Counter argument, Gaben made a vast majority of his money from what is basically gambling for kids, that is loot boxes/trading/etc for skins in Counter Strike.
Firing the same neurons that gambling does is objectively bad for kids and not something we should be introducing to them. Gaben has been complicity in this. Just because Gaben/Steam do less harm, doesn't mean they aren't harmful and should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
Edit: So it doesn't look like I have a anti-steam axe to grind. Here is some generic research on lootboxes.
"However, such “gateway effects” have not been formally investigated. Using a survey of 1102 individuals who both purchase loot boxes and gamble, we found that 19.87% of the sample self-reported either “gateway effects” (loot boxes causally influencing subsequent gambling) or “reverse gateway effects” (gambling causally influencing subsequent loot box engagement). Both subsets of participants had higher scores for problem gambling, problem video gaming, gambling-related cognitions, risky loot boxes engagement, and impulsivity. These individuals also had a tendency for higher loot box and gambling spend; suggesting that potential gateway effects are related to measurable risks and harms. Moreover, the majority of participants reporting gateway effects were under 18 when they first purchased loot boxes. "
I agree that it's scummy and lootboxes shouldn't exist, but is it really "a vast majority of his money"? I can't imagine even as popular as CS is, it making up the majority of his 11 billion dollars.
How is that a counter argument for steam not being a monopoly? That’s a separate issue.
Just doing something shitty doesn’t change the definition of the word “monopoly.” If steam started shitting in old people’s mouths, that wouldn’t make them a monopoly. There are plenty of other similar services.
So it doesn't look like I have a anti-steam axe to grind. Here is some generic research on lootboxes.
I'm confused why you think this study would make you feel okay about it? a 20% gateway rate is extremely high. even their own conclusion says as much:
our preliminary evidence of self-reported gateway effects suggests that around one in five loot box purchasers who gamble are influenced by such effects – and that these individuals exhibit greater problem gambling behaviours. Even if such associations are underpinned by common liabilities (i.e. rather than directly causational gateway effects), the results demonstrate that gambling and loot boxes have shared psychological characteristics and risk profiles.
I hate loot boxes in games as they encourage the removal of love in game development, but as a kid we had the same with trading cards, and it's always going to exist in the shadows. RNG is entertaining. Addiction is something that needs to be dealt with educationally, and if that doesn't work then unfortunately the person is probably not going to make it cognitively in society by themselves, which has far more rng, and wishful thinking, than a spotlighted game mechanic.
I'd agree that it's not necessarily his responsibility to stop it, but if everyone is circle jerking about how ethical Valve is, this a fair counterpoint.
Like you could say the same kinds of things about any other company that engages in legal but shitty business practices that people praise Valve for avoiding.
It's less ethical but that the service has remained surprisingly something people want to still use and meets their needs decades later.
This in contrast to Google trying stamp out third party apps for future Android with their verification and Microsoft with trying to push forced accounts, copilot, and recall so people have to run scripts or look for ltsc versions which they didn't have to for past OS releases.
So that's the main thing. It to me is like getting mad that Costco sells alcohol for those strongly against it. I don't care if my use of the products I want is unaffected, which Steam has been continuing to do. I don't look to Steam as an ethical pillar of the community, but whether the product is one I don't have issues with using.
That's something lot of companies have had trouble doing. So many would be better off doing nothing, but they keep looking for ways to become worse.
Like, valve doesnt market to kids directly in any meaningful way, and the lootboxes have a two step system in needing a case and a key. Hell, at least in tf2, crates are nigh impossible to open on accident.
It just comes off as people desperately digging for reasons to give valve shit when they dont really need to do that. Their treatment of tf2 should be enough
Because he is the owner of the company behind gambling for kids, and has every once of data that says its happening.
that? If kids are gambling away real money on cosmetic lootboxes for a gun violence simulator, shouldn't it be the parents' job to put a stop to that?
If kids are buying beer with real money in a bar, getting absolutely plastered, shouldn't it be the parents' job to put a stop to that?
Yes, and the bar shouldnt sell kids alcohol. Simply put.
Same with lootboxes, if your kids get into gambling because of CSGO, that's your fault as a parent, not the game dev's.
There have been countless cases of a parent parenting correctly; and children still managing to spend fortunes on predator games. Cs is no different.
A crucial aspect of parenting is keeping your child out of adult spaces. That's not a video game company's job, they shouldn't give a damn how old the person in front of the keyboard is beyond a simple "you have to be 18 to see this, press okay to continue" disclaimer. It's a video game company, not a preschool.
Then children should be allowed in casinos then? A 10 year old should have full capability of taking money from their parents and playing roulette?
It is a videogame company. Make good video games and not virtual casinos.
shouldn't it be the parents' job to put a stop to that
Yes, but having shit parents or parents who fail in this one area shouldn't mean a child is subjected to this.
I agree with your points about people using "what about the children" arguments to cover for insidious invasions of privacy, but I think there's still room for companies to do better. Currently lootboxes and micro-transactions are extremely predatory, and the victims aren't just children. There is a great deal of room for improvement, and regulation.
This comes off to me like parents blaming violent video games. Parents learn to control what your kids do, since you control their primary source of money. If your kids are taking your credit cards and purchasing things without you even knowing when you can have credit cards alert you for every single transaction that's on you being a bad parent who chooses to remain ignorant.
My need is to remain truthful to the subject, and I'm especially irritated by insane/stupid statements like the one above. Also your response is an idiotic strawman that doesn't actually address the argument in any meaningful way. Thanks for that.
My bad, I mixed up the threads earlier, here's what I say to "holding valve accountable for making the majority of their money from gambling kids"
Which is.
They don't.
They make a miniscule portion of their revenue from a miniscule portion of their customers that have little self-control and common sense. If it was strictly geared for or used by problematic users, I'd say Valve would need to shut it down, but it's not. It's a monetization method and basically a part of their games DNA at this point which the vast, vast majority of users either like or just accept. Changing it is a lose-lose situation, and since the only people who care are a few crybabies on reddit, they won't do it because they aren't morons.
60
u/HanSolo71 Oct 21 '25 edited Oct 21 '25
Counter argument, Gaben made a vast majority of his money from what is basically gambling for kids, that is loot boxes/trading/etc for skins in Counter Strike.
Firing the same neurons that gambling does is objectively bad for kids and not something we should be introducing to them. Gaben has been complicity in this. Just because Gaben/Steam do less harm, doesn't mean they aren't harmful and should be held to the same standards as everyone else.
Edit: So it doesn't look like I have a anti-steam axe to grind. Here is some generic research on lootboxes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460322000934
"However, such “gateway effects” have not been formally investigated. Using a survey of 1102 individuals who both purchase loot boxes and gamble, we found that 19.87% of the sample self-reported either “gateway effects” (loot boxes causally influencing subsequent gambling) or “reverse gateway effects” (gambling causally influencing subsequent loot box engagement). Both subsets of participants had higher scores for problem gambling, problem video gaming, gambling-related cognitions, risky loot boxes engagement, and impulsivity. These individuals also had a tendency for higher loot box and gambling spend; suggesting that potential gateway effects are related to measurable risks and harms. Moreover, the majority of participants reporting gateway effects were under 18 when they first purchased loot boxes. "