She says the case is based on a loss of profits, but argues that its a free-to-play video game, and that in order to prove a loss Epic would need to provide a statement certifying that Rogers cheating directly caused a mass profit loss
I know she's throwing out arguments against Epic and seeing what sticks, but I don't understand this one. If the game was $60 to play, they would have already gotten their money out of the kid. would see her point; they get $60 whether the kid cheated or not. However, this is free-to-play, which means they're only getting money on microtransactions. The players aren't going to want to keep coming back and buying in-game items when the game is full of cheaters. The health and stability of the game is the potential for profit. One person cheating does cause loss of profits from other potential buyers, but I suppose proving a specific amount would be difficult.
ah but Activision has a patent where they match-make people who haven't bought loot boxes against people who have better weapons, in order to incite players to buy lootboxes. So you could argue that this cheating kid is making players want to buy boxes so they can get better.
And then you can argue that the players learn their purchases are ineffective because of the cheaters and decide to stop playing. ---
And when Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more worlds to conquer. -Hans Gruber