Steam Warns Users Against Gambling Site After YouTube Stars Discovered As Owners

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Steam Warns Users Against Gambling Site After YouTube Stars Discovered As Owners

Posted by msmash on Monday July 4, 2016 @05:20AM from the conflict-of-interest dept.

Tom Phillips, reporting for EuroGamer: Steam has begun warning users not to use a high-profile Counter-Strike: GO gambling website after its ownership turned out to be two YouTube stars -- who were also using YouTube to promote the site. Trevor "TmarTn" Martin and Tom "Syndicate" Cassell are listed in newly-uncovered business records as the president and vice-president, respectively, of online gambling site CS:GO Lotto. The news of CS:GO Lotto's ownership came as a surprise to viewers who have watched the pair promote the site on their channels, where both YouTube stars can be seen gambling -- and winning big money -- while using it. Neither had publicly disclosed their full roles in the site. TmarTn had not even disclosed his videos as being promotional tools. Attempt to log in to CS:GO Lotto now and you are greeted with the following warning message: "The URL you are attempting to log in to has been blocked by our moderators and staff. This site may be engaged in phishing, scamming, spamming, or delivering malware."

80 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

When we made it possible for any random douche with a computer and a webcam to become a "star," we opened the door for this kind of assbaggery. Our culture of celebrity was already bad enough until we gave the other 99% of the population the ability to join.
1. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Meh. It's gambling, you should always expect to lose.
2. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  There's no oversight and most of the people gambling are children and teenagers with shitty parents.
3. Re:We did this to ourselves. by SirSlud · 2016-07-04 05:41 · Score: 2
  
  Which I suppose would be fine if gamblers didn't steal from friends and family to feed their vulnerabilities? Gambling isn't just something that only affects those who make the "adult" decision to gamble.
  
  --
  "Old man yells at systemd"
4. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 05:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem here isn't the douche with the camera. Focusing on the douche with the camera ignores the bigger problem: the parallel - and thus, unregulated - economy built on top of Steam.
  As with any parallel economy, you have fraud, scams and other abuses. Since the only police is Valve, and Valve has no interest in putting a stop to it because it is massively profitable for them, the abuses won't stop.
  Occasionally, Valve puts their foot down, but, usually, they are more concerned about the attention that this might attract. More attention can potentially mean an official investigation, followed by regulation, and that would hurt Valve's business. So they suppress the more visible cases, while maintaining the status quo.
5. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That still doesn't make the casino's fault. The gambler is only person to hold responsible, regardless who his "victims" are.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
6. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  Discipline is the parents' problem, not Valve's. They can put their allowance money into a piggy bank instead of giving it to the kid. As for adults who can't control themselves, please, don't even go there.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
7. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 06:32 · Score: 0
  
  And all nerds and geeks are pasty virgin losers who live in their parents basement!
  Next time, in "out-dated baseless stereotypes" We'll tell you about ten ways successfull businesswomen are frigid bitches!
8. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Archfeld · 2016-07-04 07:42 · Score: 2
  
  It does when the casino is knowingly marketing itself in an area where online gambling is NOT legal. I realize steam reaches an international audience but it primarily a US based venue and online gambling in the US is heavily restricted if not outright illegal, so there is a high degree of fault to be laid at the casinos' feet in this case.
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
9. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  I know the law is on your side but it is wrong. The *devil made me do it* defense just doesn't fly with me. We are throwing the whole personal responsibility thing out the window with that kind of thinking. The choice to gamble is strictly personal. To nail the casino you should have to prove they held a gun to the client's head or otherwise used physical force. The internet is not the proverbial "crowded theater" so commonly used to rationalize censorship.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
10. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Megol · 2016-07-04 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Yes because the alternative where incestuous promotion of a select subset of people creates "stars" is better than allowing people producing stuff that others like to become "stars". Because the film star that became one because his mother fucked someone is more genuine than Jane Doe that through hard work have gained a lot of regular followers. Yeah right.
  Have /. become a dumping ground for old grumpy know-it-all's?
11. Re: We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  First they came for the drug dealers, then they came for the casinos and now they come for me. Good riddance.
12. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Archfeld · 2016-07-04 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you in the conventional sense, if you go into a casino and gamble it is your responsibility. But in this case online gambling is illegal. If Visa had been allowing payments from an online casino, they'd be in criminal court in an instant. Valve, Steam, YouTube and the idiots pumping this setup all deserve criminal punishment and fines.
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
13. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 13:30 · Score: 2
  
  But in this case online gambling is illegal.
  So what? If you gamble online it is also your own responsibility. And no, contrary to your opinion, the casino, Visa, Valve, Steam, YouTube, etc do NOT deserve to be punished (you disappoint me with that attitude). The prohibitionist who wrote the law should be punished. They have no right to dictate what can be served on the internet, nobody does, especially when served from outside your borders. Their sovereignty is outside your jurisdiction. You are free to attempt to block the signal, and I have the right to circumvent it. It is a cat and mouse game, like so many others, that I can only hope the authorities will lose. Above all else it is paramount for the internet to be open, and forced open whenever anyone tries to shut it down. An open freely accessible internet is all that matters to me. So, let's agree to disagree on the matter.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
14. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Archfeld · 2016-07-04 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  By your reasoning I should be able to use a gun and take your money from you because I don't like or believe in that particular law ? While I do support your right to an opinion the fact of the law is not in dispute and until it is changed it IS the law. People outside our borders and jurisdiction are quite free to do as their laws dictate but here regardless of how you 'feel' about the law until it is changed it is the law.
  I'll certainly agree to disagree with you and I do enjoy the rational response and debate vs just screaming and ranting that so many revert to, so have a Happy 4th of July and Cheers mate :)
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
15. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  By your reasoning I should be able to use a gun and take your money
  Whoa! You lost me on that one! Blew all the logic off into space. You hardly showed any rationality there. We were, as least I was talking about the internet. You're right, you best leave it alone if that is the kind of absurdity you are going to offer.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
16. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Gussington · 2016-07-04 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  That still doesn't make the casino's fault. The gambler is only person to hold responsible, regardless who his "victims" are.
  Only if you live in a black and white universe. Fortunately for the rest of us, most people have the ability to see a lot of different colours...
17. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, in this case people, including you evidently, are just passing blame to evade responsibility for their personal choices. If you are coming out against the concept of free will, spit it out... I'm not interested in charades.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
18. Re:We did this to ourselves. by sd4f · 2016-07-04 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  One difference I can think of is that no one goes into a casino and thinks that they're just in there to play games and have a fun time. They know that it's gambling, they know that it costs money to play. A lot of parents, kids or even adults, don't install steam, or buy CSGO because they want to gamble. They buy it because it's meant to be a first person shooter, or in steams case, an online game store and launcher. So it slips under the radar, and it doesn't get targeted for taxes, or regulation when they integrate gambling features.
19. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  Well, for a second there, it almost sounded like you were saying the "casino" was skimming the credit cards surreptitiously without the player knowing it, but it appears to still be the player's choice to gamble or not. I am not complaining about Steam's warning. The "casino" could probably be malware, in which case it obviously should avoided. And they don't want to be accused of anything that will have the FBI raiding their offices, so of course they will take a stand. What I don't like at all is people trying to blame anyone besides the gambler themselves for the choice to... gamble. In their minds personal responsibility is a trigger.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
20. Re:We did this to ourselves. by sd4f · 2016-07-04 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  At the end of the day, I also believe that government shouldn't be trying to prevent everyone from doing stupid things. But I do think there needs to be some common sense protections against predatory practices. Those protections are already in place around the world. I think valve is purposely maneuvering in such a manner to skirt around the law in order to essentially provide gambling services and profit from people under age.
21. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I maintain that without physical force, "predatory practices" is just a buzzword. You will have to prove that the people are incompetent to make their own decisions before talking about "predators" in this vein. Yes, I know the law differs, but it is written as a matter of expediency and crowd and thought control. Can't give people "ideas". The verbal and the physical must be treated as two entirely different things, and that all consensual action is entirely self motivated, if we are to believe in free will, the mob influence be damned The verbal is entirely ethereal, with no intrinsic force whatsoever.
  And be careful with that "common sense" thing. Given some time, with the right charismatic, and it can be used to justify killing off 6 billion people to save humanity and the planet.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
22. Re:We did this to ourselves. by sd4f · 2016-07-04 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that children or anyone less than 18 years old is legally considered to be too incompetent to make their own decisions, and for good reasons. That's why they can't vote, why they can't drink, why they can't gamble, or sign into a legally binding contract.
  So again, I think valve is abusing their position in trying to attract kids into gambling. I think this is a bad thing and they should be punished for it. When I say it's a predatory practice, I really think it is because they're using their position as a game publisher and retailer, in order to obfuscate that they're also offering a gambling service, in a similar vein to the youtubers who used their 'celebrity' to endorse and promote a third party gambling service which they surreptitiously owned.
23. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-04 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Kids issues are the parent's problem, not the state's. And they usually only have their parent's money. So, the parents will have to double as accountants. If a kid gets in trouble with the law, hold the parents responsible along with the kid. That's what should have happened with that rich kid.
  Censoring the internet is and always will be unacceptable. Since the majority of people disagree and wants to put the state in charge, I'm counting on a technical solution to make the issue moot. The subject is quite tiresome, and there is only one way to get it off the plate.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
24. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Gussington · 2016-07-04 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  No, in this case people, including you evidently, are just passing blame to evade responsibility for their personal choices. If you are coming out against the concept of free will, spit it out... I'm not interested in charades.
  Black, White. What a boring world you must live in.
25. Re: We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  You alone would still be held responsible for robbery whether you agree with the law or not. Not the gun manufacturer, not the person who sold you gun or put the gun in your hand.
26. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 22:07 · Score: 0
  
  As long as people trust Steam, Valve has done enough for it's purposes, it does not need to go the extra distance to make it trustworthy.
  Public beatings of the most egregious abusers is the most effective way of doing that.
27. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-05 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  That is merely your opinion. Facts are facts. If you can't accept responsibility for what you do, it means you have no self control or discipline and should be declared incompetent to 'stand trial' or even drive a car and locked safely away for your own protection, and ours.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
28. Re:We did this to ourselves. by dave420 · 2016-07-05 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  And that's your opinion. If we are to ignore his, we should also ignore yours.
29. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-05 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Personal responsibility is not an opinion.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
30. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Archfeld · 2016-07-05 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  It was a bit out there but just say that was a law I don't believe in, or support. By the logic you presented I should not have to abide by it and should be free to do as I choose because I objected to that law. While I do agree that there is no real difference between gambling online or going into a physical Casino the current laws recognize a difference and declare online gambling and the transfer of winnings by Visa or any other means as illegal. Whether or not you personally support or believe in 'that' law it is on the books and is the law of the land, at least here in the US, regardless of where the virtual casino exists, Valve is based in Washington State, in the US and has to adhere to US laws. People in the US are required to either follow the laws as written or get them changed, by legislation or court interpretation. Thus Steam, a Valve owned entity, and US located residents are forbidden from utilizing online gambling facilities to win cash or any other item designed for the purpose of exchanging for cash, even by a 3rd party. Thus the selling of the skins or exchanging for cash on an open market or in a 3rd party exchange is determined to be winnings and illegal.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
31. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-05 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  Right or wrong, selectively enforced unjust law will cost the respect for all law and the people who write and enforce them. It is the example that people will follow, law or no law.
  Now, yes, Valve, being in the US is subject to US law. But that is not what I am talking about. The original theme was who is responsible for the actions of the gambler. And that was asked and answered. The law in this instance has nothing to do with the price of rice.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
32. Re:We did this to ourselves. by doccus · 2016-07-05 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  That still doesn't make the casino's fault. The gambler is only person to hold responsible, regardless who his "victims" are.
  That's right. It's not the crack dealer's fault. They're just poor misunderstood victims, who ought to have support groups to deal with the terrible abuse heaped upon them from everybody for creating addicts....Instead, the blame lies solely with the addict. It's not like they're, you know, addicted. Right?
33. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-05 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  The crack dealer didn't make him into an addict. Or are you assuming the addict was forced to consume? Addiction is also a personal thing.
  It's not the crack dealer's fault. They're just poor misunderstood victims...
  That of course is an absurd troll. You treat the addict for his addiction, give him the power to say no. You are not "blaming" him for anything. At least I'm not. Who knows what you are saying? And let's say the drug is legal, who are you going to blame then? Walgreens? Walmart?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
34. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-05 09:31 · Score: 0
  
  Personal responsibility has nothing to do with mental illness.
35. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Archfeld · 2016-07-05 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with you regarding personal responsibility, but the primary target audience for CSGO is children, who lack the fully developed sense to make informed decisions. While the bulk of the responsibility should be on the parents, Steam, hence Valve does need to take reasonable precautions to ensure that they are not marketing to children too young to be held responsible. If we were talking about a physical casino with guards that would stop children from availing themselves of the service at the door, I'd be 100% behind you.
  
  --
  errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
36. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-05 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't answer the question... Who is to blame for addiction to legal drugs?
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
37. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Gussington · 2016-07-05 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's your opinion...
38. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-05 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, it is simple fact, but I shall concede the internet to you. The majority opinion always prevails over all else.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
39. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Gussington · 2016-07-06 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  My opinion is worth just as much as yours. Just because it's your opinion doesn't make it magically become fact.
40. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-06 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, of course it is. I never said otherwise, but a statement of fact is simply that. Personal responsibility is a real thing. Without proof of incompetence a person is responsible for the things he/she does. How is that open to opinion? The age when that person becomes responsible is a matter of opinion. Most car rental companies set that age at 25, when the brain solidifies, or they did many years ago. Some state governments will tell you it's 14 or 15. So before that, personal responsibility is the parents' responsibility (up to 18).
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
41. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-10 15:39 · Score: 0
  
  collective responsibility is also a real thing, as others have said, what makes your opinion more important than other opinions?
  sounds a bit Orwellian that
42. Re:We did this to ourselves. by fustakrakich · 2016-07-10 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  I am not expressing an opinion, not mine or anybody else's.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
43. Re:We did this to ourselves. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-14 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  And all nerds and geeks are pasty virgin losers who live in their parents basement!
  Next time, in "out-dated baseless stereotypes" We'll tell you about ten ways successfull businesswomen are frigid bitches!
  Please....just shut the fuck up....
No money was won. by wardrich86 · 2016-07-04 05:38 · Score: 4, Informative

and winning big money
This is incorrect. They were winning items and skins that had a high face value, but the only way to get cash for them would be to sell them off on other sketchy websites.
1. Re:No money was won. by fleabay · 2016-07-04 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  A friend of mine won $1,000,000 playing the lottery, at least that's what he was told. All he got was a piece of paper that he had to take to the bank to get turned into $$$.
  
  --
  PlanetVulkan.com
2. Re:No money was won. by vux984 · 2016-07-04 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  They were winning items and skins that had a high face value
  So... like casino chips, or bitcoins, or bonds...?
  If you win something a high face value that can be easily exchanged for that face value in cash, the it is not incorrect to call it 'winning big money'.
3. Re:No money was won. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  "other sketchy websites"
  Tell that to 19 million people who have used Opskins.com.
4. Re:No money was won. by wardrich86 · 2016-07-04 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  That's the thing, though. Trading it for money means bringing in another sketchy third-party site. I'm not saying what they're doing is right, but money isn't really being won. Items with the potential to be sold on sketchy sites for money is what is being won.
5. Re:No money was won. by wardrich86 · 2016-07-04 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Right - and there are plenty of legitimate banks that will convert that paper into cash. Furthermore, the sole purpose of that paper is to be turned into cash. Much like poker chips, and casino receipts.
6. Re:No money was won. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  You can also sell them right on steam, which is in no way sketchy.
7. Re:No money was won. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  like casino chips, or bitcoins, or bonds
  Those things are inteded to be traded for real money/wares. Theoretically any money given to valve is gone for good and there is no official way to convert it back, contrast that with casino chips which are guaranteed to get your money back if you still have them. Some companies even make it a terms of service violation to trade against real money or outside their platform, it would even make sense for valve to have such a policy, since they put a fee on every transaction done over steam.
8. Re:No money was won. by hairyfeet · 2016-07-04 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  As much as I like Steam what Valve has set up is no different than the Pachinko scam the Japanese use to get around gambling laws.
  Here is how it works...see if this sounds familiar (Hint its exactly how CS;GO boxes work) you 1.- Pay real money for chips (keys) to play, 2.- You win "prizes" that cannot be exchanged on site for money, 3.- You go across the street to a site that changes those prizes into cash...tada! How to get around gambling laws.
  I'm sorry but what Valve and these sites have set up is the classic Pachinko scam, hell Valve even has the chest opening spin just like a slot machine. I don't see how they are not gonna get their asses handed to them in the class action that just got filed, its sooo obvious its gambling its not even funny.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
9. Re:No money was won. by Luthair · 2016-07-04 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure Valve offers a marketplace where users can sell virtual items, so not that sketchy (other than the betting site of course)
10. Re:No money was won. by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2016-07-04 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Heh, some places the Yakuza don't even bother with that whole setup.
  I was in Japan last year and stopped at a Pachinko after several friends recommended trying just to say I did. Holy hell are those places noisy!
  Got a magnetic card with my winnings afterwards and had to go to a sketchy shack right in the parking lot, a shack that only had a slot barely big enough for a hand to fit through. Took the card through the slot, and handed out the money at the same time.
  
  --
  To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
11. Re:No money was won. by Gussington · 2016-07-04 15:52 · Score: 1
  
  A friend of mine won $1,000,000 playing the lottery, at least that's what he was told. All he got was a piece of paper that he had to take to the bank to get turned into $$$.
  And even then the bank only swapped his piece of paper for other pieces of paper which he was told is worth something too.
  It's tortoises all the way down!
12. Re:No money was won. by Gussington · 2016-07-04 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  Skins look pretty and so some people will pay money for them. They serve no other purpose other than vanity and resale. Pretty much identical in nature to jewellery.
13. Re:No money was won. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much identical in nature to jewellery.
  You mean pretty much identical in function but not in nature.
  As a glamour item that may or may not help your survival skills (a sharpened diamond has its utilitarian uses), the function is the same. But even that description breaks down as a jewel can go anywhere in your 'real life' and this skin is for a specific version of a game that may or may not exist this time next year that's owned and run by a single corporate entity with exclusive control over all aspects of its creation and continuity.
  As a physical natural thing with certain properties, even in an allegorical way, they are in no way similar.
  What the fuck are you trying to say? That skins are equal to a diamond necklace?
  Take your nerdiest of nerds and ask them 'would you rather have a $10,000 skin for some shitty game that you could in theory resell for up to that much but never more as it will depreciate as the game popularity wanes', or 'would you like this pretty $10,000 gold and diamond necklace? guarnteed it *will* go up in value as it ages, still valuable in times of disaster and more valuable in times of prosperity?'
14. Re:No money was won. by wardrich86 · 2016-07-05 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  They're sold for Steam Wallet credit, which can't be converted into actual money... just stuff you can use to scoop up other games.
15. Re:No money was won. by wardrich86 · 2016-07-05 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  There's a few points here, so let me address them separately.
  
  Regarding Pachinko scams:
  I was thinking about this when I made my comment, but I still feel it's closer than what is happening with the website. There's far less risk of getting screwed out of your money at a Pachinko bar, and I'm thinking there are places very close to the Pachinko bars that are very obvious, and will let you trade your prize for cash. Whereas with the website, I think you have to find a reliable source and hope that they don't just take your shit and run.
  
  Regarding Valve, and the "Slot Machine" crate system:
  The animation shows items in a slot machine-like display, but does every crate not contain an item? Can it truly be considered gambling when you have no chance of losing? I think people are really over-exaggerating this one.
  
  Long story short, I don't agree at all with the guys pretending they just happened upon this site, and I also don't agree with people who have admin access to a site like theirs participating in the games. Also, their website is 100% gambling, but it needs to be stressed that you're not gambling money, just in-game items that could be sold for cash if you can find a site that won't rip you off in the end.
16. Re:No money was won. by hairyfeet · 2016-07-05 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhh noooo, as the majority are worthless, as in less than 50c for a $2.50 key so its not "winning" a good 85% out of 100, in fact I really wouldn't be surprised if Vegas slots pay out more often than CS:GO slots.
  And at the end of the day its just the Pachinko scam, Valve lets third parties (the ones who pay out) use their API, they set up the slots, its gambling for kids man and I seriously doubt any judge or jury will see different.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
17. Re:No money was won. by wardrich86 · 2016-07-06 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  Aren't keys also randomly dropped in your inventory just for playing the game?
No blocking or warning here... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 05:38 · Score: 1

When I go to the Steam web store, web market, and in-game store, or start TF2, CS, or DotA, I'm not faced with any block, and I don't get a warning about crates and keys obviously being illegal gambling, in part clearly aimed at teens...
Does this change needs some time to propagate or something?
1. Re:No blocking or warning here... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 13:49 · Score: 0
  
  Comprehension fail. The site has nothing to do with steam or the in game store. If somebody posts a link to the site in the steam forums the link is blocked.
It's because people no longer follow Caveat Emptor by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 05:43 · Score: 0

This becomes a complete non-issue if you, as a consumer, follow the concept of Caveat Emptor: "let the buyer beware"
Anyone looking at this service should have been naturally suspicious. They should have assumed the worst. They should have considered this possibility, and taken it into account when making the decision whether or not to use this service.
Re: It's because people no longer follow Caveat Em by tysonedwards · 2016-07-04 06:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

The problem here is that people with an existing and loyal fan base who trusted and respected them decided to create said gambling platform and mislead their viewers to believe they "found it" versus "founded it" and were using it to win money. As such, there might be a case of fraud (in the literal letter of the law) by anyone who acted upon said claims by these YouTubers.

--
Thirty four characters live here.
What even is this by axewolf · 2016-07-04 06:22 · Score: 2

Can anyone provide an objective report of what this CS:GO gambling is and how it hooks into the consciousness of these artificial-stimulation-addicted freaks?
1. Re:What even is this by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  I didn't even get that far, I'm still stuck on the concept of "YouTube stars." Children these days...
2. Re:What even is this by sd4f · 2016-07-04 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  There's two components to it, one of which I think is being purposely glossed over because it's valve/steam.
  To begin from the start, valve introduced weapon skins for CSGO which are normally obtained with drops or unlocked from crates/chests which are awarded at random to players. Unlocking a crate/chest requires the use of a key. All keys can only be bought for real money at something like $2.50. I believe they can be traded, but the origin of that key at some point, someone had to pay valve some money to buy it. Additionally, these skins can be traded amongst people, or put in the official market place for sale or obviously people can buy them for real money. Valve takes a cut of the sale when skins are sold for real money.
  I play CSGO, but recognise the obvious cash grab with skins for what it is. So I've never spent any money on it at all. The difference is though that when you sell through the official channels, that money is left in your steam wallet, it can't be converted into real money easily at all. But since you can trade these skins, what can happen is that you trade for real money separately. I believe part of the problem is that these gambling sites allow you to log in through valve's API's and formalise, to some extent, the process so that the users don't entirely have to resort to trust.
  The third party gambling sites, I have little idea what exactly they do (because I've never used them, never thought about using them, and care so little for it), but some I believe allow participants to put skins into a pool and then provide a chance to win the pool.
  Now, it's clear that the owners of this one particular gambling site have been promoting it in a shady way, i.e. not disclosing their involvement and owning the company. That's one thing. I also think that valve has been profiting immensely, not from the third party gambling, but their first party gambling. The keys to unlock chests and a chance to win. It's all attracting gullible teens into the game who don't even play the game, rather spend money in an attempt to unlock skins.
  I think this is a real scourge in a lot of electronic gaming now, the outright gouging with horse armour DLC, and in valve's case, chances to win items which realistically is gambling, is something which is exploiting games as a method to hide gambling and DLC platforms. Valve have thoroughly integrated this behaviour into many of their games, and into steam itself, by having 'trading cards' again, purchasable through their first party market place.
  In my opinion, this is disgraceful behaviour from a company that has become really unethical now. Shame on valve!
3. Re:What even is this by Gussington · 2016-07-04 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  CSGO is an FPS game, (ie shoot the other guys before you get shot). Your in-game gun is a standard bland military looking colour, but you can win or buy 'skins' in-game which turn your gun into something more aesthetically appealing, and make other players jealous of your shiny.
  Players have the ability to sell or trade skins, so there is a real market for them (just like any other vanity object) which fluctuates depending on demand.
  CSGO has a professional players league, so people can bet skins on pro games, to win other more valuable skins. And I'm imaging this "skin lotto" is some sort of lottery where you buy tickets with cheap skins, in order to win more expensive skins.
  So skins act exactly like a currency, casino chip, or jewellery, except it's not regulated by any government agency.
4. Re:What even is this by SirTicksAlot · 2016-07-14 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Probably the same thing our grandparents said when someone mentioned the phrase, "Television Star" for the first time.
Re:It's because people no longer follow Caveat Emp by pete6677 · 2016-07-04 06:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Wait a minute, so you're telling me that some dodgy, illegal (in the United States anyway) gambling website hosted by a couple of YouTube clowns might not be legitimate? And that I shouldn't just send them my money, in hopes of winning big?
Wow, I learn something new every day!
Re:It's because people no longer follow Caveat Emp by Luthair · 2016-07-04 07:49 · Score: 1

While true, the issue is that there are minors and addicts. Minors lack the life experience to understand whats going on and addicts are wired in such a way that they can't help themselves.
FCC Rules? by Luthair · 2016-07-04 10:04 · Score: 1

Seems like the FCC Endorsement rules ought to apply? https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...
1. Re:FCC Rules? by Luthair · 2016-07-04 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh, FTC... I'm going to blame it on not being an american ;)
Re:It's because people no longer follow Caveat Emp by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 18:41 · Score: 0

This is a content creator producing videos for predominantly underage demographic. Maybe you wouldn't be fooled, but would your 13 year old self be as savvy?
No Money ever leaves the Steam Economy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-04 20:27 · Score: 0

What people fail to realize is that money cannot be withdrawn from the steam economy, ever.
Valve offers no way to withdraw steam wallet funds once deposited.
Even if an item is sold in the steam community market, any proceeds may only be used to make more purchases within the steam economy, they cannot be withdrawn.
So whilst there may be secondary markets where items are traded between individuals, the money that goes into Valve coffers never comes back out again.
Valve should not be responsible for policing secondary markets.
This would be equivalent to a real world game / merchandise store being required to police the use of secondary trading in those games / merchandise after point of sale. If the real world store sells a set of trading cards, and people trade those cards in an unofficial secondary market for other cards, or for real money, or even 'gamble', using those cards as a substitute for real cash, this is not the responsibility of the game / merchandise store.
The legality of 'uses' for items potentially having supposed real world 'value' in unofficial contexts is for government/legislation to decide. It is also the governments responsibility to police it, not Valves.