12 ms·

You've gotten me wondering: Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? Is that a state-by-state regulation? A federal regulat

You've gotten me wondering: Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? 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.

gbear605 8y ago
I’m not entirely up to date, but my impression was that as long as the rewards are not redeemable for cash, it’s fine.
medobs41 8y ago
Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? I can answer for the US: Games aren’t subject to regulation because for the past few decades one party has made it their goal to destroy regulatory power to allow the wealthy to enrich themselves. One party in the US has been completely captured by billionaires and corporations. This started in the 1970s around the time the Koches founded the Koch Institute (now Cato), and the Scaife, Bradley, Olin, and other rich families started using big money to influenfe politics. Continued through Reagan, his tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks (including rolling back Fairness Doctrine which allowed Limbaugh to fill the airwaves with propaganda). Then Gingrich, then Murdoch who kicked off Fox News. Now the US has one party that is a coalition of billionaires for funding and white identity politics for votes— and the only thing that party cares about is the wealth of their billionaire donors. We’re not going to have any regulations to protect people until we fix US politics and media. (Good read on the history by respected historian: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ )
- scarmig 8y ago
  That's generic and not really convincing except to the already converted. Getting into the concrete example of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, on the other hand...
- manfredo 8y ago
  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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merch...
- briandear 8y ago
  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.
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  Translation: "But muh 1% and racism. Reeeeeeeee." Both parties are heavily influenced by and for the rich. But only one party is obsessed with identity politics, and it's not the one you're implying. Your side has far more to lose than the side of Fox News and Limbaugh if the fairness doctrine were to return. Because for every one of them, there are 10 media sources slanted in the other direction.
  - Pfhreak 8y ago
    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'.)
    - doctorless 8y ago
      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.
manfredo 8y ago
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.
- Retric 8y ago
  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.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    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.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Depends on the game. In multi player games where people can exchange items, people will pay real world money for other players items. EX: People buying WoW gold.
      - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > "buying WoW gold" IIRC, Blizzard doesn't profit from that directly and explicitly prohibits it in their ToS.
mediaman 8y ago
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. Here's an article with some more detail. https://www.geekwire.com/2018/game-show-network-hit-online-gambling-lawsuit-latest-case-targeting-gaming-companies/ https://www.geekwire.com/2018/game-show-network-hit-online-g...
- btbuildem 8y ago
  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.
kartan 8y ago
> Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? The regulations were designed for casinos before video games became so popular and way before mobile games and micro-transactions even existed. Example of gambling regulation for New Jersey: https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Regulations/MergedRegulations110413.pdf https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Regulations/MergedRegulations... > Is that a state-by-state regulation? 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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> 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?article=1146&context=grrj 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.
- a13n 8y ago
  > the TOS of all games say that the player does not own them Yet loads of people sell their in-game items (that they got through chance) for real money. So in a sense, they do own them.
  - setr 8y ago
    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!)
    - intended 8y ago
      I see that definition expanding. 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).
GVIrish 8y ago
> 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.
dv_dt 8y ago
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. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-25-now-belgium-declares-loot-boxes-gambling-and-therefore-illegal https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-25-now-belgium-de...
SN76477 8y ago
Great idea! If a game has micro transactions, then treat it as gambling. Problem solved.
agumonkey 8y ago
Paying in games is extremely recent.

gbear605 8y ago

I’m not entirely up to date, but my impression was that as long as the rewards are not redeemable for cash, it’s fine.

medobs41 8y ago

Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? I can answer for the US: Games aren’t subject to regulation because for the past few decades one party has made it their goal to destroy regulatory power to allow the wealthy to enrich themselves. One party in the US has been completely captured by billionaires and corporations. This started in the 1970s around the time the Koches founded the Koch Institute (now Cato), and the Scaife, Bradley, Olin, and other rich families started using big money to influenfe politics. Continued through Reagan, his tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks (including rolling back Fairness Doctrine which allowed Limbaugh to fill the airwaves with propaganda). Then Gingrich, then Murdoch who kicked off Fox News. Now the US has one party that is a coalition of billionaires for funding and white identity politics for votes— and the only thing that party cares about is the wealth of their billionaire donors. We’re not going to have any regulations to protect people until we fix US politics and media. (Good read on the history by respected historian: https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/50/divided-we-stand/ )

scarmig 8y ago
That's generic and not really convincing except to the already converted. Getting into the concrete example of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, on the other hand...
manfredo 8y ago
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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merch...
briandear 8y ago
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.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
Translation: "But muh 1% and racism. Reeeeeeeee." Both parties are heavily influenced by and for the rich. But only one party is obsessed with identity politics, and it's not the one you're implying. Your side has far more to lose than the side of Fox News and Limbaugh if the fairness doctrine were to return. Because for every one of them, there are 10 media sources slanted in the other direction.
- Pfhreak 8y ago
  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'.)
  - doctorless 8y ago
    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.

manfredo 8y ago

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.

Retric 8y ago
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.
- manfredo 8y ago
  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.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Depends on the game. In multi player games where people can exchange items, people will pay real world money for other players items. EX: People buying WoW gold.
    - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
      > "buying WoW gold" IIRC, Blizzard doesn't profit from that directly and explicitly prohibits it in their ToS.

mediaman 8y ago

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. Here's an article with some more detail. https://www.geekwire.com/2018/game-show-network-hit-online-gambling-lawsuit-latest-case-targeting-gaming-companies/ https://www.geekwire.com/2018/game-show-network-hit-online-g...

btbuildem 8y ago
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.

kartan 8y ago

> Why AREN'T certain games subject to the same regulations as slot machines? The regulations were designed for casinos before video games became so popular and way before mobile games and micro-transactions even existed. Example of gambling regulation for New Jersey: https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Regulations/MergedRegulations110413.pdf https://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/docs/Regulations/MergedRegulations... > Is that a state-by-state regulation? 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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

> 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?article=1146&context=grrj 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.

a13n 8y ago
> the TOS of all games say that the player does not own them Yet loads of people sell their in-game items (that they got through chance) for real money. So in a sense, they do own them.
- setr 8y ago
  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!)
  - intended 8y ago
    I see that definition expanding. 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).

GVIrish 8y ago

> 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.

dv_dt 8y ago

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. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-25-now-belgium-declares-loot-boxes-gambling-and-therefore-illegal https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-25-now-belgium-de...

SN76477 8y ago

Great idea! If a game has micro transactions, then treat it as gambling. Problem solved.

agumonkey 8y ago

Paying in games is extremely recent.