There CANNOT be access gates to the Imperial City paid DLC

Enodoc

Sharee wrote: »

skillastatb16_ESO wrote: »

I'd be okay with 3 home keeps to get access.

6 is a little too much.

It would make sense for ZOS to eventually implement dynamic changes to the amount of keeps needed for access, tied to the same mechanic that gives the underdog score bonus.

That's a nice idea, having the Underdog bonus reduce the number of required keeps from, say, 6 to 3.

Sharmony

I entirely agree with this post. The benefits of Imperial City are limited at best if you restrict the entry requirements. You surely want PvP to occur in IC and PvE to have a place there to and have gone to great lengths in the new content to make this so. Finally, what is even the use of restricting your player base to the new content they just paid for? "Here's your money's worth..."

byrom101b16_ESO

Excerpts from the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015

Clause 47

Liability that cannot be excluded or restricted.

(1) A term of a contract to supply digital content is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would exclude or restrict the trader's liability arising under any of these provisions—.

(b) section 35 (digital content to be fit for particular purpose),

(2) That also means that a term of a contract to supply digital content is not binding on the consumer to the extent that it would—.

(b) make such a right or remedy or its enforcement subject to a restrictive or onerous condition,


So to put that in layman's terms, if a judge thinks restricting access to paid for 'digital content' is restrictive then it is considered in breach of contract regardless of the clauses of that contract because of the extension to consumer right's this law has created.

Oh and before Sharee repeats the party line on what paid for and discrete content mean, and whether it's even relevant, the statute defines thusly;

(9) “Digital content” means data which are produced and supplied in digital form.

So any form of data supplied from a trader, for money, is within scope.

Ergo, in the UK (albeit not in the USA) a consumer can make a legal complaint to the relevant regulator over being denied access to digital content through means outside of their individual control as this is 'unfair'.

Under Schedule 2 of the Regulations, a statutorily 'unfair' contract term includes those as follows;

3 A term which has the object or effect of making an agreement binding on the consumer in a case where the provision of services by the trader is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader's will alone.

This will apply unless all players individually have the ability to exclude themselves from content gating that is reliant on factors outside of their choice and control.

13 A term which has the object or effect of enabling the trader to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the goods, digital content or services to be provided.

In this one, a contractually 'valid' reason' has to be given as the decision to gate was unilateral. Again, if a complaint is made, a judge gets to decide what is a valid reason, not Zenimax...

... and all of this still applies even if a consumer knows about the restrictions in advance and still clicks 'yes', but subsequently feels that the way in which the digital content is delivered is 'restrictive' and/or invalid.

The UK National Consumer Council has wrestled with the issue of one-sided user license agreements since 2008, and having issued a voluntary code of conduct for suppliers, which surprise, surprise, they ignored... have now helped to ensure this law came into effect.

I have looked at the USA situation and unfortunately citizens there are heavily stitched up by a strong digital services provider lobby having brought about pretty draconian laws preventing any consumer rights to apply.

So bad luck if you live there and don't like the restrictive way in which much of the digital content of the dlc is being delivered.

Enodoc

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Excerpts from the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015[...]

While I don't disagree, isn't the legal status of this already countered by the fact that the "digital content" you are paying for is exactly and only the Crowns? The only way you could claim non-provision of service is if the Crowns don't get added to your account. Once they're there, there is no legal stance on what you obtain with the Crowns, as the real-money exchange has already taken place.

Darlon

Enodoc wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Excerpts from the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015[...]

While I don't disagree, isn't the legal status of this already countered by the fact that the "digital content" you are paying for is exactly and only the Crowns? The only way you could claim non-provision of service is if the Crowns don't get added to your account. Once they're there, there is no legal stance on what you obtain with the Crowns, as the real-money exchange has already taken place.

This. You're buying the ingame currency (crowns), not the DLC-pack

byrom101b16_ESO

Darlon wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Excerpts from the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015[...]

While I don't disagree, isn't the legal status of this already countered by the fact that the "digital content" you are paying for is exactly and only the Crowns? The only way you could claim non-provision of service is if the Crowns don't get added to your account. Once they're there, there is no legal stance on what you obtain with the Crowns, as the real-money exchange has already taken place.

This. You're buying the ingame currency (crowns), not the DLC-pack

You can indeed pay for this digital service (game entertainment) with another digital service (crowns), but this statute defines it as another form of 'good'. In the UK, a commercial transaction is any good (including money) given in exchange for another good and all of it is treated from a legal standpoint as money (or of monetary value), so no, the legal bullet cannot be dodged that way either.

For instance, a ticket-tout or 'scalper' can be prosecuted under consumer protection laws for selling tickets (a token giving access to a limited entertainment service with conditions attached... notice any similarity there?)for things other than money (say a gold watch for instance) as the watch has monetary value.

In any case this erroneous assumptions about what constitutes a purchase on these forums doesn't tackle the subscription access model, also covered in these regulations, which is money for access to a digital service, so....

The UK has a fairly well deserved reputation as the fairest and most exhaustive legal system in the world. That's why so many wealthy people from around the world arrange for legal cases to be heard here.

In the USA, consumer rights are well, far behind in terms of quality and coverage. In fact it's amazing how poor they are when you dig into them. But my experience is with UK law in any case.

On a related anecdote... I was at a LARP event years ago where a few ladies took the event's plastic coins from players in return for trips to an in-character 'brothel' which they had told the organisers was merely a place to relax with female company. When one year they took it further *ahem*, the Police got involved and they were prosecuted for selling sex. The plastic coins were a 'good', and so the laws on prostitution applied in full.

I'd love to have been a fly on that tent wall...

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

byrom101b16_ESO

Thank you for the prompt and concise clarification Brian, it is very much appreciated.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Trolling & Baiting]

Bashev

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

So Cyrodiil will be empty and nobody will play there. AP is useless, Keeps have no meaning....

Sharee

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Under Schedule 2 of the Regulations, a statutorily 'unfair' contract term includes those as follows;

3 A term which has the object or effect of making an agreement binding on the consumer in a case where the provision of services by the trader is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader's will alone.

Trader's will alone. That's the key phrase here.

You access to IC, should it be gated by keep ownership, is not subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader's will alone, as it depends on something that the trader has no control over whatsoever - your performance when competing against other players.

Thus, under the regulation quoted above, IC access gated by keep control does not constitute an unfair contract.

byrom101b16_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Under Schedule 2 of the Regulations, a statutorily 'unfair' contract term includes those as follows;

3 A term which has the object or effect of making an agreement binding on the consumer in a case where the provision of services by the trader is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader's will alone.

Trader's will alone. That's the key phrase here.

You access to IC, should it be gated by keep ownership, is not subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader's will alone, as it depends on something that the trader has no control over whatsoever - your performance when competing against other players.

Thus, under the regulation quoted above, IC access gated by keep control does not constitute an unfair contract.

You are, as usual, mixing up cause and effect.

It was Zenimax's unilateral decision to make the content in question gated based on a collective player-based formula that they designed and which took agency and individual resolution out of the hands of individual players.

In effect, they gave agency to the actions of third parties in a discrete contract they were not party to.

That design decision was unilateral, and leads to the consequence of unwanted and unfair content-gating.

In UK legal terms, that makes them the 'responsible persons'.

In any case, as Brian has posted on the issue now. It is telling that in dropping gating now, but putting the option to play that way voluntarily in future, Zenimax are seeking to avoid any consumer complaint complications whilst giving the players who like the gating model the choice to opt into it.

It's a win-win solution, and fairly elegant actually, my hat's off to them!

I strongly suspect your post crossed his, perhaps we can put this issue to bed, as your relatively unique interpretation of the facts is now entirely moot.

Leandor

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

byrom101b16_ESO

Bashev wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

So Cyrodiil will be empty and nobody will play there. AP is useless, Keeps have no meaning....

I wouldn't be surprised if they incentivised it with modification of the bonus buffs for scrolls and keeps etc, or perhaps a CP xp bouns % whilst in IC.... there are plenty of ways to make the province of Cyrodiil important to the IC war effort, or indeed rewarding in its own right.

Sharmony

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

Yay!

Sharee

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Under Schedule 2 of the Regulations, a statutorily 'unfair' contract term includes those as follows;

3 A term which has the object or effect of making an agreement binding on the consumer in a case where the provision of services by the trader is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader's will alone.

Trader's will alone. That's the key phrase here.

You access to IC, should it be gated by keep ownership, is not subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader's will alone, as it depends on something that the trader has no control over whatsoever - your performance when competing against other players.

Thus, under the regulation quoted above, IC access gated by keep control does not constitute an unfair contract.

It was Zenimax's unilateral decision to make the content in question gated based on a collective player-based formula that they designed.

Yes.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

That design decision was unilateral

Yes.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

and leads to the consequence of unwanted and unfair content-gating.

No. You would first have prove that the consequence is unfair under the law. Which you did not. The opposite, you provided a regulation which specifically mentions the unfairness being tied to a condition whose fulfillment is solely in the hands of the trader.

The condition that needs to be fulfilled before you can enter IC, on the other hand, is completely out of the trader's hands.

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

In UK legal terms, that makes them the 'responsible persons'.

You cannot call someone responsible for a crime unless you first prove their action is a crime in the firstplace. Which, again, you did not.

Sarousse

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

This is a bad decision. The purpose of Cyrodiil is to fight to gain control over the IC. Fighting to keep the IC access would give a real reason to fight for our keeps !!!

MrGrimey

Great decision @ZOS_BrianWheeler this will further discourage faction dominated campaigns

AhPook_Is_Here

You don't buy the content, you buy the opportunity to play in the content's rule-set. MMOs have been this way for ages. When craglorn came out someone bought the game that wasn't VR1, they didn't have access to craglorn till they leveled their character, a non-identical but in-game action required by the rule-set.

You are buying the opportunity to play the rule-set, or you aren't. How could a mmo publisher ever change a rule or any aspect of their game if they were always concerned some fool would sue them for modifying "their" game that they purchased. It is the same concept as character ownership, you don't own anything, you are just leasing the right to enjoy the game and the cost of that lease is now effectively 0, with the option to pay once for additional access to newer features.

byrom101b16_ESO

Sharee,

As much as I would 'love' to spend the next few hours correcting your various mistakes in interpreting UK law, I don't have the time. So this will be my last post explaining things to you... there is a point at which I assume someone in circumstances like this is just being contrary for no logical reason, and we are fast approaching that point.

The reason there are lawyers is because the law is complex, mixing precise language with rather less precise and utilitarian presumption. If it was as easy to grasp as you assume, most people would represent themselves in court and not suffer for it.

For instance, breach of contract law is not a crime as you claim, it's not even a tort...

I never said the case needed to be proved to be brought... I made it clear there were grounds for compliant under the new law, and that it is for a judge to decide what is unfair.

My later use of the word is MY opinion, and I don't claim otherwise, the same is true of 'responsible person', although this very term of reference can be used in a complaint to refer to the accused party BEFORE a verdict is found, so your point is unfounded in any case.

Preyfar

mislucb16_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

This is a bad decision. The purpose of Cyrodiil is to fight to gain control over the IC. Fighting to keep the IC access would give a real reason to fight for our keeps !!!

Right now, if ZOS required there to be homekeeps campaigns like Thornblade would go from a AD Buff Server to an AD Imperial City server. It's near impossible for DC and EP to get a foothold there and keep it for more than a few hours. ZOS knows that if they release DLC that most of the players will never get a chance to enjoy that all those months of coding, grinding, fixing, tweak, hotfixing, patching will have been for waste. And NOBODY is going to buy it. Because why would you buy DLC you can't access?

Right now, the campaigns on PC are a freakin' mess. They're faction dominated, and pretty much it's Azura's or best. And that sucks. I've almost given up PVP because I don't like zergfests, but I also don't like 5:1 odds on a good day trying to make progress on Thorn.

byrom101b16_ESO

Anyway - GREAT decision by Zenimax.

There is much to be celebrated, especially as it is likely to preserve player numbers on the pure PvE'r side.

Sharee

[edit] self-censorship.

wraith808

Leandor wrote: »

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

You have to admit, it was rather amusing watching armchair lawyers spew pages of legalese before a court of judges that didn't even care.

The point of PTS was to test the different options- which is the reason that I thought this particular thread a bit fast on the draw. From the testing of the options, they made a decision. Of course, any time that a change is made, people will claim a 'win'. Conversely, any time a change is not made, people will claim that 'they don't listen'. Rather than seeing, perhaps, that all of it is a part of the process, and the results would have been the same with or without rants- but rather reasoned replies and feedback might find its way into the calculations.

But that's a bit too logical.

Leandor

wraith808 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

You have to admit, it was rather amusing watching armchair lawyers spew pages of legalese before a court of judges that didn't even care.

The point of PTS was to test the different options- which is the reason that I thought this particular thread a bit fast on the draw. From the testing of the options, they made a decision. Of course, any time that a change is made, people will claim a 'win'. Conversely, any time a change is not made, people will claim that 'they don't listen'. Rather than seeing, perhaps, that all of it is a part of the process, and the results would have been the same with or without rants- but rather reasoned replies and feedback might find its way into the calculations.

But that's a bit too logical.

Actually, it destroyed a quite good discussion with a lot of valuable points for the two sides. I still think that a compromise would have achieved a similar result (like my largely unregarded proposal) while maintaining a certain incentive to play Cyrodiil proper.

But alas, the free access option is better than the 6 home keeps option or an even higher requirement, so who am I to complain?

Casdha

Well with this announcment:

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Hey gang!

When Imperial City launches it will be open access to all Alliances in all Campaigns to all those who purchase the DLC or are ESO+ members. After the dust settles we'll be looking at Campaign population and feedback about the new rulesets also going out with the Imperial City update (that apply regardless of getting the DLC or not).

Based on those factors, we may or may not open\convert a Campaign to gated access to Imperial City, but again when Imperial City launches, it will not have Keep Gated access to start.

I think pride might just keep some folks interested in Cyrodiil as folks like me might actually have a chance of getting those last 4 skyshards behind enemy gates. I mean if everyone is in IC how bad would that look on an alliance if I just waltzed in and got them on one of my solo outings to Cyrodiil when their gates were down. Yea I'd brag about it,,, even if it was an easy mark Now come on admit it you competitive PvP folks wouldn't want to let me do that now would ya

Thalmor-Nordmaster

YAAAY open access .. Except for Nords they can wait outside and Pick Cabbage!!!
Thank you Brian !!!!! In celebration Before Launch I will drop some kittens off at The Hunt Valley loaction for all you peeps to enjoy!!

byrom101b16_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

byrom101b16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee,

As much as I would 'love' to spend the next few hours correcting your various mistakes in interpreting UK law, I don't have the time. So this will be my last post explaining things to you... there is a point at which I assume someone in circumstances like this is just being contrary for no logical reason, and we are fast approaching that point.

The reason there are lawyers is because the law is complex, mixing precise language with rather less precise and utilitarian presumption. If it was as easy to grasp as you assume, most people would represent themselves in court and not suffer for it.

For instance, breach of contract law is not a crime as you claim, it's not even a tort...

I never said the case needed to be proved to be brought... I made it clear there were grounds for compliant under the new law, and that it is for a judge to decide what is unfair.

My later use of the word is MY opinion, and I don't claim otherwise, the same is true of 'responsible person', although this very term of reference can be used in a complaint to refer to the accused party BEFORE a verdict is found, so your point is unfounded in any case.

For all that high-horse talk, you completely dodged the fact that the very regulation you quoted classifies IC access gated by keep control (which is independent of the trader's will) as not unfair.

No... read it again...

Sharee wrote: »

You are all hot air and mirrors, trying to use copy/paste of legislation you do not understand, with an additional dose of legal-babble to confuse your readers into thinking you know what you are talking about.

You know, the way you try to lable me with the very things you yourself are guilty of reminds me of Projection. (By all means Google it...). To add to your already generous use of assumption, you confidently claim that I don't understand the law, with no evidential basis for your assumption whatsoever, except that you think you understand it, despite thinking contract breach is a criminal offence, a mistake a fresher's week legal student wouldn't make. You also refer to it as babble... the irony here being that babble is a term someone uses when they don't understand...

Sharee wrote: »

Just my personal opinion. Have a nice day.

Actually I am having a nice day, thanks - free entertainment!

byrom101b16_ESO

wraith808 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

You have to admit, it was rather amusing watching armchair lawyers spew pages of legalese before a court of judges that didn't even care.

The point of PTS was to test the different options- which is the reason that I thought this particular thread a bit fast on the draw. From the testing of the options, they made a decision. Of course, any time that a change is made, people will claim a 'win'. Conversely, any time a change is not made, people will claim that 'they don't listen'. Rather than seeing, perhaps, that all of it is a part of the process, and the results would have been the same with or without rants- but rather reasoned replies and feedback might find its way into the calculations.

But that's a bit too logical.

Quite apart from your first line assumption and your last line dismissal, you have a semi-fair point.

This being a PTS forum in no way invalidates anything said about consumer rights of course, and you'll not find a single reference to a 'win' from either side of the debate actually.

strawman...

As for being "fast on the draw" - with the kind of lag in player complaint response time Zenimax and other MMO companies have been known to have, getting your complaint in fast enough simply isn't possible is it? lol

Hiero_Glyph

I think open access is a good idea to see how things turn out. That being said, I would personally love to see restricted access added to the 30-day campaigns once ZoS manages to address the population imbalances. The conditions for restricting access could evolve over time but starting with ownership of 4 keeps (any keeps) is probably ideal as this does not conflict with having an Emperor.

As I noted previously, my main gripe with requiring control of 6 home keeps is that it directly conflicts with having an Emperor. I think ZoS needs to address the population imbalances first and foremost and then find a way to make Emperor important again without taking away from IC access, unless the goal is to only have an Emperor when only one alliance has IC access (but that means Emperors will only exist on buff servers).

byrom101b16_ESO

Leandor wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

I love how it is assumed that the legal babble made them make this decision...

You have to admit, it was rather amusing watching armchair lawyers spew pages of legalese before a court of judges that didn't even care.

The point of PTS was to test the different options- which is the reason that I thought this particular thread a bit fast on the draw. From the testing of the options, they made a decision. Of course, any time that a change is made, people will claim a 'win'. Conversely, any time a change is not made, people will claim that 'they don't listen'. Rather than seeing, perhaps, that all of it is a part of the process, and the results would have been the same with or without rants- but rather reasoned replies and feedback might find its way into the calculations.

But that's a bit too logical.

Actually, it destroyed a quite good discussion with a lot of valuable points for the two sides. I still think that a compromise would have achieved a similar result (like my largely unregarded proposal) while maintaining a certain incentive to play Cyrodiil proper.

But alas, the free access option is better than the 6 home keeps option or an even higher requirement, so who am I to complain?

It didn't destroy anything Leander - that's hyperbole.

As for incentivising Cyrodiil main PvP - I am sure there will be something added now the forced participation element has been removed. I'd certainly like to see incentives, and your linked post is, in the main, quite a good one.