It must be 2017 because loot boxes are back in the news again. Two weeks after New York’s attorney general sued Valve over its use of the gimmick, the company has responded. In short, the Steam maker essentially said, “See you in court.”

New York’s lawsuit accuses Valve of promoting illegal gambling through its games. AG Letitia James called the loot boxes found in titles like Counter-Strike 2, Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 “addictive, harmful and illegal.” The state seeks to “permanently stop Valve from continuing to promote illegal gambling in its games” and pay relevant fines.

In its defense posted on Thursday, Valve likened its mystery boxes to kids buying packs of physical trading cards. “Players don’t have to open mystery boxes to play Valve games,” the company wrote. “In fact, most of you don’t open any boxes at all and just play the games — because the items in the boxes are purely cosmetic, there is no disadvantage to a player not spending money.”

That last point, while applicable within the game itself, isn’t quite that cut and dry once you zoom out beyond that. As James pointed out, players can trade the cosmetic items they win from loot boxes on Steam’s marketplace or sell them on third-party marketplaces. Rarer ones can sometimes fetch lucrative sums.

Here, too, Valve defended the profitable practice by rolling out the trading card comparison. “We think the transferability of a digital game item is good for consumers — it gives a user the ability to sell or trade an old or unwanted item for something else, in the same way an owner can sell or trade a tangible item like a Pokémon or baseball card,” the company wrote. “NYAG proposes to take away users’ ability to transfer their digital items from Valve games. Transferability is a right we believe should not be taken away, and we refuse to do that.”

Valve is also facing a new class-action lawsuit over its loot boxes.

Some of Valve’s points land a bit more than its righteous defense of a gaming gimmick that, well, isn’t exactly beloved. The company accused the NYAG of proposing that Valve collect additional user information to prevent VPN use. In addition, the state allegedly “demanded that Valve collect more personal data about our users to do additional age verification.” Privacy experts have been sounding the alarm about the recent push for online age verification.

Valve also addressed James’s erroneous and outdated statement that video games encourage real-world violence. “Those extraneous comments are a distraction and a mischaracterization we’ve all heard before,” the company wrote. “Numerous studies throughout the years have concluded there is no link between media (movies, TV, books, comics, music and games) and real world violence. Indeed, many studies highlight the beneficial impact of games to users.”

The company says that, while it may have been cheaper to settle the suit, it deemed the NYAG’s demands user-hostile. “Ultimately, a court will decide whose position — ours or NYAG’s — is correct. In the meantime, we wanted to make sure you were aware of the potential impact to users in New York and elsewhere.”