Diablo Immortal streamer spends $10000.

[loras]

Netherlands (and i think Belgium neither) haven't determined anything about Diablo Immortal, this can only definitively be determined in court (Which the Dutch gambling authority tried with Fifa FUT and failed). Blizzard has chosen to not bring the game to The Netherlands and Belgium, which is very different from 'us' having determined that its illegal. Out markets are most probably just to small for Blizzard, so they just won't take the risk of even getting into court.

Looking at the game itself, its probably not even illegal in the Netherlands, as for it to be illegal here there must be a way for players to convert in game gains to real money for it to not comply to our gambling laws. And i don't think a option like that is in the game (though i don't know 100%, as i can't play it).

I mean you could regard itvas an unrealised loss, but it's fairly obvious that it'd be a loss.

Belgian laws seems to be a bit more strict though, but afaik they didn't pass any ruling on Diablo Immortal (or even did a investigation into Diablo Immortal) either, it seems Blizzard just doesn't think that the game will be populair enough here (and in Belgium) to make up for the potential hassle of a (prolonged) lawsuit. And thus they have decided not to release it here.

Real value will suffice, as per an earlier case concerning Runescape effort and time spent can be considered comparable to monetary value.
Thus anything affecting skill or time spent can be considered as having real value, thus being sufficient to deem it gambling.

There is a reason they have not risked it, they know they would very likely lose; their lawyers aren't fools. So stating that it has been, effectively, denied is not inaccurate; the law works as intended in scaring off abusive market participants.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not inherent to p2w, though, as "value" is a question of fact not a question of law. There's also cosmetics gambling that's been sanctioned, like e.g. the CSGO weapon skins which aren't functional only cosmetic.

While specific cases MAY end up as having p2w sanctioned when non-p2w might not have been, that's not the determining factor. "Value" is closer to it, and while value may be determined more easily when p2w is involved, that doesn't mean that there's value ONLY when there's p2w.

No, value is definitely a question of law as far as digital goods are concerned, there have been several cases on this. The one that comes to mind is whether digital theft in Runescape is actually theft, since nothing material is taken.
In that case it was determined that digital goods can be considered to have value if significant effort (time, skill, etc.) had to be spent to obtain it.

P2W is indeed an easier case, but that is not the only thing i mentioned. Consider that i.e. the AH brutosaur gave a significant boost to time spent in game concerning a not insignificant feature of the game (its auction house), and one can see more reasons why it would never be a (theoretical) lootbox exclusive.

The bottom line is simple: Does it provide material benefit? Then it's likely to breach the law concerning gambling if it's locked behind an RNG mechanic.

Mind you that Dutch law is not like American law where the word of the law is near absolute; effective locking would also qualify as locking, i.e. providing a deterministic alternative requiring disproportional amounts of invested time/skill would likely still be considered effectively locking behind RNG.

Added for clarity: "Material benefit" concerns benefits to things predating digital technology, as a rule of thumb, effort and time are two simple examples of that. This is relevant because newer laws are built upon older laws.

[Elim Garak]

Then why did you waste time typing hundreds of posts whining about Blizzard removing flying from WoW?

I don't remember trying to get the government to regulate what modes of transportations should be in all MMOs.
And I was right to criticize their shenanigans with flying - look at the NEXT EXPANSION THEME.

So are chips from casinos. You can exchange them for actual money, and there's a possibility that the casino can refuse to do that if they believe you got the chips by cheating...but until you cash them out, they have no value.

They have the value written on them. Same as paper money - you do know the paper money itself has no value right? The banks and businesses might refuse to take your paper money if they feel like you acquired them by cheating or printed them on your black and white printer.

So the chips represent a value you get and if you are not cheating, faking or whatever - the casino will exchange those chips for money. Otherwise the casinos wouldn't exist.

There are no chips in Diablo Immortal.

[chronia]

So stating that it has been, effectively, denied is not inaccurate; the law works as intended in scaring off abusive market participants.

That was not what the person i quoted though stated, they stated:

Netherlands and Belgium have already determined diablo immortal is illegal.

Which is just false, atleast for the Netherlands.

There is a reason they have not risked it, they know they would very likely lose; their lawyers aren't fools

I also wouldn't say there are fools, but they often are (overly) cautious, for example they also exclude The Netherlands often (if not always) in giveaways saying that our law doesn't allow for those, while our law clearly doesn't impose a straight up ban on giveaways.

[loras]

That was not what the person i quoted though stated, they stated:



Which is just false, atleast for the Netherlands.

Well that's just semantics in this case.

"There is a reason they have not risked it, they know they would very likely lose; their lawyers aren't fools. So stating that it has been, effectively, denied is not inaccurate; the law works as intended in scaring off abusive market participants."

It's like saying a company selling child porn is not illegal in the Netherlands because it has refused to enter the market, and thus has not technically been deemed illegal by authorities; the term "legal" only becomes relevant in the strict sense after the concerning entity has entered the jurisdiction.

[Elim Garak]

Well that's just semantics in this case.

"There is a reason they have not risked it, they know they would very likely lose; their lawyers aren't fools. So stating that it has been, effectively, denied is not inaccurate; the law works as intended in scaring off abusive market participants."

It's like saying a company selling child porn is not illegal in the Netherlands because it has refused to enter the market, and thus has not technically been deemed illegal by authorities.

That's not how it works. The above are just wet dreams. Those countries are insignificant when it comes to potential revenue. It's easier just to avoid any roughness altogether. They might have even won in court if it came to that - but it would be EXPENSIVE. It would cost more than its worth.

But the people who actually suffer - are those who wanted to play Diablo Immortal - but can't, without a VPN and a shaman dance that is.
Much freedom.

[Gaidax]

Whatever NL and Belgium do is good enough. The laws are appropriate enough to be relevant for the case at hand.

Unlike doing it to players, corporations are not keen on gambling whether they will get away with it or eat a big ass fine.

So for sure you could say that D:I and other similar pieces of shit are not forbidden in NL, but they are brushing with the regulations just too close for Bobby's comfort.

[Dhrizzle]

In 99% of cases - no...
... but in some cases like this or in some extent NFTs/cruptocurrencies - fucking yes.

Oh well I'm sure the tech-savvy political elites of the western world will definitely pick up on the right bits of moral outrage and in no way come in top heavy handed. Definitely no chance that "thinking of the children" will lead to something like China's situation where gamers are protected from playing more than a few hours a day or anything like that.

Also why bring in crypto and NFTs? The issues around those revolve around bona fide scams where people promise one thing then do another to make money. Laws exist against those practices but enforcement is still figuring out how to apply them.

[loras]

That's not how it works. The above are just wet dreams. Those countries are insignificant when it comes to potential revenue. It's easier just to avoid any roughness altogether. They might have even won in court if it came to that - but it would be EXPENSIVE. It would cost more than its worth.

But the people who actually suffer - are those who wanted to play Diablo Immortal - but can't, without a VPN and a shaman dance that is.
Much freedom.

Except it's exactly how it works, you seem to just misunderstand what scale, or lack thereof, the word "illegal" implies.
Illegal is a term relevant in a single jurisdiction, ususlly a country, occasionally a construct such as the EU.
As such it can definitely be said to be "illegal" in the common sense of the word in such countries like Belgium and the Netherlands; in the strict sense it is neither as it is untested, but if we were using the strict sense we would not be using the term outside of a relevant context at all.

Also the Netherlands and Belgium are not the US, the law is not for sale in a comparable way.

The EU may be another question, but to imply that Blizzard could pose any significant challenge to a member country in that area is laughable. For now the only relevant considerations in that arena are diplomatic: France in particular is negotiating about regulating foreign tech companies, so their voice and opinion will matter most in due time as far as the wider EU is concerned.

There is no suffering in being denied toxic goods, addicts have no relevant will. In dutch this is bluntly anchored into the language; the dutch word for addicted is "verslaafd", "slave-ified" / "made into a slave" if literally translated. And slaves have little to no will that matters, that is what makes them slaves.

[Elim Garak]

Except it's exactly how it works, you seem to just misunderstand what scale, or lack thereof, the word "illegal" implies.

I have no doubt that there are plenty of fascists in EU governments, who get to decide what is or isn't allowed to their citizens.
That's the vibe I'm getting from you.

Just because some schmuck doesn't like something - it gets banned for everybody.

[loras]

I have no doubt that there are plenty of fascists in EU governments, who get to decide what is or isn't allowed to their citizens.
That's the vibe I'm getting from you.

Just because some schmuck doesn't like something - it gets banned for everybody.

Right, and people wonder why Americanised "logic" is not taken seriously.
You can try again when you can mount any defense of whatever inexcusable harmful nonsense you covet.

[Biomega]

No, value is definitely a question of law as far as digital goods are concerned, there have been several cases on this. The one that comes to mind is whether digital theft in Runescape is actually theft, since nothing material is taken.
In that case it was determined that digital goods can be considered to have value if significant effort (time, skill, etc.) had to be spent to obtain it.

Maybe I wasn't phrasing it clearly enough - I'm not saying that value being the key determinant isn't a question of law but a question of fact; I'm saying that WHAT CONSTITUTES VALUE in a given example isn't a question of law, but a question of fact. Sorry if it was confusing.

[MoanaLisa]

Netherlands (and i think Belgium neither) haven't determined anything about Diablo Immortal, this can only definitively be determined in court (Which the Dutch gambling authority tried with Fifa FUT and failed). Blizzard has chosen to not bring the game to The Netherlands and Belgium, which is very different from 'us' having determined that its illegal. Out markets are most probably just to small for Blizzard, so they just won't take the risk of even getting into court.

Phrased a different way someone in HQ accounting/legal looked at the forecast revenue from these countries and the expected legal costs of litigating them, the time it would take, and decided it wasn't worth it. That would be a perfectly valid business decision.

[loras]

Maybe I wasn't phrasing it clearly enough - I'm not saying that value being the key determinant isn't a question of law but a question of fact; I'm saying that WHAT CONSTITUTES VALUE in a given example isn't a question of law, but a question of fact. Sorry if it was confusing.

I'm not sure if i follow here, even ownership itself derives from law.
There are other definitions of value, but i'm not sure those are relevant in the case of digital goods; i.e. steel has inherent ("factual" value i suppose?) value for its uses.
No such case with digital goods though, it's all monetary (due to its reliance on many underlying structures; it's literally nothing without its infrastructure in example) and thus derived from law there.

[Biomega]

I'm not sure if i follow here, even ownership itself derives from law.
There are other definitions of value, but i'm not sure those are relevant in the case of digital goods; i.e. steel has inherent ("factual" value i suppose?) value for its uses.
No such case with digital goods though, it's all monetary (due to its reliance on many underlying structures; it's literally nothing without its infrastructure in example) and thus derived from law there.

I guess I'm still not clear

What I mean is this: item X in a game - does this have "value" or not?

Determining that is a question of fact, not of law. Laws don't say "cosmetics have no value"; they say that some digital objects can have real value, but whether digital object X ACTUALLY HAS VALUE (and how much) needs to be determined in each case, and doesn't simply arise automatically from law.

[loras]

I guess I'm still not clear

What I mean is this: item X in a game - does this have "value" or not?

Determining that is a question of fact, not of law. Laws don't say "cosmetics have no value"; they say that some digital objects can have real value, but whether digital object X ACTUALLY HAS VALUE (and how much) needs to be determined in each case, and doesn't simply arise automatically from law.

It might not be a matter of clarity.

As that ("What I mean is this: item X in a game - does this have "value" or not?") is actually automatically determined by relating it to real matters, as has been clarified in earlier cases coming before a court of law.
Does it cost money, time, effort? Is there a case of exclusive ownership?
A lot of factors come into consideration, and i will not go through all of them, but they can be used to conclusively determine whether something has value.

And if the law states something has no value, then there is no consequence for stealing it, in example; if i take a random twig i find in a garden of someone else it is no theft in example (and mind you, this is only true if it is just a stick of no significance; emotional value is a thing too, as is quantity, all within reasonable limits of course).
Also no penalty (or rather "consequence" i should say; gambling is legal here of course, it just comes with added requirements to account for the damage you're doing) for putting it under, say, an RNG-base acquisition method. If there is value, however, then it becomes gambling.

[Elim Garak]

It might not be a matter of clarity.

As that ("What I mean is this: item X in a game - does this have "value" or not?") is actually automatically determined by relating it to real matters, as has been clarified in earlier cases coming before a court of law.
Does it cost money, time, effort? Is there a case of exclusive ownership?
A lot of factors come into consideration, and i will not go through all of them, but they can be used to conclusively determine whether something has value.

And if the law states something has no value, then there is no consequence for stealing it, in example; if i take a random twig i find in a garden of someone else it is no theft in example (and mind you, this is only true if it is just a stick of no significance; emotional value is a thing too, as is quantity, all within reasonable limits of course).
Also no penalty for putting it under, say, an RNG-base acquisition method. If there is value, however, then it becomes gambling.

Let's redefine value so that everything has (including "has" and "and" and "including" and brackets and "value" and "." and " ") value.
But we are not talking about value in general when we talk about gambling.
We are talking about monetary value. Cash, stock, gold, car, IOU, etc.

Monetary value is a matter of economics not law.
Gambling applies only to monetary value.

Pixels have no monetary value by definition of there being an infinite supply (this is why NFTs are a scam).
Not to mention that you can't even buy pixels in the game. You don't buy items. You buy a right to use them inside the game. just like when you buy a game - you don't buy the game. You buy a copy with a personal license to use it. You don't own a single bit of that game, but if it comes on physical media - you own the media.

[loras]

Let's redefine value so that everything has (including "has" and "and" and "including" and brackets and "value" and "." and " ") value.
But we are not talking about value in general when we talk about gambling.
We are talking about monetary value. Cash, stock, gold, car, IOU, etc.

Monetary value is a matter of economics not law.
Gambling applies only to monetary value.

Pixels have no monetary value by definition of there being an infinite supply (this is why NFTs are a scam).
Not to mention that you can't even buy pixels in the game. You don't buy items. You buy a right to use them inside the game. just like when you buy a game - you don't buy the game. You buy a copy with a personal license to use it. You don't own a single bit of that game, but if it comes on physical media - you own the media.

Still salty i see?
Apologies that your first insight into how law actually works does not live up to your delusions.

[neescher]

Diablo immortal has only made around 24 million in its first 2 weeks. Thats like 400k copies sold of a tripple A game. Diablo 3 sold over 3 million copies the first day.

Diablo Immortal will keep on making money though, and Diablo 3 only makes more money if more people start playing it. That's the big difference. Compare D3 to DI after 6 months and I think you'll see a big difference.

Even if 95% of people playing DI never spend a cent on the game, the whales more than make up for it.

[Elim Garak]

$24M with 10M downloads. That's $2.4 ARPU. Not bad for a debut D14

[Nymrohd]

I do wonder if people have found ways to play the game offline with emulation. It still wouldn't mean much since many of the features only work well with multiplayer. But a private Diablo Immortal server could be insanely popular.