Speculation Is Banned?

Avariprivateer

Dr_Con wrote: »

Avariprivateer wrote: »

Dr_Con wrote: »

i think people complaining about something not being added was responsible for this change. there's like 20 posts of people saying they refuse to spend money on crates because a certain datamined mount wasn't being added

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/discussion/617639/official-discussion-thread-for-new-wraithtide-crown-crates/p1

not naming and shaming, but that topic is a prime example that displays specific examples of comments that ZOS specifically no longer allows. It may have an impact on the bottom line to allow discussion of it on their official forums. Reddit is still an option to discuss these sorts of things, as is player discords. They just don't want people discussing things on their forums.

edit 2:
as per Kevin's post here, this specific instance wasn't responsible for the change (nor does any specific example seem to be it), but it is an example of a situation they want to avoid.

From Tommy_the_Gun
I can understand not allowing data mining being posted on forums, as it may be affecting purchase decisions. Even I remember at some point comparing current stuff in the crown store to the ones that were data minded and thinking to not to buy for example a mount, just because I liked more the one that was data-mined. But even if it will be prohibited to post data mine on forums - I will still look it up elsewhere. It is basically: tilting at windmills. People will just post links on other websites.

If the purpose or purpose in part of this measure is supress information that might disuade players from purchasing Crown Crates, or any other product, that could very well be an FTC violation.
@ZOS_Kevin You might want to hold off on fully implementing this new rule, this could potentially be a serious legal liability for ZOS.

...
But it's very much a stretch to say that datamined things that don't get added to crown store crates are an FTC violation. These are not made available in the files to tease people into thinking it'll be added. At the most, you can call it insider information that was inaccurate, but even that would be so far from the truth it might as well be on the moon.

I'm not suggesting that the datamines constitute a potential FTC violation but rather any attempt to manipulate what information makes it to the consumer. Now, if someone hacked ZOS, or broke in and ripped a server out like a downtown ATM that would be perfectly within their right to remove. But if someone is exited about an upcoming Crate season, completely unaware otherwise and is planning to purchase a few large Crown, and then someone informs them that the next season will be Sheogorath themed and the first person, disliking anything do do with Sheogorath, then might decide to hold off on any purchase until a later date, or when something more appealing appears in the looking glass. The problem is that removing such information could be construed as a form of consumer manipulation. For a non-crate aimed example, ZOS might not want information getting out about next year's Chapter, before they start teasing it in December and officially revealing it in January. That's understandable from a cerain point of view. However if a bunch of players start speculating that they might soon be getting their preferred year long adventure and data arrives to inform them otherwise, that the new Chapter is, for instance, some barren Daedric realm that they have no interest in, that could disuade hype for the broader playerbase, which ultimately could have a butterfly effect on revenue. Another example would be datamines for new Housing. Some people prefer subjectively prettier settings, as such, bleak landscapes or Daedric Temples of Doom might set a few whales free, back to the sea.

Normally I wouldn't object to moderation as the right of the webpage owner, anything from abusive or vulgar language or spam to something as arbitrary a ban against mentioning the color pink, speaking a cetain language or using Roman numerals. Where this potentially diverges from normal editorial rights, is that a Business is not necessary always allowed to supress particular data about itself.

Destai

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Destai wrote: »

Just some additional thoughts here, @ZOS_Kevin:

So when these leaks happen, sure you can delete it, but why not address the leaks head-on? If something's not going to be a final product, maybe just say that. Create an official thread - "we saw x leak on y social media, here's the truth" kind of thing. It's really in your best interest as a company to be forthcoming - especially in the face of players' excitement. We only want to give you money.

I know I won't change your company's policies but ZOS has to recognize by now that deleting things isn't helping you guys. Things go on Reddit and other social media, and spread like wildfire, and having some official framing around it will ultimately help you. The whole "silence and suppression" thing isn't doing you guys any favors. And one more deletion policy is just going to reinforce some of the negative opinions people have of ZOS. That word does get around. Again, you guys do what you must, just a different perspective.

Curious what your thoughts are.

For us, while we know that won't stop others posting this kind of content elsewhere, we would rather not have it also on our official channels before we can say anything.

We'll also note that it isn't as simple as dealing with it head on. Believe me, we wish it was. Depending on the content, there are many teams involved and plans for releasing/announcing future content that happens months in advance. All of that hard work can't just be shifted and has to stick to a timeline at that point. Having unreleased or datamined content present on the forum undercuts our ability to manage player expectation and discourse around our content. When we share our announcements we should be able to do so on our terms and that should be the only source of confirmation. We shouldn't have to contend with misinformation or confusion on our platform around our content.

Oh for sure, totally understand there's myriad moving pieces - especially when it comes to having a cohesive release narrative. That's your product, so understandable you'd want to control how it gets released. Thanks for the insight.

Avariprivateer

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@Avariprivateer I'm not going to touch the Crown Store comment as that isn't related to the core of what is being discussed here. Also, that's beyond my paygrade. I moderate the forum, not run monetization efforts.

The bottom line is this for the forum policy change, there is no violation on our end here as the content we are asking users to no longer post isn't even official content yet. Every previous example you've given is for a product that has been released and in the hands of users. We are asking users to no longer post datamined content (which is not officially announced and unavailable to the public) and unofficial content rumors (content that may or may not even be real. And if it is, that content is not announced and unavailable to the public). We are not going around and asking other sites to not post that content.

We'll state this once more, nowhere did we note this was for the sake of monetization. Even in the example that a crown crate was brought up, we noted monetization had nothing to do with the change, but rather the example of player confusion around a datamine is something we would like to avoid. We are looking to avoid player confusion and protect the content we are actively working on.

Thanks for the reply! Again, please pardon my forewardness. It would be interesting to actually have an open Q&A with those otherwise unreachable office, whence the policies come, I can imagine playing go between can be a pain in the neck.

Remathilis

I'm not going to lie, this will affect my interest in crown store purchases.

I looked forward every PTS cycle to the crown store leaks showcasing what MIGHT be coming in the near future. I get that its not a guarantee, but seeing a skin, mount, or costume I wanted gave me a chance to squirrel away crowns, seals, or gems in the hope we'd see it in the coming months. I'm not a whale; I don't have money to drop on a FOMO sale, even when its announced a week or month ahead of time. It was nice to have heads up on things so I could decide if I wanted to sale my gems or spend them on something now.

I get why you don't want people bothering you for Veya hair or wraith-horses for years on end, but I think this will end up hurting hype as much as it will help.

ZOS_Kevin

No worries, we understand this is quite the shift. But we do want to reiterate, this isn't some kind of gotcha type thing. We believe this is the best course for the health of information on the forum.

Personally, I would rather players get upset with me because they didn't like what we are offering for this months crown crate, rather than upset about a datamined asset that could have appeared but didn't. At least there is something tangible for me to do in that instance.

RupzSkooma

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

No worries, we understand this is quite the shift. But we do want to reiterate, this isn't some kind of gotcha type thing. We believe this is the best course for the health of information on the forum.

Personally, I would rather players get upset with me because they didn't like what we are offering for this months crown crate, rather than upset about a datamined asset that could have appeared but didn't. At least there is something tangible for me to do in that instance.

I love how upfront you are and genuine.
I know your work is so hard just managing these seems tough.
Can there not be a speculation section?
Like real speculation and not leaks.
I don’t play this game but I love when people speculate about future stuffs and make me excited to return someday.
Is lore speculation also banned ?

ZOS_Kevin

@RupzSkooma lore speculation and general speculation is not banned. As stated in our initial post, players are still free to talk about their hopes, wants, and guesses about future content. But as you noted with the line, "Like real speculation and not leaks" most of the time, it becomes pretty apparent very quickly when speculation shifts into a purposefully talking about unofficial unannounced future content.

And we thought about a speculation section, but most players guess and try to predict various content about various things we already have sections for. And the remainder would probably fall into the general section anyway.

WildRaptorX

alternatelder wrote: »

You're missing one of the main points of why they aren't allowing it. Not everything in datamines gets released, and when it doesn't, people get mad. So much for paying attention...

You’re missing my point. It’s not about everything being released. The majority has been or will be. Whether it takes months or years - the white lion as example (2016 and released in 2022). It’s just up to ZOS when they want to sell. Datamines create hype through visuals, discussions and speculation.

Even if something gets scrapped, let’s be honest, there’s likely to be a reskin, rework or something closely similar to be released.

I’m curious to know what is supposedly 100% not going to be released. If so, have ZOS 100% not made an alternative?

Dataminers are also very clear when clarifying that datamines may not be finished products or get released. It’s only a minor, bratty part of the community that throws their toys out of the pram and again, I’d like to know which item is being referred too.

I think it’s obvious ZOS is making this change purely because High Isle and TOT were datamined before announcement and the public hated on it. Which is not good for promotion.

However, the public weren’t wrong. Datamines of Greymoor and Elsweyr, in particular, we’re huge natural promotions for ZOS and the game.

At least with datamine discussions on the forums, Zos can put out any fires of misinformation

Destai

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

No worries, we understand this is quite the shift. But we do want to reiterate, this isn't some kind of gotcha type thing. We believe this is the best course for the health of information on the forum.

Personally, I would rather players get upset with me because they didn't like what we are offering for this months crown crate, rather than upset about a datamined asset that could have appeared but didn't. At least there is something tangible for me to do in that instance.

I really appreciate that you’re being real with us here. I hope this policy works out well for you guys, looking forward to seeing surprises in announcements again.

morrowjen

Katheriah wrote: »

The datamined content will just move somewhere else.

Yep and they will lose what control they have over the narrative while isolating themselves from the community which in turn leads the community to become more fragmented than it already is. This feels like the beginning of an extremely hostile relationship and that is depressing to see.

JoeCapricorn

So essentially the gist of what I am gathering is (and I'm making all of this up to be a theoretical)...

say a mount is datamined that has flaming eyes, flaming wings, can fly and seats up to four players and/or companions. It's also a giant grasshopper and is somehow both Dwemer and Ayleid at the same time. Finally, the sound effects are entirely from Monty Python.

This datamined mount then is released as something with one less leg, can only seat three players or companions, and it now looks almost identical to a banana.

people would be like, "BUT GIVE US THE FLAMING DWAYLEID GRASSHOPPER BUS"

---- I suppose that wouldn't be healthy?

But how come such things appear in the live game files in the first place? Are you trying to avoid spoilers for the next chapter from appearing in a speculation thread if such information was gathered from datamines?

I know that before High Isle was announced, people were referencing an acronym of HI/SYL and were trying to puzzle that one out. I admit, before it was announced, I was almost sure that referred to some unknown region of Hammerfell. Definitely didn't expect an archipelago. Come to think of it, I didn't expect it to be about Bretons either. Or to have really adorable deer people with cute faces called fauns that have really sharp claws and are vicious and stuff. But now with this release, it gives me hope that something further exploring the Wood Elves might be down the road, in spite of 90% of Valenwood being in the game (that 10% being Falinesti... it's out there somewhere!!).

LittlePinkDot

Everybody go to the ESO Reddit forum instead.

Aislinna

JoeCapricorn wrote: »

But how come such things appear in the live game files in the first place? Are you trying to avoid spoilers for the next chapter from appearing in a speculation thread if such information was gathered from datamines?

The data miniing happens when PTS games files are released, not the live version.

Amottica

Avariprivateer wrote: »

Dr_Con wrote: »

Avariprivateer wrote: »

Dr_Con wrote: »

i think people complaining about something not being added was responsible for this change. there's like 20 posts of people saying they refuse to spend money on crates because a certain datamined mount wasn't being added

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-gb/discussion/617639/official-discussion-thread-for-new-wraithtide-crown-crates/p1

not naming and shaming, but that topic is a prime example that displays specific examples of comments that ZOS specifically no longer allows. It may have an impact on the bottom line to allow discussion of it on their official forums. Reddit is still an option to discuss these sorts of things, as is player discords. They just don't want people discussing things on their forums.

edit 2:
as per Kevin's post here, this specific instance wasn't responsible for the change (nor does any specific example seem to be it), but it is an example of a situation they want to avoid.

From Tommy_the_Gun
I can understand not allowing data mining being posted on forums, as it may be affecting purchase decisions. Even I remember at some point comparing current stuff in the crown store to the ones that were data minded and thinking to not to buy for example a mount, just because I liked more the one that was data-mined. But even if it will be prohibited to post data mine on forums - I will still look it up elsewhere. It is basically: tilting at windmills. People will just post links on other websites.

If the purpose or purpose in part of this measure is supress information that might disuade players from purchasing Crown Crates, or any other product, that could very well be an FTC violation.
@ZOS_Kevin You might want to hold off on fully implementing this new rule, this could potentially be a serious legal liability for ZOS.

...
But it's very much a stretch to say that datamined things that don't get added to crown store crates are an FTC violation. These are not made available in the files to tease people into thinking it'll be added. At the most, you can call it insider information that was inaccurate, but even that would be so far from the truth it might as well be on the moon.

I'm not suggesting that the datamines constitute a potential FTC violation but rather any attempt to manipulate what information makes it to the consumer. Now, if someone hacked ZOS, or broke in and ripped a server out like a downtown ATM that would be perfectly within their right to remove. But if someone is exited about an upcoming Crate season, completely unaware otherwise and is planning to purchase a few large Crown, and then someone informs them that the next season will be Sheogorath themed and the first person, disliking anything do do with Sheogorath, then might decide to hold off on any purchase until a later date, or when something more appealing appears in the looking glass. The problem is that removing such information could be construed as a form of consumer manipulation. For a non-crate aimed example, ZOS might not want information getting out about next year's Chapter, before they start teasing it in December and officially revealing it in January. That's understandable from a cerain point of view. However if a bunch of players start speculating that they might soon be getting their preferred year long adventure and data arrives to inform them otherwise, that the new Chapter is, for instance, some barren Daedric realm that they have no interest in, that could disuade hype for the broader playerbase, which ultimately could have a butterfly effect on revenue. Another example would be datamines for new Housing. Some people prefer subjectively prettier settings, as such, bleak landscapes or Daedric Temples of Doom might set a few whales free, back to the sea.

Normally I wouldn't object to moderation as the right of the webpage owner, anything from abusive or vulgar language or spam to something as arbitrary a ban against mentioning the color pink, speaking a cetain language or using Roman numerals. Where this potentially diverges from normal editorial rights, is that a Business is not necessary always allowed to supress particular data about itself.

Speculation vs making comments by citing unofficial sources such as datamining are very different. If anything this new moderation would be to help ensure that misleading information is removed from the forums. Hence the FTC and other regulatory groups would not object to this.

FlopsyPrince

EmEm_Oh wrote: »

I would think you'll be fine. Because that's your opinion.

But posting content from datamining or getting your info from websites that say they got it from so-and-so...won't fly on the forums.

Just posting your opinion does not protect you from problems with a post.

Kingsindarkness wrote: »

dragonlord500 wrote: »

Zos may end up in conflict with US law if they keep this up...

Private company Private Forums...they can do as they please.

That is likely true (IANAL), but it is a fairly bad practice to muzzle customers.

FlopsyPrince

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Lastly, as mentioned before, this is also to protect our work. Many of us work on projects for months and years. To have their work spoiled by someone on the internet is disheartening enough. We will not encourage that on our forum.

It does suck Kevin, but welcome to the tech world. This has happened in all areas of tech for its existence. People do discuss things ahead of time.

Apple tried to clamp severely down on it for a while and it kinda, sorta worked under Jobs, but not for the long run.

I don't care what policy you have though, I am just noting that moves like this send a bad message and don't really stop the problem.

FlopsyPrince

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

No worries, we understand this is quite the shift. But we do want to reiterate, this isn't some kind of gotcha type thing. We believe this is the best course for the health of information on the forum.

Personally, I would rather players get upset with me because they didn't like what we are offering for this months crown crate, rather than upset about a datamined asset that could have appeared but didn't. At least there is something tangible for me to do in that instance.

Some of the actions here led to me canceling my ESO+ a few months back. It runs through February (I think), but it does seem a bit gotcha at times.

I hope this doesn't violate other unclear policies since I am not discussing any specific actions, even though I would really like to do so.

wolfie1.0.

ZOS_Kevin,

Thank you for your response to my post and questions. Also thank you for taking the time (I am sure you are busy) to respond to as many of us as you have. It's appreciated, and you make some really valid and thought out points.

Also thanks for pointing out that the context on this is going to to matter, because honestly it will and why I wanted to ask. Again thank you.

LikiLoki

Assumptions and guesses about new future content can create inflated expectations among players and, as a result, a drop in sales and a decrease in profits. This is a logical step on the part of ZOS.
But we also understand that reducing the amount of freedom on the forum will make it poorer.

SammyKhajit

A sad and depressing outcome. Especially for the ESO customers.

Mayrael

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

No worries, we understand this is quite the shift. But we do want to reiterate, this isn't some kind of gotcha type thing. We believe this is the best course for the health of information on the forum.

Personally, I would rather players get upset with me because they didn't like what we are offering for this months crown crate, rather than upset about a datamined asset that could have appeared but didn't. At least there is something tangible for me to do in that instance.

...and that, to me, looks like the real reason for this change. If we know months in advance what will be in the crown crates, we will save our seals of endeavor to buy what we like. If we have no idea what's coming, we're more likely to spend it now (because next season's chests may be worse) and then buy the crates with the money. Of course datamine will still be available however, in a way it will limit the number of people who will have knowledge of the future content of crown crates.

zaria

Remathilis wrote: »

I'm not going to lie, this will affect my interest in crown store purchases.

I looked forward every PTS cycle to the crown store leaks showcasing what MIGHT be coming in the near future. I get that its not a guarantee, but seeing a skin, mount, or costume I wanted gave me a chance to squirrel away crowns, seals, or gems in the hope we'd see it in the coming months. I'm not a whale; I don't have money to drop on a FOMO sale, even when its announced a week or month ahead of time. It was nice to have heads up on things so I could decide if I wanted to sale my gems or spend them on something now.

I get why you don't want people bothering you for Veya hair or wraith-horses for years on end, but I think this will end up hurting hype as much as it will help.

Note that stuff shown on PTS might not come to release, two character mounts was the latest example, but we also have the Khajiit tail turfs we could use during Morrowind pts but never released even if showed up from time to time.

Here is an Khajiit on the Solitude dock with one.

emilyhyoyeon

I will say, I was one of the people who was disappointed there was no wraithtide horse. I can only speak for myself here (but I'd be surprised if this didn't apply to others as well), even if the horse didn't appear in the datamine, and even if I never saw a datamine at all, I'd still have been super confused and disappointed when not seeing the horse in the crates after they released.

FWIW pulling the horse for bug reasons or whatever is understandable. But I just want to make it clear that the issue isn't ''horse was in datamine and didn't show up,'' but rather ''a super standard mount type suddenly disappears from a crate season with no mount alternative type to replace it to boot'' -- at least this was the issue for me, and probably most of everyone else who was sad about this as well.

Also I'm not saying this to argue that the no datamine policy is dumb, I think it makes sense to not allow them on the official forums.

umagon

The way I see it the files shouldn’t be so easily extractable, and zos shouldn’t put anything in to pts or the live game files they are not ready for players to know about. Also, zos needs to look into making it so they can stream in content offered in the crown store after purchase, instead of needing to push a whole patch beforehand to the client to add it in. That way no one would know what is in containers like crown crates until day of release.

Zorrin

emilyhyoyeon wrote: »

I will say, I was one of the people who was disappointed there was no wraithtide horse. I can only speak for myself here (but I'd be surprised if this didn't apply to others as well), even if the horse didn't appear in the datamine, and even if I never saw a datamine at all, I'd still have been super confused and disappointed when not seeing the horse in the crates after they released.

This. We have 23 other seasons of crates and every single one of them has an apex horse and at least 5 mounts. I think breaking such a long set precedent in what we have come to expect is what led to confusion (and disappointment upon confirmation) as to why this was not the case for Wraithtide.

kind_hero

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@Avariprivateer I'm not going to touch the Crown Store comment as that isn't related to the core of what is being discussed here. Also, that's beyond my paygrade. I moderate the forum, not run monetization efforts.

The bottom line is this for the forum policy change, there is no violation on our end here as the content we are asking users to no longer post isn't even official content yet. Every previous example you've given is for a product that has been released and in the hands of users. We are asking users to no longer post datamined content (which is not officially announced and unavailable to the public) and unofficial content rumors (content that may or may not even be real. And if it is, that content is not announced and unavailable to the public). We are not going around and asking other sites to not post that content.

We'll state this once more, nowhere did we note this was for the sake of monetization. Even in the example that a crown crate was brought up, we noted monetization had nothing to do with the change, but rather the example of player confusion around a datamine is something we would like to avoid. We are looking to avoid player confusion and protect the content we are actively working on.

"and unofficial content rumors (content that may or may not even be real. And if it is, that content is not announced and unavailable to the public)"

I am not sure I understand this. So, people can't talk anymore on the forums about which chapter or DLC might come next?

From my point of view it is hard to define a content rumor. Sometimes we believe we get hints from the game like where we'll go next, or people just speculate, like next it could be Hammerfell or Akavir.

IMO you should just learn to adapt. Because the audience of the twitch/youtube/reddit/discord channels is much larger than your forum, and there you have little means to control what is posted out there. I tend to go to other sources because your company doesn't communicate well to its player base regarding hot topics, and even fails to show that it acknowledges some of the issues stressed by the community. Some content creators spend a lot of time digging and trying to figure out changes or where the game is going (without datamining).
So all that being said, I hope the feedback from this thread will be useful to you in some way that will change things for the better.

zaria

umagon wrote: »

The way I see it the files shouldn’t be so easily extractable, and zos shouldn’t put anything in to pts or the live game files they are not ready for players to know about. Also, zos needs to look into making it so they can stream in content offered in the crown store after purchase, instead of needing to push a whole patch beforehand to the client to add it in. That way no one would know what is in containers like crown crates until day of release.

Its an library file who the game pick content from, then you spawn in an new zone the game need to load models and textures of things you will see including other players with their outfits and pets.
This has to be fast and follow some standards so part can be piped directly to the graphics card.

JoeCapricorn

I heard Update 42 is already datamined.

It will contain the answer to life, the Universe and everything.

... it also seems to line up with the Chapter release of 2024. So... there is that...

Maddoghalo1

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

No worries, we understand this is quite the shift. But we do want to reiterate, this isn't some kind of gotcha type thing. We believe this is the best course for the health of information on the forum.

Personally, I would rather players get upset with me because they didn't like what we are offering for this months crown crate, rather than upset about a datamined asset that could have appeared but didn't. At least there is something tangible for me to do in that instance.

[snip] I use to be able to have really good dialogue on these forums in the past, now I literally have to walk on broken glass.

[edited for discussing disciplinary actions]

wilykcat

This thread is from last year.