Well, we could always go back to talking about what’s best for the children? Those days were good, weren’t they? It’s still about the parents. We don’t admonish parents with regard to other gotchas. Or if you do, then good for you.

Are you disputing a lawsuit even existed? What specifically about my 1999 NYT article verifying my claim of a lawsuit in 1999 against NoA with allegations of gambling. I think it was RICO specifically in that case, but like that’s just law stuff.

You keep saying I’m talking out of my ass, but you haven’t disproven my points. You’re continuing to reply, which means you definitely are invested in this, because you are refusing to admit that you got in too deep with someone who knew too much. So now, the only thing you can do is say we both know nothing. So that way, we are equal. Why are you doing that? I’m sure there are plenty of things you have more knowledge than me in. Just because I’m not a lawyer, does not inherently mean I do not know law. You do realize anybody can pick up textbooks, case studies, and e-mail professors with questions? Like, I don’t have to have a degree to know what I’m talking about. I just need knowledge.

You’re just not good at this, are you?

There it is. Trying to exit the debate without addressing the topics. Your relationships in life must be difficult ;)

The mistake was calling it NY v NoA. It was a civil suit brought by parents. One of many, that ultimately went nowhere. That’s the only proof I have to attest to my actual memory of those events happening. Sorry, I don’t have the individual case files. I’ll go looking for them. But dismissed cases are hard to find without knowing the docket info.

Anytime! I fucking lost anyway. I left a spelling error, so I look like a jackass. Thanks for playing with me and I hope you had fun! I did, sincerely.

Did you read the link? Did you try at all? I’m willing to admit a mistake, can you not?

Just fine here, I can’t say the same for you though. Yes, you aren’t just confusing. You are straight up mental. That is okay though.

Yay! You replied! I’m so excited to see what you brought to the table!

Look, you brought up steam keys AGAIN. What a strange strawman you have constructed. I have never mentioned steam keys, nor has any article I referenced. That hasn’t stopped you though.

Rainbow Six Siege multiplayer uses Steamplay. So, I’m actually wrong! The DLC is unlocked through a Steam Key, regardless of platform choice (not considering Xbox/PS5). Learning is fun! But, I guess you’re not, a developer, or in the industry. So, how could you know. Sorry for not bringing that up, I thought you knew.

If you think you have proved me wrong then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. What is that? The bridge guy already sold you several bridges in Brooklyn. That makes a lot of sense.

I’m certain I have proved a few points of yours wrong. I don’t care if you think so, or not. I’m just enjoying a debate.

Not sure what case your talking about, you did not link it or reference it. Honestly you are kind of spooky at this point, but not in a good way. So far your legal mind can be summarized by you not even understanding the one thing Steam has done that I have mentioned several times. I will hard pass on debating you.

What case? Are you stupid? The fucking case we are currently talking about. NY v Valve. The report came from that case, so seeing that case can help understand what we are taking about. I don’t think you’re a paralegal anymore, if you are, you should be fired lol.

To summarize Steam is a monopoly by definition. Thanks for coming full circle with me. It has been a wild ride because you keep jerking the wheel and sending us off road. What are a few bumps though when you eventually get to your destination. Cheers!

Valve is a monopoly, by definition, could be debated still. Are discussing legal monopoly, or the definition of monopoly? Are you a textualist? I’ve still argued my points, so you still have a chance to rebut. I’ve enjoyed the journey! Yeah, I’m am aggressive debator. Some say, a master debator.

Bro what the actual fuck?

What? Didn’t expect an actual, quick read through of the case file, you claim to have read?

Do you even understand what I-22 and 23 mean? There’s nothing to judge, there’s nothing to relate to Steam because those two points establish the definition of gambling and the law that regulates gambling. This is just laying the foundation for which the rest of the suit is built upon. At this point I don’t know if you’re throwing out some sort of a gotcha or if you’re really that stupid to think those two points have anything to do with Steam or whether there’s anything to judge.

Dude, if you can’t see how it relates, you literally can’t even continue this conversation. That’s how cases work. You lay out the law and prove how the plaintiff is breaking it. So, how does the law relate to Steam is a valid question that will be asked in court.

I have no idea what you’re even referencing here. Section II seems to establish who Valve is and I think does that but once again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea why it’s worded the way it is. Clearly there’s some reason to do it that way.

Okay, so you have no thoughts of your own. Cool. I’m asking you to use critical thinking skills to deduce why? I asked you about the equivalence. That is the key word. Look for the comparison. If you can’t, just say so, like you did, and leave it at that. Don’t hide behind, “there’s some reason to do it that way”. Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. What does that add to the debate other than, you don’t know how to debate. And you continue to engage, thus continuing the debate, so I’m a little judgemental about this.

You’re going to have to cite the source for the NY v. Nintendo of America lawsuit. Beyond that I can’t comment on anything else.

Okay, I admit fault here. I was thinking about a 1991 lawsuit that was NY v. NoA. The 1999 is several cases brought from parents against NoA that went nowhere. Here

Of course it does seem like a stretch to you and according to you it’s the same argument to the lawsuit that you haven’t cited, so I can’t comment anything about that. As for the rest, once again not a lawyer, so it’s not up to me define when the system closes. I can only give my dumbfuck opinion which is that the system is closed when there’s no official way to get monetary value out of the system. You can only dump money into the system but you can’t get it out. And what is a fair comparison? 87 explains how CS skins are used as an investment, there’s nothing to compare. The rest of what you said is not to me to decide because those are very specific legal points and for the third time, not a lawyer.

So, “You can only dump money into the system but you can’t get it out”. Where is the limit on can’t get it out? At what level of extra steps does it become, “can’t get it out”?Because there will always be a way to sell the skins for cash outside the market. That’s the whole point here. No, it’s not for you to decide, but the people deciding have opinions that may contradict the AG; especially if it gets to jury. So, why have you been acting like James’ suit is without fault? I’m pointing out faults and you’re hiding behind, I don’t know enough and I’m not a lawyer; to prevent having an actual opinion. That’s all I’m doing is playing Plaintiff. If you don’t want to play Prosecution, then stop playing.

You know, just for the fuck of it let’s say this point shouldn’t be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?

Again, that’s the insulating layer protecting Valve. It is literally the crux of the three cause case against Valve. They have to satisfy all three causes to win. Valve just has prove the third one wrong. Because that’s the insulating layer. Dude, like, how many times have I made this point?

You’ve done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?

Oh, buddy. You said you read the case, so I got tired and thought you could use your intelligence to look it up. Should’ve been easy. But daddy can do it for you. It won’t take a minute. Section IV-A-90. The fact that it was three lines down from my last point is hilarious that you couldn’t be bothered. Though, of course, you have no thoughts of your own. You are such a lazybones.

And? Your grand analysis stops there?

I mean, yeah. It’s a point I’ve made multiple times.

Okay, so you don’t actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.

And your counter has convinced me. Great job. Why don’t you read this study from 2003? It might enlighten you why TCGs are a big point from me. But you won’t, because you are a lazybones.

Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I’m giving up the chance to be smart.

"In other words, not only is the Dunning-Kruger effect not merely a statistical artifact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants.” Source That’s a recent study from 2021. Feel free to read about it. Or don’t, I don’t give a shit, mate. I’m just here to have fun.

Damn,I wish someone would humanely murder me.

Okay, let’s get rid of all TCG too. I never argued against the dangers of gambling. I never said it wasn’t, it is gambling. But that’s not what this post is about. This post is specifically about a NY case against Valve. That requires knowledge of the NY Penal Code. But if you want to continue being self-righteous rather than actually debating the points, then you’re welcome to continue this debate with me.

Okay, since you’ve read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I’m asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.

I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?

Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I’ll be honest, James’ makes a good case. But that doesn’t matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let’s keep going!

Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It’s the same argument I’ve aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you’ve read the case?

Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve’s responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don’t like that.

The listing of selected enforcement opens James’ case to a lot of attacks. I think it’s a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve’s lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.

Section V just feels like TCG all over again.

Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That’s starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that’s just bad parenting.

The Causes won’t hold water. They’re not air tight and are very vulnerable to attacks. But hey, I’m just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?

Play game. Get loot box. purchase key. get skin…fuck how do I get actual money. Got it, I’ll sell it on the market. DAMN, I got steam wallet funds. Okay, if I get $750 worth of items on the store. Okay, that took forever. Now I can purchase a Steam Deck and then I can sell it when it gets here. But let’s try to use a different method. There’s some third party sites that buy directly, cool. I’ll just go through this shady as fuck trade to a random Steam not and get some money in my PayPal.

At which point in either of these processes are you getting USD cash for the items, directly from Valve?

Why are you acting like legal arguments are so convoluted? They’re usually straightforward and boring. Because they have to be. You’re just choosing to not put in effort and instead look at articles. If you want James’ actual opinion, read the case.

Y-yes. So, you should read the case for yourself, so you can make an estimation. The case is a rough outline of how the State is going to attack. You can then, try your best to think of any legal explanation against it. Then judge for yourself if Valve is in the wrong. But I already said that and I feel the looping starting. whoaaaaaa

Why would you feel a cut is way too much!? Because it is their cut… Oh yeah that is called reading comprehension something that you apparently lack, maybe it is a ESL thing. If so don’t worry English is hard otherwise nice way to burn yourself I suppose. If that is the case I do appreciate self-deprivation humor.

What are you talking about? Are you okay? I was just saying I must’ve been confusing, so I tried to add clarity.

If you read the article that referenced the lawsuit you would see this is not about steam keys. Why you would think this shows a clear lack of understanding of what we are talking about.

Umm, real quick; quote the part of the article where it says Ubisoft only sold the game as a part of Ubisoft Connect (looked it up, it’s called that now). Because if they sold steam keys too, which they most likely did, as it’s an option as a part of their native storefront page for a game, that’s a violation of the agreement with Valve.

I have restated several times what the anti competitive practice Steam has engaged in. I won’t say it again because it is getting annoying at this point.

Okay, but like, I keep proving you wrong. And you keep saying wrong things. And when you do respond, you have half-assed arguments. Come on, man. Quote the case at me, come on. Read the full NY case and actually argue with me.

When I said intimately, I was referencing to your deep understanding of development hence the IDE reference. I guess you didn’t get it because you are not a developer/programmer yourself. Or maybe it is the ESL thing.

Back to the ESL thing. Which is hilarious with your grammar. Regardless, your sentence structure, in the quote you’re referencing of yourself, is confusing at best. You quoted me as saying, “intimately know Steam”, that’s not what I said. So, I clarified and the rest of your message was an angry mess. So, sorry about not getting your little dig, or whatever that was. But to clarify, I studied Electrical Engineering and I have extensive experience in software development. But also, like, who doesn’t know what an IDE is? My wife did and she’s an accountant. Which…tracks…she’s a nerd too.

I would agree that plenty of people are satisfied or even happy with Steam. Of course there are a bunch of people who don’t like Steam as well. I don’t like Steam, but I have used it so I am sure Gabe can wipe away his tears with the money I have given him.

You didn’t mention anything about the Ubisoft strike. I was bummed. Also, ARE you a paralegal? This is getting really nostalgic for me. Lastly, let’s keep it going. I’m going to bed, but I hope you get James’ case out and come back with some good arguments. You are incredibly smart, and if you read through her case, you could have way better arguments. Instead, you opted for, arguably, sensational journalism that is no more than just gossip. No meat, no substance. See you in the morning!

Credibility does not imply infallibility.

Do you listen to Dr. Oz? He’s a surgeon. Practiced. Does that make his medical opinion gospel?

Jeez dude, didn’t realize you weren’t interested in this case. If so, then why are you so passionate about something of which you know so little?

You are willing to put utter faith in articles and people rather than reading the case, looking into it, and coming to a conclusion? And then vehemently defending those opinions of of others. Why?

Confidence from the person who couldn’t even remember the proper ratio in which devs get paid. I’m impressed. I’m usually much more reserved when I’ve made such a ridiculous mistake in a debate.

So, in your scenario, developers should be allowed to open their game store, sell a steam key, at a discount lower than Steam to drive business? Of course that’s not allowed and nowhere near antitrust. Try harder.

I said I know, intimately, that a lot of developers like Steam and are happy with them. The fact that your reading comprehension got I know Steam intimately, is indicative of poor language on my part. For that, I apologize.

Of course, the Microsoft suit was significantly more complex. You trivialized it first. So, sorry I did too.

Okay, I won’t tell you how the DoJ operates. Weird because there’s a lot to it, that can’t be simplified the way you have tried, dismissively. But that’s what you’ve been doing this whole time. Go figure.

No, I don’t get to decide what antitrust is. Neither do you. Some judge will. Your article is hilarious. What prevents a software developer from putting out the game themselves? Just letting people buy it directly from the developer. Why is that not possible? Oh, right. Market share. I don’t want to lose out on all those people right? What if I have an exclusivity period? Sell the game myself for a year and then publish to Steam. Does Steam prevent that? Those are the type of questions that get asked in court. But you can’t think that outside the box, apparently.

Appeal to authority, fair. I got someone else for it, and I’ll take my lumps for it. I would never PM you their information and that is incredibly insulting to the profession for you to even ask. Lawyers do not say things like this with their name attached to it. The only reason he was even okay with it, was this is anonymous. He would never converse with a stranger about a topic that is highly related to his job and possible cases. Weird you don’t know that quirk about lawyers.

Fair enough, the natural monopoly was a misreading on my part. Apologies, as it’s late.

Wait, so I’m right or wrong about antitrust? I’m confused.

Oh, lovely. Another article, this time from Eurogamer. I love reading other peoples opinion. I don’t read cases, or laws, so I can’t make up my own mind. Do you realize the whole fucking point yet? THEY’RE SELLING STEAM KEYS YOU DOLT! Ya know, the things that work through Steam? That’s where price parity comes in. You can’t sell a Steam offering at a lower price than Steam. If it was only for their UPlay store, or whatever the fuck it’s called now, that’s fine. But that’s not what happened. They sold Steam keys at a lower price. That’s not competitive, that’s deliberately undercutting a high value competitor to try to gain a market share, while utilizing the resources of your competitor. But, wait, that’s starting to sound a little like antitrust.

Are you a paralegal? Cause you sound like one. You say I have wasted your time. But fool that you are, you can’t see that you chose your time to be “wasted”. I’ve enjoyed our conversation. I love a good debate and I like how we went back and forth. Folks don’t usually commit, but you, I like you.

Saying

you think…you are smarter than lawyers practicing in the field

is patronizing. For the record, the lawyers I know and have worked with, I do not think I’m smarter than them when it comes to law. You call me a bootlicker, but you’re the one ready to defend a lawsuit that will ultimately go nowhere from a company that just dealt with their workers going on strike. How’s that outsole taste?

If it’s gambling, loot boxes should be items of value, redeemable for cash, correct? And Valve should be the one providing that cash, as they are the child casino, correct?

The fact that you aren’t answering is an answer in and of itself. You can reduce yourself to insults, but it only harms your arguement.

It is gambling, but only as much as Pokémon and Disney’s Lorcana. And that’s perfectly legal. You would need to go after those practices too. But I think you’d find a hard time with that. You know why? Cause it was dismissed in 1999 in New York v Nintendo of America. Gotta change the law for what you want, friend.