I don't like the term "Video Gaming". I play video games. I'm a bit of a gamer. But I am in no way any sort of gambler. Conflating the two makes one look less a dangerous vice, the other more of one. Video games and gambling terminals are totally different things.
(Yes, the lootbox debate, but you know of what I speak).
"gaming" has long included gambling, but "video gaming" has only recently included gambling, in the popular lexicon, anyway (no doubt you can dig up an obscure reference from long ago; law of averages and all that).
Video gambling has been around a long time. Greasy spoon/truck stop diner my family frequented as a kid some 30 years ago had video poker & keno. And they weren't hidden away in a corner - they were right there in the dining area.
Sure, but that doesn’t contradict one word of my post. I suspect you’re trying to make the argument I preemptively rebutted with my “law of averages” reference.
I once signed up for a course on "gaming law". I thought it might have something to do with gaming or gambling. I was wrong. "Gaming Law" was all about the relationship of native tribes and the US government. I still got the CLE credits.
In much of the US, native tribes are allowed to operate casinos on their territories. This has become a principal source of income for many tribes/nations.
The issue is that while native tribes are normally regulated at the federal level (they signed treaties with the US government) gambling is something normally regulated at the state level. So there are all sorts of constitutional issues re who can set rules governing casinos. It isn't really about a corporation or person being regulated by a representative government. It is about one government, the tribe, and its relationship with various host governments (US Fed, states, cities etc). A very different dynamic.
(Yes, the lootbox debate, but you know of what I speak).