this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
38 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
42482 readers
653 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Booster packs in card games like Pokemon and MTG are gambling. They contain random cards with published, known odds. The cards are worth monetary value. The consensus across the board for these games in their communities is that the packs are gambling, and it is pretty much always better to buy single cards from a third party if you need specific cards.
So are they arguing it should be "legal gambling" here? Because I'd argue the opposite - booster packs are also illegal gambling.
One argument is that gambling requires the chance of a loss - you go to a casino, make a wager, buy a lottery ticket, bet on a horse race, you can lose your money and end up with nothing.
But buy a Labubu, a Lego minifigure blind bag, MtG booster, or a video game lootbox, and while you don't know exactly what, you will always get something in return for your money.
Then again, "taking a gamble" is a term used for many things, like when you buy a used car without extensively checking the condition first, because you don't know what exactly you are getting...
US law does not view TCGs as gambling, but by the colloquial definition, it is gambling. You say there's no wager on an outcome. The wager is the price you spend on a pack, and the outcome is the resale value of the contents of the pack.
As for the case against Valve in particular, I make no claims as to what they should or shouldn't argue in the case. I am not a lawyer. I can't imagine most people in this instance are either.
Mostly correct. Buying anything which retains value after the purchase is a wager. This includes shares in a company, collectible items, even a shipping crate of RAM.
In the case of TCGs, the bet is that the value of the cards contained in the pack exceed the money spent on the pack. This is very common. And within TCG communities, there is a common understanding that this is gambling.
That's of course not to say that all purchases of a booster pack are with the intent to gamble. I've also played poker and blackjack for fun, and those games are full of wagers, bets, and outcomes. But the bar has never been that all possible reasons to do something are to gamble, just that gambling is a common motivation to do it.
I didn't say they were gambling, though trading shares is often associated with gambling. But in all of those examples, you receive something with value that changes in a way that is impossible to accurately predict.
And here you're changing the topic to suit your needs. I replied to a comment discussing the definition of the word "wager". As I've told you not long ago today, I don't care much about the semantics of specific words. I'll engage in the discussion though.
What? I'd like to remind you that you responded to me and solo'd out TCG boosters. In my response, I said very clearly that I am not a lawyer, nor do I make any claims as to what they should say in their case.
If you are only arguing about what is or isn't legal, then you're wasting your time. I'm not a lawyer, nor in a position to rule on laws. I don't know if something gave you the impression otherwise.
If you're arguing about what should or shouldn't be legal, then it's not an unpopular opinion that TCG booster packs should be regulated to some extent.
Anyway, I'm disengaging. As you mentioned before, we assume good faith here. That is my initial assumption, so I engaged with the discussion. At this point, I believe you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Thank you for clarifying to all of us that you do not comment in good faith. It makes it much easier for me to know which people to block.
Frankly, I don't mind. I don't love being accused of posting in bad faith and berated just because you forgot what you originally posted. Cheers.
Flagging @TehPers@beehaw.org on this response, as it applies to both of you. You're reasonable, longtime, constructive members on Beehaw. Maybe someone's having a bad day, but it saddens me to see the two of you going at each other. I don't feel there's a rift here, just disagreement over wording.
This said, we're all adults. I'm just more confused than anything, and I'm sure as fuck not going to take a side. This interaction wasn't Beeing nice.
Seeing as I can't see the thread anymore for previously mentioned reasons (yet oddly I can reply to you because you pinged me), I'm not sure which mod currently holds the reins over this community, but feel free to just delete the whole thread.
There's a discussion in another post that is almost certainly related to this one. I alluded to it when I came to that conclusion, which might have confused you.