Coffeezilla does a third part of his CS:GO gambling expose...where he squarely puts the blame on Valve

Honestly, Valve should just ask for proof that you are 18+ if you want to sell items on Steam market or trade them.
Easiest solution IMO.
- When they were asked to implement age verification in Germany, they simply pulled anything off their platform in the country that would require it instead. Mind you Germany has a system that makes age verification anonymous so if privacy concerns you, you could just implement it. (Almost no platform does because they want your data though.)
  Valve doesn’t want to touch age verification with a 10 yard stick and that tells me it is probably the way to go here. Because once they have it, the path for more regulations is clear.
  
  In this arena, more regulation is needed. Anonymous age verification is a good idea, but I question the actual anonymity. It usually depends on trust of some entity. And I just can't fathom an entity that can really be trusted.
- Not going to happen since Valve doesn’t want to manage a database of IDs. It’s why sex games with real life actors aren’t allowed on Steam since that would require Steam to have IDs and consent contracts of all the actors stored on their side.
  And Gaben is a hardcore libertarian, probably despises government IDs.
  
  Previously, I had mused over vague ideas about whether blockchain technologies could go into a "proof of real person" system, by one-way-hashing information used to verify only basic details about a person. Eg: They exist, are a unique person, and are over a certain age. Ideally, it could be set up in a way that cannot easily correlate them between company databases.
  That said, no real need to poke holes in the idea, because...that was the easy part, and it will probably never happen (or be far more draconian than I describe)
- Bit invasive if you have to provide photo id...
  
  How often can one get a credit card at under the age of 18?
  Surely that is a decent measure of it.
  Also age of account? Mine is 21 in just over a week...
- That’s not a solution at all. First of all, depending country, you will need a gambling license. This is a PITA as gambling laws will differ per country. In my country gambling is heavily regulated and you would need to check ID and keep track of how much a person gambles. You have a duty of care and if you notice a person’s gambling habits are becoming problematic you have to refuse them.
- It is a solution for underage gambling, but adult gambling is also a problem

As an old person who only kinda knew that lootboxes exist, this series was a huge eye opener to the insane amount of money and industry that has emerged around them. 10/10 would recommend to my fellow olds.
Now to head back to Bioshock where the only cost to looting boxes is that I might get attacked by a splicer.
- Just check how much money GTA online has made for Rockstar every year. It’s an 11 year old game that makes half a BILLION dollars yearly.
  No wonder they’re not in a hurry to get GTA 6 out. It MUST be better than GTA online both for gameplay and microtransactions as well as have the tech for live service
  
  https://www.pcgamer.com/gta-online-makes-half-a-billion-dollars-a-year-even-though-its-a-hot-mess/
  What the heck. Half a billion in microtransactions for a game that (according to this article) sounds like a real turd of a user experience. I loved GTA 3 and Vice City back in the day...I got GTA 4 in a Humble Bundle, haven't spent much time with it yet. Anyone know if it's a decent experience for a solo, offline, lootbox-free experience?

Honestly, in a lot of ways, I think this video is a miss. In both this video and to a lesser extent the last, he put a lot of the blame on Valve, but also provides a higher standard to Valve than the other companies covered. So much of this video boils down to "Valve uses lootboxes too," and "Valve needs to do something about this." without addressing Valve's position as a market player nor providing any solution for Valve to actually tackle the casino problem. He even says in the video that Valve previously issued takedowns but nothing changed and many of the casinos didn't even respond to the cease and desist. No other course of action is suggested, and frankly, I don't see any from Valve that wouldn't punish victums and unrelated users far more than the casinos.
This isn't to say Valve is blameless, but Valve is fairly tame for their direct involvement with lootboxes and is competiting directly against companies that use them far more agressively - exactly the reason Coffee previously gave the casinos and those involved with them leniency, and encouraged looking further up the chain. In the same way, I'd say the actual solution here would be for governments to ban underage gambling and enforce those laws - because the more Valve trys to crack down on this or even just avoid it, the more of an advantage the worse players in the space have. Ubisoft and EA have already been attempting to dislodge Steam for years, and its not because they think they can be more moral than Steam.
- It's not his place to provide a solution: he is a journalist exposing a problem. Do you have such expectations for all journalists talking about any topic?
  When articles get shared about any other company using micro/macrotransactions, predatory tactics or gambling-related schemes, people's consensus is unanimous, but when Valve is involved, suddenly people have double standards.
  Valve is fairly tame for their direct involvement with lootboxes and is competiting directly against companies that use them far more agressively [...] Ubisoft and EA have already been attempting to dislodge Steam for years, and its not because they think they can be more moral than Steam.
  Valve could shut down the entire gambling market today and nothing would change to their market position. Steam is not the number one marketplace because of the skin market. They are leaving it as is because it nets them money. I don't know how can you call Steam "fairly tame" when they are literally allowing multimillion dollar casinos to exist and operate without impunity. They sent a C&D to casinos and then washed their hands of the problem, because ultimately they don't really care about shutting them down.
  They could ban accounts linked to the casinos, but they don't, because they profit from them. They could have some sort of account-level check to make sure that minors don't spend their steam gift cards on CS skins (which, by the way, Coffezilla proposes at the end of the video) , but they'd rather use the gambling loophole of "akshually, it's not gambling as defined by law". Then they lie through their teeth by saying that they "don't have any data" supporting the claim that the gambling aspect of the game has profited them by leading to more interest in their games, which is bullshit.
  PC players, and Lemmy users in particular, have a huge double standard for Valve.
  
  It's not his place to provide a solution: he is a journalist exposing a problem. Do you have such expectations for all journalists talking about any topic?
  It wouldn't be his place to provide a solution if he was arguing that the practice is a problem and prehaps pushing for further study. It is his place because throughout the video, he tries to argue that solving the problem is not only possible, but easy - and yet, despite supposedly being easy, his best solution is to basically propose that the industry self-regulate. That is the main issue I have with this video.
  Valve could shut down the entire gambling market today and nothing would change to their market position.
  And how would they do this without screwing over normal users and victums of the casinos in the process? They can't get money from these casinos, nor collect casino records to redistribute scammed money. All they can do is disable trading or their marketplace, effectively seizing the poker chips (or metals balls, following Coffee's pachinko comparison) but doing nothing about the money casinos have taken from victims nor preventing the casinos from either walking away or re-investing in a new casino. To prevent new ones from popping up, you could disable all trading and marketing, but now you're punishing 132 million users for the acts of a couple thousand.
  They could have some sort of account-level check to make sure that minors don't spend their steam gift cards on CS skins
  They could, but A) this is just one game on their platform, and B) this would leave them directly competiting against those who don't regulate themselves and can make and reinvest significantly more. This is exactly the situation that Coffee argued was systematic and needed to be adressed further up the chain previously.
  they'd rather use the gambling loophole of "akshually, it's not gambling as defined by law". Then they lie through their teeth by saying that they "don't have any data" supporting the claim that the gambling aspect of the game has profited them by leading to more interest in their games, which is bullshit.
  Again, exactly like their competition. The recent talk of Balatro's PEGI rating being a prime example, with the industry self-regulation body declaring that virtual slot machines and loot boxes aren't gambling but featuring poker hands was.
  PC players, and Lemmy users in particular, have a huge double standard for Valve.
  This is the problem I have with this video. Valve is being held to a different standard, and told to self-regulate while others in this very series are having blame redirected away from them because its unreasonable to expect them to self-regulate.
  
  But he's placing blame easily enough
- He did say govt should be involved, and I'd agree generally. Gambling and gambling lite like lootboxes need regulation to die, but Valve is also a massive company running the biggest game storefront in the world, and they don't need the money from the lootboxes and cuts from selling and trading. They aren't in direct competition with most game creators, they compete with other storefronts, and it isn't even close. They could fix this relatively easily and it would barely make a dent in their finances.
  They could also leave the lootboxes and gambling up, and just implement an age verification system, one that locks you out of trading until the account is verified 18 or older, and add other tools like locking yourself out of trading or opening boxes similar to how casinos allow you to blacklist yourself for your own good.
  In terms of a relatively quick, relatively painless, realistic fix, with a decent timeframe, valve makes the most sense, and they can fix this extremely easily compared to getting every government in the world to agree, implement, and enforce regulations. Ideally, yes, governments fix it. Realistically, kids are getting addicted to gambling and having their lives ruined right now, and valve has the power to stop it. I think it's fair to ask, and expect a real answer, yes or no.
  
  I think the issue of lootboxes and shady third-party casinos, while intertwined, are very separate, almost parallel issues. Coffee reads them as largely being the same issue which leads to a lot of the messiness of this video, and makes the video harder to discuss.
  I think in terms of dealing with the 3rd party casinos, Valve is pretty powerless, and feel Coffee's arguments for their intervention are very hand-wavey. That is the biggest issue I have with this video. As I outlined in a comment on his last video, most options they have punish victums and unrelated users more than casinos. Even if Valve goes all-out and disables all item trading and marketing, casinos still walk away with all their profits and are incentived to try and scam their users out of every penny before that happens, while normal users and traders are left without ways to get skins they want (at least outside of gambling through Valve) or are left with a bunch of dead inventory they don't want. If anything, this kinda highlights what I meant by Valve being less agressive on the gambling, as they provide many fairly priced ways to be involved with the skin ecosystem without ever having to open a lootbox or a casino.
  In terms of Valve regulating lootboxes on their platform, and specifically CS2 crates, I think theres more merit to the argument, but I still think it's not realistic to ask Valve to regulate themselves and assume they'll be able to compete both on the game and platform level, with those who are not. Valve's momentum does play a bit part in their success, but so too does their featureset to players and friendliness to developers and publishes.
  On the game front, if Valve removes lootboxes or adds barries to entry, they will still be forced to directly complete with games that don't. Even assuming players don't want lootboxes (although the unfortunate reality of the market is that many do) Valve is still put in a position where their budget is determined by what they can morally earn while their competition uses whatever manipulate, deceptive, or immoral methods they want.
  On the platform side, it might be easier, but it could also put them in an even worse position as they rely on other developers and publishes, including the shady ones like EA and Unisoft, to fill their storefront. Part of the reason Steam has the userbase where other platforms don't is because they have the most complete selection of games. On the other hand, if Steam starts to threaten Publisher's incomes such as by requiring age verification on gambling, this will likely be far more in incentive to leave than their 30% split ever was. At least the 30% cost covered infrastructure, payment processing and first level support whereas if companies are blocked from their gambling addict audience, they likely will lose a significant part of their revenue outright.
  compared to getting every government in the world to agree, implement, and enforce regulations
  You don't necessary need every country nor do you need particularly extreme measures to have an impact. Same as with privacy regulations and a lot of other forms of monitization on the internet, you just need a few bigger blocks to massively increase the costs and risk. If, for example, the EU started requiring age verification to access lootboxes, that would immediately add a significant new cost to adding lootboxes. Notably, for exactly the sorts of live-service games these lootboxes are most common in, data collection and anti-cheat also tend to be key elements of the game and it's design and monitization - both of which conflict with the ability to ignore user location or age. The developer can't claim they thought the user was in the US, if the anti-cheat reported that they were using a VPN and were actually logging in from the EU, for example. Obviously there are workarounds for this sort of thing, but again more costs and compexity that eat into profits, and more risk for making mistakes.

It's not up to Pokemon to ban pack opening gambling any more than it is valve to ban item gambling.
It's up to the us government to ban gambling.
I don't think CSGO skin gambling is worse than draftkings or whatever else runs ads on American tv 24/7
- Pokemon doesn't have direct control of the mechanical system by which pokemon cards are traded. They also don't get a percentage cut whenever a pokemon card is bought/sold on their storefront, and they don't take pokemon cards as payment for games, software, and computer hardware. Valve facilitates, profits from, controls, and could ultimately shut down, these online casino spaces. They actively choose not to, and participate in using loopholes (see the xray scanner). Ideally, yes, the government fixes this. Realistically, any solution that isn't going to take years, and be easily bypassed with a VPN, or just having your company be based in a "sanctuary" country, is going to lie with Valve. Either self enforced or forced by the US govt, they have the means to kill gambling easily because they control the accounts involved, the systems used to trade said items, and the virtual currency players earn. Even something as simple as adding age verification would help. They don't have to stop, just accept responsibility for having an in game slot machine that spits out items that have real world value, and follow laws and measures to protect minors.
  So yes. i hold Valve, a massively profitable company directly facilitating and profiting from its illegal gambling industry to the point where the casinos openly sponsor pro teams to a higher standard than the company that prints pokemon cards, which can be bought and sold and gambled with like any physical good in a physical game of chance.

Valve just needs a way to ensure you are over the age of 18, and I know a way they can do that WITHOUT collecting IDs. They need to incorporate an age quiz like leisure suit Larry.
- Or just fucking turn off trading stupid weapon skins? Idk, seems like the bare fucking minimum of effort.

I know Valve would never do this...
Surely if the items hold no real-world value, putting it on hiatus for an indefinite amount of time would be the answer. The casinos which depend on Valve can't really sue the loss of the feature, as it's always in Valve's purview to remove it at any point from the game & platform.
If they made it a limited time feature in CSGO in a year, they would still achieve the "stickiness".

Jeff made a video on it too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpvePQVscUQ

I've heard more stories about CSGO over the years compared to other gambling games, but never heard people criticize the game like they do FIFA. It's just my corner of the world, where Valve is a holy corporation.
- All the sweaty middle-aged dudes with unwashed asses see GabeN as the only good billionaire. They’ll protect him with the same fervor that they use to try and keep women and POC out of gaming.

where he squarely puts the blame on Valve
I know G*mers are far to Stockholmed by the monopolistic hell scape that Valve is responsible for.
But it's nice to see someone say it.
- Its the problem with corporate worship. People cant admit that their team might be bad, and by extension..their worship might be wrong, so they just get angry and hostile.
  Especially when you point out that a lot of what they praise about Valve, was forced reactions to actual consumer protection lawsuits, or the threat of a possibility of one.
- I really don't get the love for Valve. They charge double the fees of some other digital platforms, and people flip the fuck out when a developer is like "we're releasing on origin because paying Valve would cost more money than the entire net profit of the game.
  
  What a strange way to look at it. Does Valve charge double than other store fronts, or did those other store fronts start charging half in an attempt to undercut Valve?
  Also I find it strange how you mention things like publishing fees and people not liking games being released on other store fronts instead of Steam while you fail to write a single mention to Steam's main competitor in those fronts: the Epic Games Store.
  Is there a reason for these 2 points, or are they just a coincidence?
  
  Valve has a huge backbone it also needs for daily traffic. Valve is pushing gaming on linux big time. Crossover wine etc would have taken at least years. Provide space for the community for forum, workshop, other data ( all running costs ) Epic origin uplay purely stock market oriented with junk launcher which is far worse spyware than Steam. Valve offers refunds. Their efforts with Steam link, controller, deck and whatnot. Valve offers the player a hell of a lot. Competitors offer junk spyware launcher mostly for games with rootkit compulsion.... do not offer a forum or anything else but refer to steam. Would prefer not to offer anything directly on steam but have a right to use the platform... Would the competitors instead of suing... would invest in the products and think about the players instead of the shareholders... then there would be no monopoly. Damn valve even opens up to others for free... Steamos, for example, will also exist outside the steam deck, whereby competitors could also adapt it directly as something of their own.

Getting tired of these "shock" youtube channels drumming up drama for views. It's only a matter of time before someone points the youtube cannon at these channels.
- How is investigating and calling out scammers and the like "drumming up drama"?
  
  Because I disagree with it!! (/s)
- I see your point entirely and I understand why you feel that way. Just want to give you my friendly opinion on Coffee. I wouldn't consider him a "shock" Youtuber, personally. He is an entertainer and a journalist, and pretty good at both IMO. He is definitely drumming up drama to a degree but I think this topic is especially worth the attention. I've watched the series this is a part of and can tell you that dude has done his homework. He included several interviews he did with different people that offers up a few pretty interesting perspectives. I recommend checking it out! At the end of the day, clickbait thumbnails and titles work well on YouTube and for some creators that otherwise might not drum it up it can be a matter of, "if you can't beat em, join em", but I definitely think the ends justify the means considering all of his work is what I and many others would call "fighting the good fight".