn’t care about the third party sellers. That, in and of itself, is not Valve’s problem specifically. If people want to pay money for a cosmetic item, it’s no different than Pokémon. Again, an insulating layer. That is a far cry from an open and shut case, as you seem to think it to be.
Multiple lawyers would point out that introducing steps to acquire cash insulates it. Especially since one of those steps is selling an item. This economy that they are trying to build out is shaky at best. But that’s just like, my opinion man. Do you have any of your own thoughts regarding the case? Have you read the case documents and come to a conclusion for yourself? Or are you just reading an article and calling it a day?