58
Virtual currencies are ‘fictions’, Take-Two argues in microtransaction theft lawsuit
(www.videogameschronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
58 points (98.3% liked)
Games
16722 readers
542 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Currency is a promise. It's a fiction we all agree to be a part of.
The constant argument by game lawyers that digital goods have value and therefore cloning them is theft, should reinforce this idea that, well, if your DLC and your games have value, then surely those virtual coins also have value. And we can precisely calculate that value, too. How can they argue in good faith that digital goods have value, then the opposite is true when they would have to shell out actual money?
Or can banks suddenly do that, too? Can you imagine if banks decide that no, actually, we are closing those branches and since your money was tied to them, you're out of luck, too bad. But we are opening new ones, don't worry, come again!
I think customers are fucking idiots for spending any amount thinking they ain't getting fucked, mind you. But clearly there is some serious fuckery going on. I hope Europe take the lead on that crap, sooner rather than later, since we seem to be tackling lootboxes...
Do you believe that every game that uses a central server should be required to compensate players when eventually those online services are shut down? Because I would say that games shutting down is a completely reasonable part of how these things work, and a reasonable expectation by the players when they buy into that system. You're paying for access to content for the lifespan of the game, not an eternal entitlement to active servers until the heat death of the universe.