Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
Well that is kinda correct, at least 1 poster above did end up absolutely wrong and didn't even get the subject of the lawsuit correct before they jumped in trying to play the kids angle before realizing it had nothing to do with children.
You forgot the Netherlands, who were first out of the gate, with Belgium second.
And yeah- can't wait for this to hit the entire EU market.
Right now, publishers are getting away with denying service to individual countries, because those are small and fractured markets. But if they have to start treating the entire EU as effectively second-rate citizens in games, that's going to lead to an untenable situation where something will have to give.
Yet. It doesn't have unified regulation -- yet.
Fact of the matter is that when the Dutch started this thing off and the Belgians followed, both France and Germany already had given public statements that they would wait and see how things would develop and that they would tow the line commonly established by others in the Union.
After that Spain made public their plans for legal reform; the Netherlands went in for round two to shore up the legislation around loot-boxes they already had going with their eyes set on extending it to any predatory monetization model; Austria now has ruled this stuff illegal; and meanwhile the Dutch are also planning to petition the legal model they're working on to end predatory monetization to the EU as a whole, for adoption as an EU-wide Regulation.
With various voices in the EU, not being averse to it.
Have a link? All I could find was this - https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/4031348273661147050/?ctp=20#c4029096764571276511
Saying valve wouldn't be sued over dropping Windows support which in case you weren't aware this has nothing to do with Windows.
It's the same in the Netherlands.
And with the license for gambling comes a whole heap of additional conditions, such as ensuring your customers do not overspend passed reasonable ceilings, maintaining a fair ratio of payout that is free of manipulation, submitting your accounting to external audits for verification, disallowing service to minors and performing stringent age checks, strict compliance checks for processing of personal data, etc. All manner of conditions designed to curb predation on gambling addicts and would-be addicts sensitive to the stimuli involved, as well as ensure that those choosing to try their luck aren't screwed over. (And no; the 'tax' on those licenses is not a nice little income on the side for the state. It's all reinvested into the authorities enforcing the anti-gambling laws; into public-awareness campaigns; and into anti-addiction therapy and addict care.)
Companies that don't want to submit to that kind of thing usually don't do so, because they know their income model is predatory and would fail to be profitable once they submit to all these conditions, as well as having to pay the 'tax' that flows back to repairing the damage their 'game' does to society.
If by losing you mean setting new records for number of users - https://gamerant.com/steam-concurrent-player-record-34-million/
In which case i think Valve wants to keep "losing"
A civil fine or civil penalty is issued by the state for damages done to it and its citizens.
It is indeed not a criminal judgment, but a civil one.
However, this only applies when it is the state that is the plaintiff which is not what people colloquially mean when referring to a civil case. The common understanding is that that is a case between two private legal persons.
And in such cases, any money owed is usually set at an estimate of reasonable real-world damages. The US, for instance, is fairly unique in acknowledging and allowing for the concept of punitive damages exceeding the real-world damage in civil cases between private legal persons.
Yea on the cash shop- we've already seen that happen before.
Nay on the limited quantities over limited time, or it'd be another fine waiting. Feigning limited availability in order to drive consumers to make purchases they otherwise would not have, is counted as an aggressive commercial practice within the EU and is illegal. Has been for years. Ceiling for fines on it is quite high as well: 10% annual worldwide turnover, iirc. So not something to trifle with.
And the problem is?
CS:GO and other games' lootboxes already contain limited time offers.
The item you can get on the market for 20 moneyz could also easily cost you 200 when you try to acquire it through lootboxes - it's almost like if you want to have something specific lootboxes are actually the worst way to obtain it. Unless you are lucky - which means it's *gasp* gambling.
Also you realizse that when you are "spending $2 opening a free case" the "free" part becomes obsolete? I'd say extra bonus points if you have to buy the case and the key seperately and the case is only available for a limited time and then costs 20 dollars on a community market. Luckily there is no such ... never mind.