gambling
Would Poker (with *Zero* real-world currency involved) in an M-Rated (18+) Online game be constituted Online Gambling?
<p>Players of Red Dead Redemption 2: Online (RDO from now on) have been requesting that Poker or other gambling activities be added to the game. </p>

<p>These were expected to be included, as they are present in the Single Player, and in the predecessor Red Dead Redemption.</p>

<p>Many players of the game are suggesting that Poker or other gambling activities can not be included because of legal restrictions on Online Gambling. </p>

<p>Notably, RDO features two forms of currency. In-game "Cash", and "Gold". While Gold can be purchased with real money (Micro-transactions), the In-Game "Cash" has zero interaction with Gold, and can not be purchased with real money. “Cash” can also not be redeemed for real-world money, prizes, or anything else. </p>

<p>Transferring of currency is currently not something available in the game. </p>

<p>“Cash” is earned in all activities of the game, and no prizes would be tied specifically to the game of poker.</p>

<p>If Poker was to be included, and restricted to only In-Game "Cash", would this be an issue regarding Online Gambling laws in a significant number of countries?</p>

<p>Of note: </p>

<p>RDO is an M-Rated (18+) game. </p>

<p>With conservative Pot Limits gambling would be a vastly slower way to earn in-game “Cash” compared to other activities in-game. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If Poker was to be included, and restricted to only In-Game "Cash", would this be an issue regarding Online Gambling laws in a significant number of countries?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is hard to give a comprehensive answer because laws vary significantly among countries. I will focus on U.S. law, but other countries very likely adopt a more stringent definition of <em>gambling</em> (Muslim nations are at one extreme of the spectrum, since their religion prohibits games of chance).</p>

<p>Under U.S. law (or at least in some of its jurisdictions) the scheme you outline would not meet the legal definition of gambling. The Black's Law Dictionary defines <em>gamble</em> as "<em>[t]o play, or game [...] involv[ing],not only chance, but a hope of gaining something beyond the amount played</em>".</p>

<p>For a more formalized characterization of gambling, see <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/19931059535pa5241987" rel="noreferrer"><em>Com. v. Irwin</em>, 535 Pa. 524, 527 (1993)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The three elements of gambling are (1) consideration; (2) a result
  determined by chance rather than skill; and (3) reward</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There, the court distinguishes between <em>reward</em> and <em>entertainment</em> in that in the latter "<em>the player can never "win" anything other than a prize worth less than the amount he has played</em>", <em>Id. at 529</em>.</p>

<p>This is consistent with the case law from other jurisdictions. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/1960591147conn4441515" rel="noreferrer"><em>Farina v. Kelly</em>, 147 Conn. 444, 449 (1960)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>[A] lottery is characterized by three constituent elements, namely, a
  prize, a chance, and a price. [...] [A]s commonly understood, gambling
  involves not only chance but a hope of gaining something beyond the
  amount played</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Lastly, since</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In-Game "Cash" has zero interaction with Gold, and can not be
  purchased with real money</p>
</blockquote>

<p>it is evident that the purpose of adding Poker the game in the way you describe is pure entertainment, not for a player's expectation of reward as outlined in the aforementioned cases.</p>
