Considering I hate those Labubu things, I ain't necessarily siding with Valve on loot boxes ( even if I already don't support loot boxes to begin with ), but I do not under any circumstances support NY's solution to the problem, assuming the things I've heard about it are true.
this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2026
37 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
42471 readers
488 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
Mashallah valve will pay for bringing maplestory to the west
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...
Labubus are basically gambling for kids. I'm not sure they're sending the message they want to be, here.
I don't think they care if it's gambling or not.
They are trying to make the point that they shouldn't be targetted if other obvious known sources of illegal gambling are being actively ignored.
Either they need to go after everyone or no one. Since going after everyone is probably unlikely, targeting Valve for it would be unfair and may be dismissed.
WRT the US, the entire reason Labubus are not legally considered gambling is because there is no wager on the outcome of them. You pay the same amount each time (not wagering based on desired outcomes), and you always get something back. The question of whether a certain level of outcome-value randomization should instead be used as the litmus test for gambling is not one that has been asked or answered legally.
The specific state-by-state definitions of gambling in the US vary, of course, but generally it consists of a wager on a specific outcome of a contest or chance event, under an agreement to receive some value in exchange based on the result.
Changing to a definition where any payment + any random chance of loot = gambling, would open up a lot of very interesting possibilities, like potentially applying to any randomized loot in a video game (unless you start making specific carve-outs). It's important to remember that gambling's definition doesn't only apply to legal gambling, but also illegal gambling, so grey-market resales of game accounts would have to be factored into the consideration of anything in-game's value (i.e. you can't avoid "random loot in a game" being gambling in that case by saying the game can't be legally traded for the item value, because regardless, game accounts can be traded).
In more concrete terms, if I can buy Diablo 2 (pay fixed cost), get a really good item drop (random chance value outcome), and sell my Steam account to someone who wants that item (money in, money out), why would that be different than that same flow with a loot box?
I've of course heard of Labubus, but do you not pick one to purchase? Like, are people literally paying without knowing what they'll get?
I can't imagine going to HEB and buying a random box that contains "some kind of food."
Yes, they're exactly that; plush doll random chance boxes. It's funny because gachapons have actually been in the US and Europe for 50+ years, but no one ever really thought of them like this because the toys inside never had real value.
Remember these outside of supermarkets?
Claw machines are gambling. Those coin machines that you get a sticker or a plastic spider out of is gambling. Kids having been gambling for decades. Hell even coin pushers is gambling.
I feel like we need to fully define gambling before any of this is settled. I believe anything where you give money for some kind of return but have a chance of recieving nothing back, then that is gambling. If you are guaranteed to get something for your money then thats not gambling. Thats just a purchase.
Yep. There are too many people who don't understand addiction, and think that gambling is the root cause problem, rather than one of many systems that preys on addiction disorders.
The reality of addiction is that it will always find something to fulfill it without treatment, and banning or regulating every trend of collectibles that pops up is not an actual solution. Banning or regulating specific structures that intentionally prey on addiction is important.
Too many people mistake their feeling-based objection to gambling that was inherited from the protestant moral objections, with actually being about solving predation on addiction.
I honestly am not sure this is only about addiction. Instead i think this is mostly about parents who dont monitor their childs activites and want aomeone to blame for their child spending thousands of dollars on a video game.
I mean gambling in general, not just loot boxes or TCGs. Gambling is not a bad thing. Gambling addiction is, but it's bad because it's addiction.
gambling is still fundamentally bad because the very concept is predatory and harmful
How so?
Claw machines are gambling
This is a bit more complicated, imo. In the US, I would agree they are gambling. They are literally programmed to only close the claw strongly enough to grab shit after X amount of money has been put into the machine.
However, in Japan this is against the law. They are games of skill without the bullshit. You can even ask the clerks operating the establishment to reset the prizes to make it easier to get something if it falls over or is pushed too close to the glass. IIRC, you can also just ask to buy a prize outright without even playing the game.
That's not really true, in Japan claw machines use the same variable strength bullshit that happens in the US. They are explicitly classified as gambling under Japanese law.
Sure Japan has a way to protect people in regards to the claw machine. But gacha games and gachapon are huge in japan. And those are more predatory than loot boxes. So we still need to draw the line and sort out what actually is and isnt gambling.
Look at carnaval games, a mobile gambling group that targwts children? If we have loot boxes be labeled as gambling who is to say that we wont label everything else as gambling.
Where is the line?
Where's the line
Games of Chance vs games of skill.
"But poker is a game of skill!"
No it fucking isn't. You can mitigate your losses by folding early or bluffing, but you can not guarantee a win by being "better" when the luck of the draw is still against you, unless you're counting cards.
I would narrow this down to including monetary cost and reward.
A game of primarily chance, such as slots, roulette, poker, blackjack, or even MTG's Ante variation where something of value is offered (money, chips, resellable cards) and something of value is rewarded would be gambling. Note that chance would be a primary mechanic of the game, but skill may still be involved.