this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
110 points (100.0% liked)
Games
22953 readers
124 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"At least in this case" - can't read the article now, but going by title alone, judicial decisions may be used as basis for future ones, so it could be setting a precedent. Just, considering how UK's legal system currently is, can't tell if it's good or bad.
So, here's the jist of it: Developer hacked dozens of accounts and took their in game gold, and sold it online for $700,000 worth of Bitcoin.
Sounds dirty as hell, and he sounds like her needed to be punished for it. But it's got me wondering, who gets the money? The company could just return everyone's gold with the press of a button, so if he pays restitution, who gets it and why?
Imagine being the person who paid 7.9 Bitcoin for stolen Runescape gold that now gets deleted
I really can't sympathetize, neither with buying and then losing that much runescape money, nor with having and then losing that much in bitcoin.
Im pretty sure that was a running total of multiple purchases from various people.
Same deal with robbing a bank, they could easily reprint the money.
Judges will often comment specifically in cases like this when decisions are made based on the very specific details of a case versus general case law that might form a general precedent in the future.