>"VC is not plaintiff's property," Take-Two's lawyer said. "Instead, in-game VC are fictions created by game publishers, subject to the publishers' terms of service and user agreements.
Not really a surprising response, but scary to think these people are making billions from Shark cards.
>The plaintiff – a minor represented by their parent – argued that virtual currency should be refunded or transferred if there's any remaining once a game is sunset. They are seeking "equitable non-monetary and monetary relief" for the in-game currency removed from a 2K Games account from November 17, 2019.
And additional context:
>The lawyer added that the plaintiff didn't identify "any contract, law, term of sale/use, or any instrument" supporting the argument that they owned the virtual currency sold by Take-Two.
This is an interesting case. I think there might be room to argue that virtual currency is similar in principle to store gift cards. The FTC have rules related to such things, as do most states, but it would take a judge to decide if existing law would apply to virtual currency too.
Imo, regardless of that, it should be required that if an IGC is no longer usable for any reason, the publisher must refund the balance at the base rate of exchange. Anything else is stealing, as far as I'm concerned.
Games shouldn't have in-game currency that can be bought with real money. If they want to sell items they can do it using real world currency through existing store infrastructures today. I was going to post a long list of reasons why game publishers introduce virtual currencies and how it's a long con on their customers, but I think everybody understands that at this point.
Take-Two may actually have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit, but hopefully it leads to regulation that means they and other publishers like them can't do the same in future games. This practice is infecting basically every online game now and it's pure cancer.
Take2 has argued in court the exact opposite of this stance with their shark cards and that giving VC out was stealing from them.
So probably no leg to stand on at all as courts will take prior arguments into account and usually punish this sort of scumbaggery.
The main thing I've seen is that when you want to buy something you can't just buy the perfect amount of currency to buy it, typically. You can either buy not quite enough or much more than it's "worth" so you are incentivized to buy more so that you can keep buying skins or whatever the thing is you're trying to buy. I've only really engaged with this kind of system in one game (Hunt Showdown) and Cytek is definitely guilty of this behavior in that title. I've also played League of Legends and Heroes of the Storm which both also contain this kind of system but I never engaged in buying their currencies. I would just wait until I'd earned enough of the free currency to buy what I was interested in.
Regulatory bodies/courts rule against unfair ToS/EULAs all the time - you can't just offer a service with unfair stipulations and blame the customer for entering the contract.
Hopefully they start cracking down on IGC abuse just like with lootboxes and gambling mechanics.
I think this case is an extreme long shot but courts actually do shape relief to do what’s right in some instances. This is what equity is all about. For example, if a work crew shows up and starts painting your house and you know they’ve got the wrong address, even though there’s no contract they can recover from you under unjust enrichment, an equitable remedy.
Generally courts aren’t going to be able to grant equitable relief like that when there’s a contract in place. But… this kid is a minor and minors don’t have capacity to be bound by contracts. I’m wondering if the argument can be made that the terms regarding the virtual currency are not binding on the minor and he may then be able to seek equitable relief (which is pretty broad.)
Separately, courts have the ability to reject the enforcement of contractual provisions on public policy grounds. A non compete agreement that says you won’t compete with your employer for 100 years anywhere on Earth is going to be found unenforceable by the court. Maybe there’s room for an argument here that this situation violates public policy.
Weird take and also, no. Regulations get created everyday to address exploitative business practices. This isn't an anarchy where it's anything goes as long as it's not *currently* explicity illegal. I appreciate the concept I guess but people can't steal and suggest it's fine because the individual inadvertently agreed to it via buried TOS language.
The scummy conman business practices need to stop, and a good way to get that ball rolling is for judges to uphold consumer requests for restitution.
I'm not saying Take-Two will lose the lawsuit. I'm saying I hope it spurs on legislation that makes this illegal. There is no reason for virtual currencies like this to exist except to scam people out of more money than they want to pay. Whether it's currently legal or not, it's unethical, and wanting laws to make it illegal isn't a radical position to take.
> subject to the publishers' terms of service and user agreements.
This might be a problem for T2 eventually. Because those terms of service and user agreements can be altered if a court finds them problematic.
With "might" I mean I really hope it will.
> Because those terms of service and user agreements can be altered if a court finds them problematic.
Depending on jurisdiction those parts of ToS will simply be ignored if they conflict with local laws, because in places like Europe you generally can't side step things like consumer rights and protections.
Any company trying to enforce those sections in their ToS will just be laughed at in court.
The only reason those parts are still in the ToS is because as long as they say it's boilerplate they got plausible deniability for their attempt to make customers think they signed away their rights.
people dont seem to understand that most ToS and EULAs have no legal standing on anything unless a court says they do. The ONLY REASON these things hold up at all is that most problems like this are settled out of court and then the ToS or EULAs are changed or further messed with so these look stronger in court. I imagine depending on the law of state/country this currently is happening in, thats whats about to happen.
NO COMPANY wants to set the standard for the law moving forward. Its why these things never stay in court for very long. Need to keep up the appearance most of their legalese mumbo jumbo has any sort of strong standing at all.
The law really needs to catch up to today's technology specially when it comes services suddenly deleting digital items you've purchased (Sony/Funimation)
It’s always been this way fellas, it’s not recent technology that created this phenomena.
The law is inherently reactive, in practice, at the end of the day.
This is by design so that the grift can happen. its no different than a tax loophole. And like clockwork, when one door closes, another will be opened. Like what happened with Lootboxes becoming Battle passes.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company\_scrip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip)
Company money was made illegal, because it limited people how to spend it. Does not matter how you formulate the terms of service.
People are not often payed in game currencies (Roblox withstanding), but still an interesting reference.
IANAL (limited legal training though) but pretty sure r/legal would agree with me that the plaintiff here has purchased what's essentially a *limited license* to use virtual currency strightly within the walled garden of the company's predatory online business, i.e. "game." The ToS/ToU that the plaintiff agreed to probably says just that.
Is it shitty? Yes.
Is it legal. Yes.
Is anything gonna change until millenials/genZ take over Congress? No. Probably not even then b/c the system will be too entrenched and ~~bribery~~, excuse me - *lobbying* pays for a lot.
What's the solution? Don't buy hyped up marketing AAA crap. Don't spend money on MTX. It’s the golden age of free game giveaways, charity bundles, and visionary Indies.
r/PatientGamers
r/GameDeals
r/indiegaming and r/indiegames
Company money was an issue when companies paid employees with company money that could only be spent at the company store. Employees had no choice in it if they wanted that employment, and we're talking goods that are essential to actually living. This is a virtual currency for entertainment purposes that people willingly buy with real money. Completely different circumstances. Personally, I'm on the side of the plaintiffs here, but company money doesn't really apply here.
r/legal would probably tell you that that would be stealing the *license* to use the game.
Which is f-word bulls* but that's our laws paid for by lobbying. r/indiegaming and r/indiegames all the way.
> But guys, I was told the game industry is the best it’s ever been!
It's almost like it can be both true and false at the same time.
It has never been easier to develop and publish indie games, there are even game jams where people can collaborate on projects. The open source, retro, and homebrew dev scene have never been more active.
But on the other hand you have things like consolidation ruining the industry, the removal of dedicated servers, and AAA publishers pushing predatory games aimed at kids and teenagers, created to be as addicting as humanely possible.
> It has never been easier to develop and publish indie games, there are even game jams where people can collaborate on projects. The open source, retro, and homebrew dev scene have never been more active.
>
>
>
> But on the other hand you have things like consolidation ruining the industry, the removal of dedicated servers, and AAA publishers pushing predatory games aimed at kids and teenagers, created to be as addicting as humanely possible.
It almost seems like these two are somehow linked together. Almost.
> It was better when you had actual nerds nolifing the development for years on end before even DARING to put their game on Steam.
Oh please, there were plenty of trash back then too, the only difference is that Steam curated it. Terrible video games have been around since the late 70s.
> But you're lying to yourself if you think that there was so much slop back then.
The video game history of arcade games, Atari, Commodore 64, Amiga, DOS, PC-88, PC98, or early Windows games would tell you otherwise.
"Amiga-jank" is literally a meme which has been around since the early 90s due to developers releasing completely broken games for it.
Why did [Nintendo](https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Official_Nintendo_Seal) create the "official seal of quality" [after this?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial)
And I've not even mentioned the 3DO, the Sega CD, the Atari Jaguar, The Atari Lynx, the Amstrad, and the LaserActive yet.
Realistically in game currency SHOULD be considered store credit aka a secondary currency owed to the customer by the business. It would be the same as earning points on your CC or airmiles. Youve spent money and in return you receive an IOU in the form of a digital currency with its exchange rate of value determined at the time of transaction. Secondary currency can be exchangable for physical or fiat currency or it cannot be as determined by the business's policy for the currency but either way it would be an amount of value owed to the customer.
That is all to say it SHOULD be. I have no idea which countries implement which laws or definitions for digital/virtual currencies such as that in video games.
IF I see game has more than one currency then I think sod them as this is only ever used to try and confuse the actual cost of what is being bought.
This practice should be illegal. I hate stores full stop but at a minimum they should only be able to use the local currency.
For example if a skin costs $40 then it should be $40 on the store and not 10000000000000 Bungu boogie boogie boogie coins.
I would be happy with any game that has a store on it dying - no exceptions.
As a nowadays part time gamer, as I have kids, I grew up with NES SNES N64 PS1 etc. I still admire some things we achieve in the gaming industry. The continued elevation of art and graphics and audio and even the controllers themselves are awesome.
Fast forward to now where so many gamers are old dudes like me..When I was 16 it was dorky to play video ganes even for kids let alone adults.
The market is huge today and is its own beast. Basically, they make so much money for what is essentially a very similar thing. Box with controllers that hooks up.
However, as much as I love gaming, I just don't get virtual currency or paying to improve your chances or abilities. Video games are an escape. It's where you go to get away from the world for a minute. It's not supposed to be where the rich kids can beat the poor kids. It's supposed to be about skill. Who got those reflexes?
And when I say I don't get virtual currency, I get it. It's a lot of money for stuff that costs nothing.
Its the most ridiculous thing, think of the data you get when you buy COD. 180GB etc. It's $60.
Then somehow, you can spend that easily on what... The season pass? Which is what, some skins and pictures or content? It's crazy. I know kids at work who have spent $000s on Fifa upgrades so they can vrwat their friends.
And the nerve of the gaming studios to turn around and call it fictional - and be charging the prices they do.
Can't we just arrive at a common ground here in where both sides get fucked in the ass by the verdict? I wanna see Take Two burn to ashes but people who subscribe to the microtransactions culture are equally to blame for this system.
>"VC is not plaintiff's property," Take-Two's lawyer said. "Instead, in-game VC are fictions created by game publishers, subject to the publishers' terms of service and user agreements. Not really a surprising response, but scary to think these people are making billions from Shark cards.
>The plaintiff – a minor represented by their parent – argued that virtual currency should be refunded or transferred if there's any remaining once a game is sunset. They are seeking "equitable non-monetary and monetary relief" for the in-game currency removed from a 2K Games account from November 17, 2019. And additional context: >The lawyer added that the plaintiff didn't identify "any contract, law, term of sale/use, or any instrument" supporting the argument that they owned the virtual currency sold by Take-Two. This is an interesting case. I think there might be room to argue that virtual currency is similar in principle to store gift cards. The FTC have rules related to such things, as do most states, but it would take a judge to decide if existing law would apply to virtual currency too. Imo, regardless of that, it should be required that if an IGC is no longer usable for any reason, the publisher must refund the balance at the base rate of exchange. Anything else is stealing, as far as I'm concerned.
Games shouldn't have in-game currency that can be bought with real money. If they want to sell items they can do it using real world currency through existing store infrastructures today. I was going to post a long list of reasons why game publishers introduce virtual currencies and how it's a long con on their customers, but I think everybody understands that at this point. Take-Two may actually have a leg to stand on in this lawsuit, but hopefully it leads to regulation that means they and other publishers like them can't do the same in future games. This practice is infecting basically every online game now and it's pure cancer.
Take2 has argued in court the exact opposite of this stance with their shark cards and that giving VC out was stealing from them. So probably no leg to stand on at all as courts will take prior arguments into account and usually punish this sort of scumbaggery.
The main thing I've seen is that when you want to buy something you can't just buy the perfect amount of currency to buy it, typically. You can either buy not quite enough or much more than it's "worth" so you are incentivized to buy more so that you can keep buying skins or whatever the thing is you're trying to buy. I've only really engaged with this kind of system in one game (Hunt Showdown) and Cytek is definitely guilty of this behavior in that title. I've also played League of Legends and Heroes of the Storm which both also contain this kind of system but I never engaged in buying their currencies. I would just wait until I'd earned enough of the free currency to buy what I was interested in.
Yeah, but they let you get their currency for free by playing in Hunt Showdown.
[удалено]
Regulatory bodies/courts rule against unfair ToS/EULAs all the time - you can't just offer a service with unfair stipulations and blame the customer for entering the contract. Hopefully they start cracking down on IGC abuse just like with lootboxes and gambling mechanics.
I think this case is an extreme long shot but courts actually do shape relief to do what’s right in some instances. This is what equity is all about. For example, if a work crew shows up and starts painting your house and you know they’ve got the wrong address, even though there’s no contract they can recover from you under unjust enrichment, an equitable remedy. Generally courts aren’t going to be able to grant equitable relief like that when there’s a contract in place. But… this kid is a minor and minors don’t have capacity to be bound by contracts. I’m wondering if the argument can be made that the terms regarding the virtual currency are not binding on the minor and he may then be able to seek equitable relief (which is pretty broad.) Separately, courts have the ability to reject the enforcement of contractual provisions on public policy grounds. A non compete agreement that says you won’t compete with your employer for 100 years anywhere on Earth is going to be found unenforceable by the court. Maybe there’s room for an argument here that this situation violates public policy.
Laws are above any ToS/Eula
Weird take and also, no. Regulations get created everyday to address exploitative business practices. This isn't an anarchy where it's anything goes as long as it's not *currently* explicity illegal. I appreciate the concept I guess but people can't steal and suggest it's fine because the individual inadvertently agreed to it via buried TOS language. The scummy conman business practices need to stop, and a good way to get that ball rolling is for judges to uphold consumer requests for restitution.
I'm not saying Take-Two will lose the lawsuit. I'm saying I hope it spurs on legislation that makes this illegal. There is no reason for virtual currencies like this to exist except to scam people out of more money than they want to pay. Whether it's currently legal or not, it's unethical, and wanting laws to make it illegal isn't a radical position to take.
> subject to the publishers' terms of service and user agreements. This might be a problem for T2 eventually. Because those terms of service and user agreements can be altered if a court finds them problematic. With "might" I mean I really hope it will.
> Because those terms of service and user agreements can be altered if a court finds them problematic. Depending on jurisdiction those parts of ToS will simply be ignored if they conflict with local laws, because in places like Europe you generally can't side step things like consumer rights and protections. Any company trying to enforce those sections in their ToS will just be laughed at in court. The only reason those parts are still in the ToS is because as long as they say it's boilerplate they got plausible deniability for their attempt to make customers think they signed away their rights.
people dont seem to understand that most ToS and EULAs have no legal standing on anything unless a court says they do. The ONLY REASON these things hold up at all is that most problems like this are settled out of court and then the ToS or EULAs are changed or further messed with so these look stronger in court. I imagine depending on the law of state/country this currently is happening in, thats whats about to happen. NO COMPANY wants to set the standard for the law moving forward. Its why these things never stay in court for very long. Need to keep up the appearance most of their legalese mumbo jumbo has any sort of strong standing at all.
The law really needs to catch up to today's technology specially when it comes services suddenly deleting digital items you've purchased (Sony/Funimation)
Technology seems to be outpacing the law a lot lately. We can also see this with AI
It’s always been this way fellas, it’s not recent technology that created this phenomena. The law is inherently reactive, in practice, at the end of the day.
This is by design so that the grift can happen. its no different than a tax loophole. And like clockwork, when one door closes, another will be opened. Like what happened with Lootboxes becoming Battle passes.
At the current pace of Congress the law is about 6 times more likely to catch up to a snail
hopefully they lose and a precedent is set
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company\_scrip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_scrip) Company money was made illegal, because it limited people how to spend it. Does not matter how you formulate the terms of service. People are not often payed in game currencies (Roblox withstanding), but still an interesting reference.
IANAL (limited legal training though) but pretty sure r/legal would agree with me that the plaintiff here has purchased what's essentially a *limited license* to use virtual currency strightly within the walled garden of the company's predatory online business, i.e. "game." The ToS/ToU that the plaintiff agreed to probably says just that. Is it shitty? Yes. Is it legal. Yes. Is anything gonna change until millenials/genZ take over Congress? No. Probably not even then b/c the system will be too entrenched and ~~bribery~~, excuse me - *lobbying* pays for a lot. What's the solution? Don't buy hyped up marketing AAA crap. Don't spend money on MTX. It’s the golden age of free game giveaways, charity bundles, and visionary Indies. r/PatientGamers r/GameDeals r/indiegaming and r/indiegames
Company money was an issue when companies paid employees with company money that could only be spent at the company store. Employees had no choice in it if they wanted that employment, and we're talking goods that are essential to actually living. This is a virtual currency for entertainment purposes that people willingly buy with real money. Completely different circumstances. Personally, I'm on the side of the plaintiffs here, but company money doesn't really apply here.
Then generating it without paying isn’t stealing it.
r/legal would probably tell you that that would be stealing the *license* to use the game. Which is f-word bulls* but that's our laws paid for by lobbying. r/indiegaming and r/indiegames all the way.
Remove the ability to buy them for real money and it will be correct statement. If not then go fuck yourself T2.
So the argument is pretty much "Your honor, this money is fake. It's not our fault the prosecution was stupid enough to buy it!" God I love Take-two.
But guys, I was told the game industry is the best it’s ever been!
teeny nose thumb support yam snow hateful screw mysterious fanatical *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> But guys, I was told the game industry is the best it’s ever been! It's almost like it can be both true and false at the same time. It has never been easier to develop and publish indie games, there are even game jams where people can collaborate on projects. The open source, retro, and homebrew dev scene have never been more active. But on the other hand you have things like consolidation ruining the industry, the removal of dedicated servers, and AAA publishers pushing predatory games aimed at kids and teenagers, created to be as addicting as humanely possible.
> It has never been easier to develop and publish indie games, there are even game jams where people can collaborate on projects. The open source, retro, and homebrew dev scene have never been more active. > > > > But on the other hand you have things like consolidation ruining the industry, the removal of dedicated servers, and AAA publishers pushing predatory games aimed at kids and teenagers, created to be as addicting as humanely possible. It almost seems like these two are somehow linked together. Almost.
[удалено]
> It was better when you had actual nerds nolifing the development for years on end before even DARING to put their game on Steam. Oh please, there were plenty of trash back then too, the only difference is that Steam curated it. Terrible video games have been around since the late 70s.
[удалено]
> But you're lying to yourself if you think that there was so much slop back then. The video game history of arcade games, Atari, Commodore 64, Amiga, DOS, PC-88, PC98, or early Windows games would tell you otherwise. "Amiga-jank" is literally a meme which has been around since the early 90s due to developers releasing completely broken games for it. Why did [Nintendo](https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Official_Nintendo_Seal) create the "official seal of quality" [after this?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial) And I've not even mentioned the 3DO, the Sega CD, the Atari Jaguar, The Atari Lynx, the Amstrad, and the LaserActive yet.
[удалено]
One exception doesn't invalidate his statement though.
99.9%?
If you avoid AA and AAA, it can be.
Realistically in game currency SHOULD be considered store credit aka a secondary currency owed to the customer by the business. It would be the same as earning points on your CC or airmiles. Youve spent money and in return you receive an IOU in the form of a digital currency with its exchange rate of value determined at the time of transaction. Secondary currency can be exchangable for physical or fiat currency or it cannot be as determined by the business's policy for the currency but either way it would be an amount of value owed to the customer. That is all to say it SHOULD be. I have no idea which countries implement which laws or definitions for digital/virtual currencies such as that in video games.
I really hope Take-Two loses this...
Whelp, guess who just joined my personal blacklist along the fine likes of Electronic Arts, Ubisoft and Activision.
IF I see game has more than one currency then I think sod them as this is only ever used to try and confuse the actual cost of what is being bought. This practice should be illegal. I hate stores full stop but at a minimum they should only be able to use the local currency. For example if a skin costs $40 then it should be $40 on the store and not 10000000000000 Bungu boogie boogie boogie coins. I would be happy with any game that has a store on it dying - no exceptions.
They need to be made an example of
D2jsp sends its regards. Steadier than usd
As a nowadays part time gamer, as I have kids, I grew up with NES SNES N64 PS1 etc. I still admire some things we achieve in the gaming industry. The continued elevation of art and graphics and audio and even the controllers themselves are awesome. Fast forward to now where so many gamers are old dudes like me..When I was 16 it was dorky to play video ganes even for kids let alone adults. The market is huge today and is its own beast. Basically, they make so much money for what is essentially a very similar thing. Box with controllers that hooks up. However, as much as I love gaming, I just don't get virtual currency or paying to improve your chances or abilities. Video games are an escape. It's where you go to get away from the world for a minute. It's not supposed to be where the rich kids can beat the poor kids. It's supposed to be about skill. Who got those reflexes? And when I say I don't get virtual currency, I get it. It's a lot of money for stuff that costs nothing. Its the most ridiculous thing, think of the data you get when you buy COD. 180GB etc. It's $60. Then somehow, you can spend that easily on what... The season pass? Which is what, some skins and pictures or content? It's crazy. I know kids at work who have spent $000s on Fifa upgrades so they can vrwat their friends. And the nerve of the gaming studios to turn around and call it fictional - and be charging the prices they do.
Can't we just arrive at a common ground here in where both sides get fucked in the ass by the verdict? I wanna see Take Two burn to ashes but people who subscribe to the microtransactions culture are equally to blame for this system.
You mean the child who may have been spending his/her Christmas/birthday or Saturday job money?
yes
legally teh game company