Maintenance for the week of December 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
What do you think of Crown Store Random boxes/Lottery box?
-
flburnsSoul ShrivenNo, don't ever add these into the game.Well, I am already emotionally detaching from ESO - not really in the mood to even login today. It somewhat feels like when you realize that you are living with the wrong partner, you do not want to believe it at first, but you feel it more and more - and it hurts more to stay than to eventually go. You don't want to, but you have to, for your own sake - and I have such a feeling currently and this is not making me happy.
That's how I'm feeling.
Same. Been here since Beta. Left SWTOR for the same reasons, cosmetics behind a RNG paywall...I RP and I suddenly could not get ANYTHING good cosmetic ingame, it was all for-pay boxes. MINUTE that ZOS guy said on video 'And super special mounts in the boxes' I lost interest in ESO. Been there, done that, not watching a game go down the Korean Grinder path again.7 -
JimT722✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, don't ever add these into the game.I just spent some time with it on the PTS. This has to be the worst gambling system in an MMO to date. The Cat Man even taunts you while you throw away your money.
I can't believe they tabled spell crafting for garbage like this. I think I'm beginning to hate this game and I dealt with SWTOR without hating it.
They are all bad even SWTOR. At least in SWTOR you could buy it from others with credits earned in game. The cat man Pacrooti is kinda ironic because it is taunting you to keep gambling with your real money even though Pete Hines insists they have a "Do no harm" policy. This whole thing is kinda disturbing in a way.10 -
TheValkyn✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, don't ever add these into the game.I just spent some time with it on the PTS. This has to be the worst gambling system in an MMO to date. The Cat Man even taunts you while you throw away your money.
I can't believe they tabled spell crafting for garbage like this. I think I'm beginning to hate this game and I dealt with SWTOR without hating it.
They are all bad even SWTOR. At least in SWTOR you could buy it from others with credits earned in game. The cat man Pacrooti is kinda ironic because it is taunting you to keep gambling with your real money even though Pete Hines insists they have a "Do no harm" policy. This whole thing is kinda disturbing in a way.
Pete Hines is a liar if that's what he's stated in the past.9 -
Dayth✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.Frankly I'm even more disheartened seeing the results from the public test server, you get so much garbage for the tiniest chance of something good. I'm really getting the feeling that this is the future for all the good cosmetics, making them RNG. Like an atronach horse? Better cough five times more money than a usual special mount for it and still probably not get it.
I really can't say how much this frustrates me yet I know regardless of the polls and what people say, it'll be added anyway.
When it comes to these gambling crates most people will avoid them, some will buy the odd one but then a minority will just buy a ridiculous amount and that's what they're banking on.
They'll tell themselves "It's their money they can do what they want with it, it is optional after all" and they're "only cosmetic" but the appearance in games is important to some people and making them gamble is a rather serious problem, it affects people psychologically.
Maybe I'm just being melodramatic or whatever. If you want my opinion I'd say just add the cosmetics in for a limited time at a slightly higher price like what has always been done.11 -
Holycannoli✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I just spent some time with it on the PTS. This has to be the worst gambling system in an MMO to date. The Cat Man even taunts you while you throw away your money.
I can't believe they tabled spell crafting for garbage like this. I think I'm beginning to hate this game and I dealt with SWTOR without hating it.
It's been about three weeks since I've logged in and played. I think I logged in a total of four times these past three weeks but not to play, just to level stamina on a horse for a single character. ZOS has succeeded in sapping every bit of desire in me to play this game, and that was before all these other crate items were announced.5 -
Cousin_Idirfa✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.From the players previewing the crown crates on the PTS, it looks like going forward that the majority (if not all) the cosmetic collectibles are going into the gambling crates. They've been spinning this system as a way for players to get another chance at the older limited-time collectibles while still being fair to those who bought them when they were originally on the crown store. Yes, the crown crates do this, but the old limited-time collectibles seem to be only a small part of the system. So I guess it was only a small part of the truth.5 -
kensan62_ESO✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.I dont understand why we cant get clarification from anyone at Zos as to what is going to be exclusive to crown crates and what will be sold in the crown store. i like buying my mounts outright. im not interested in a chance only type of transaction. ill just go back to swtor if i wanna waste money on chance. Zos had something very unique with their store and now they are pissing it away with greed. what is sad further more is they know we are upset about it but going full steam ahead no matter how we feel about it. shame on u Zos.2 -
BruceLeeroy91✭✭✭This games RNG is absolute trash, to think now they are going to shove it down players throats for cash is sad. However as long as it is cosmetic i will stick to my limited time mounts and crafted gear. I reiterate RNG in this game is a joke, zos enjoys our cries of pain.1
-
Eiagra✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.In case it hasn't been brought up, the official thread for feedback on PTS is here:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/292545/official-discussion-thread-for-crown-crates
Another place to speak. Whether one is heard, well... that remains to be seen.██████ █████████ ███████ In verity.0 -
jedtb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsjedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?0 -
Recremen✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster5 -
Thornen✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.I think they suck, do I think Zos will make any changes to them...no.4 -
jedtb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsjedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »jedtb16_ESO wrote: »You need 40000 crowns to buy one atronach mount
This is incorrect. 40000 crowns does not guarantee an atronach mount. You may never get one, no matter how much you spend. You certainly are unlikely to get the one you want, especially if the one you want is "all of them". It's a shame, so many people would love to buy these outright for a set price, they're losing all that potential revenue just for the risk that they might get more from people gambling.
and you may get one with 1 purchase of 400 crowns...
Sure, but how many players are going to get that? Pointing out that you could get really lucky is useless because that's not something you can make an informed decision on. You've been in this thread for weeks, you should by know understand that there's an important difference between a single, cherry-picked player experience, the average experience, and the worst-case-scenario experience. When some aspect of the game has a worst-case-scenario experience of "never getting what you are investing time/money/etc into", there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. There is something fundamentally exploitative about it. People should get goods and services that they spend money on, so unless you don't care about the gambling box-exclusive items and are just spending money for the thrill of gambling, then you are not having a fair customer experience. That is the intrinsic problem with these gambling boxes.
yes, yes and pointing out that they may get nothing is just as redundant. the cherry picking goes both ways you know?
what staggers me about this thread is the idea, expressed with varying degrees of hysteria, is the notion that the people who are not against it are stupid and the people who are against it are, somehow, smart.
No, that's the point you are missing. It is not pointless to point out the worst-case scenario. This is because the worst-case scenario is a nonobvious mathematical consequence of the system. Many people literally do not know that there is a chance you'll never get anything, whereas the chance that you'll get something on the first try is not only apparent, but the main selling feature.
And I would never imply that people are stupid just because they support gambling. I would imply that they lack the technical know-how to see why it's bad, or I would imply that they lack any kind of a moral compass, or I would imply that they don't understand economic principles related to risk, price-setting, etc. If you aren't upset about the gambling boxes, you are necessarily in one of those three groups.
nonsense.
my point was that highlighting any of the possible scenarios is equally redundant. you can cherry pick in both directions.
and it is not about supporting gambling.
it is about not thinking that you can decide what other people do..
This is what I'm talking about, there is a qualitative difference between the two and your argument is "nuh uh". I'll try to explain it better. If people don't know that there is a chance you'll never get an item, then telling them adds value. If people don't know that you can get the item they want on the first try, then telling them adds value. Absolutely everyone already knows that they might get the item they want on the first try, which is why I said your original statement was useless. Conversely, many people literally don't know the mathematics and don't understand that they might not ever get the thing they want. That is why pointing out one thing is helpful and the other is useless.
Further, you cannot make an informed decision about risk based on the best-case scenario where you succeed immediately. That's not how the math works. You need to know that there is a risk of never getting something, or what the maximum possible purchase is before you are guaranteed to get something. All of those are mathematically distinct scenarios. If you do not understand why, then ask, but just denying the facts is useless.
And nobody here is telling people what they can and can't do with their money. We're advocating against the implementation of a feature we don't want. That's a normal part of the feedback process. There is nothing wrong with what we are doing by saying that we don't want this system in place.
more nonsense. people are well aware of the situation - the bit i put in bold is the bit where you are saying that folk who aren't against the idea are stupid.... you really think that people can't work out the chances for themselves?
really?
Yes, as it turns out most people have not studied a lick of probability in their entire lives. This isn't a stupid thing, it's a specialized form of math and it's unreasonable to expect that everyone knows it. I don't know if it's different in your country or if you just have no ability for perspective-taking, but it is not nonsense to state that people really don't understand the math. Do you know how to set up an equation to calculate the probability of receiving an item after a certain number of tries? Do you know what a distribution for that probability would look like? Where the quartiles land? Can you describe the percent of people, on average, who will still not receive the item they want after a certain number of runs? This isn't some rudimentary algebra that everyone kind of remembers from high school, it is a little more advanced.
if you really think that everyone knows the nature of probability, then why are there still people claiming that you need to open a certain number of gambling boxes to get a mount? A cursory understanding of probability should persuade them against making such statements, yet here we are. Now can you stop assuming I have some superiority complex and just accept that not everyone knows a branch of mathematics that isn't taught in the standard compulsory curriculum? If you can admit that, then can you see how it is thus impossible to make informed decisions about the price of the digital goods? Or do we really have to go around this carousel some more?
i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
the maths (for anyone with a reasonable standard of education) is trivial. it is also a red-herring. which you would understand if you could tell the difference between statistical probability and reality. the map is not the territory.1 -
Enodoc✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmetics
As soon as I realised it was him, I was like, "This certainly won't go down well..."
Recremen his very first message to you implies he was taken advantage of by some crooked gambling dealers. UGH.
Trying to sugarcoat the atrocious new system that most MMO players despise by using a beloved character?GhostwalkerLD wrote: »
It's weird because he just sounds incredibly skeevy. When he was stealing other peoples' furniture and killing spriggans he was funny. When he's swindling me with a gambling game it's just gross.
So it's pretty terrible it's him they chose to do this.This one is forwarding crafting materials to you. Pacrooti looks forward to a long and rewarding relationship with his honored friend, especially since the crooked dealers at the gambling caravan tricked him out of his hard-earned gold. Pacrooti will keep trying until he wins it back. That will teach them.
ZOS, please don't associate a beloved character with something that is so controversial. As has been pointed out here, he has been swindled by gambling himself, so it's not even appropriate that he would then partake in the same thing himself.UESP: The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages - A collaborative source for all knowledge on the Elder Scrolls series since 1995
Join us on Discord - discord.gg/uesp7 -
Merlight✭✭✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.jedtb16_ESO wrote: »i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
People who buy lottery tickets either don't understand the nature of lotteries, or do it just for the kicks, knowing they're playing a losing game.
EU ‣ Wabbajack nostalgic ‣ Blackwater Blade defender ‣ Kyne wanderer
The offspring of the root of all evil in ESO by DeanTheCat
Why ESO needs a monthly subscription
When an MMO is designed around a revenue model rather than around fun, it doesn’t have a long-term future. ― Richard A. Bartle
Their idea of transparent, at least when it comes to communication, bears a striking resemblance to a block of coal. ― lordrichter
... in the balance of power between the accountants and marketing types against the artists, developers and those who generally want to build and run a good game then that balance needs to always be in favour of the latter - because the former will drag the game into the ground for every last bean they can squeeze out of it. ― Santie Claws3 -
jedtb16_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsjedtb16_ESO wrote: »i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
People who buy lottery tickets either don't understand the nature of lotteries, or do it just for the kicks, knowing they're playing a losing game.
that is where you are wrong... people do understand the nature of lotteries.
what is enlightening is the number of multi-million winners who say something along the lines of.....
'we never expected to win...'0 -
RPGFanSoul ShrivenNo, don't ever add these into the game.Idealistically, I agree with all of the arguments that have already been made about how disgusting these things are and the almost inevitable warping effect that they have in terms of the company/customer relationship and where Dev resources end up being allocated. Not much more to add there, as it was comprehensively dealt with ~100 pages ago, but I'll nail my colours to the mast there just for the record.
Pragmatically, they're going to happen regardless; so all that's left is to try to find the 'do least harm' (since 'do no harm' has left the building) compromise.
Though I'm also of the type who considers cosmetics more important to my game than BiS gear, and spends handsomely on nice cosmetics in lots of MMOs, there is only one game where I have ever sacrificed my principles and bought gamble boxes (in most games there is a workaround to getting a cosmetic item you want via the Auction House or whatever - not so here), because they followed a 'do least harm' model: TSW. I know that it was mentioned a while back, but the TSW system's one saving grace is that every gamble bag you buy guarantees one Lucky Coin (Crown Gem equivalent).
If ZOS tweaked the currently shown system to guarantee that each crate contained a Crown Gem (in addition to the dupes system), this would be a nice compromise.
This would remove the complaints that you might never get what you want regardless of how many £100s you spend. This would entice people like me who will *never* otherwise buy a gamble box to hold their nose and buy at least enough to get that one thing that they want. Since it shows that they at least tried to make it a less rapacious system, this also translates into more customer good will/trust, which ultimately translates into more money.
Just a suggestion based on experience, in case the Powers That Be are still reading. If anyone wants to drop this suggestion into the PTS thread then please feel free - I've said my piece about this now. Best of luck everyone.0 -
clayandaudrey_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, don't ever add these into the game.kensan62_ESO wrote: »I dont understand why we cant get clarification from anyone at Zos as to what is going to be exclusive to crown crates and what will be sold in the crown store. i like buying my mounts outright. im not interested in a chance only type of transaction. ill just go back to swtor if i wanna waste money on chance. Zos had something very unique with their store and now they are pissing it away with greed. what is sad further more is they know we are upset about it but going full steam ahead no matter how we feel about it. shame on u Zos.
I do not understand why you think ZOS needs to come in here and say again what is completely obvious.1 -
clayandaudrey_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, don't ever add these into the game.The next rage to happen is when all the people saying these will give the devs more money to add content realize the only content they are getting is more crown crate crap and maybe 1 hours worth of in game content every three months.Edited by clayandaudrey_ESO on September 21, 2016 10:40AM8 -
Khenarthi✭✭✭✭✭
✭No I dislike the random crown store boxes, to much of a gambleHaving checked these out on the PTS I can confirm I will not be spending my Live money on them: I will save it and buy the non-crate-exclusive stuff I want, when they are made available with a transparent price tag.PC-EU1 -
clayandaudrey_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭No, don't ever add these into the game.Having checked these out on the PTS I can confirm I will not be spending my Live money on them: I will save it and buy the non-crate-exclusive stuff I want, when they are made available with a transparent price tag.
You will probably have a great retirement account then if you are willing to wait on that. .Edited by clayandaudrey_ESO on September 21, 2016 11:22AM1 -
Khenarthi✭✭✭✭✭
✭No I dislike the random crown store boxes, to much of a gambleclayandaudrey_ESO wrote: »Having checked these out on the PTS I can confirm I will not be spending my Live money on them: I will save it and buy the non-crate-exclusive stuff I want, when they are made available with a transparent price tag.
You will probably have a great retirement account then if you are willing to wait that lon .
Hah, I might!
I am really very patient when it comes to unlocking stuff for cosmetics only. In the end of the day, my character already has a mount and a few pets and costumes, so I refuse to fall for the latest shinies if they're locked behind rng.
At one point, I had 25k crowns in my account... (down to roughly 5k now).PC-EU0 -
Slurg✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭No I dislike the random crown store boxes, to much of a gamble
Sure I would spend $40 for something I wanted to buy, but now I'm going to spend zero dollars because I'm not going to buy a bunch of random crap I don't want to gamble for a chance at the thing I wanted to buy. They just lost $40 on one sale.I tried it on PTS and left feedback on the official thread. 13 crates and not one single thing I would use. Not even close to enough crown gems for the red wolf I've been waiting forever for. If it was real money I would've been out $40 without a single thing to show for it. I won't gamble for the things I want to buy in the live game.
I'm still having fun in ESO overall but little things like this will gradually chip away at my enjoyment.
They could sell the red wolf for $40 and you would likely buy it. How much is it going to cost now? The idea is you keep dumping money into crates until you get it. This system I've seen before and it is a giant chip out of my enjoyment.
The fact that they clearly don't care about losing the money I and a lot of other people in this thread would gladly spend means they must be very confident that a lot of suckers will come along from somewhere and drop a lot more money to gamble for a chance to possibly win the same item. It's just sleazy.Happy All the Holidays To You and Yours!
Remembering better days of less RNG in all the things.5 -
KingYogi415✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.Why do they think people want to own all of the crappy costumes.
Forcing people to buy everything in the crown store to get a mount is wrong1 -
DYSEQTA✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.Frankly I'm even more disheartened seeing the results from the public test server, you get so much garbage for the tiniest chance of something good. I'm really getting the feeling that this is the future for all the good cosmetics, making them RNG. Like an atronach horse? Better cough five times more money than a usual special mount for it and still probably not get it.
I really can't say how much this frustrates me yet I know regardless of the polls and what people say, it'll be added anyway.
When it comes to these gambling crates most people will avoid them, some will buy the odd one but then a minority will just buy a ridiculous amount and that's what they're banking on.
They'll tell themselves "It's their money they can do what they want with it, it is optional after all" and they're "only cosmetic" but the appearance in games is important to some people and making them gamble is a rather serious problem, it affects people psychologically.
Maybe I'm just being melodramatic or whatever. If you want my opinion I'd say just add the cosmetics in for a limited time at a slightly higher price like what has always been done.
Interestingly enough there is a class action lawsuit being prepared at the moment by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers targeting the illegality of Poker Machines not because they are rigged or anything like that but because they employ psychological manipulation to screw money out of people. I wonder if Maurice Blackburn would like to take on F2P monetizing once they are done with the gambling industry.For the King!5 -
Genomic✭✭✭✭✭I'm sure their marketing division are aware that many people will quit over this. But they also know that they will make more money by bleeding dry the gambling addictsFrankly I'm even more disheartened seeing the results from the public test server, you get so much garbage for the tiniest chance of something good. I'm really getting the feeling that this is the future for all the good cosmetics, making them RNG. Like an atronach horse? Better cough five times more money than a usual special mount for it and still probably not get it.
I really can't say how much this frustrates me yet I know regardless of the polls and what people say, it'll be added anyway.
When it comes to these gambling crates most people will avoid them, some will buy the odd one but then a minority will just buy a ridiculous amount and that's what they're banking on.
They'll tell themselves "It's their money they can do what they want with it, it is optional after all" and they're "only cosmetic" but the appearance in games is important to some people and making them gamble is a rather serious problem, it affects people psychologically.
Maybe I'm just being melodramatic or whatever. If you want my opinion I'd say just add the cosmetics in for a limited time at a slightly higher price like what has always been done.
It's basically a scam. That's what it boils down to. Disgusting. After all the trial and tribulations over the last few years, I honestly never thought ZOS would stoop to this level.5 -
Cazzy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭No, don't ever add these into the game.So, wait, will there be no new Crown store stuff to buy? Will it be how it is now but with added crates? Or more crates with less stuff to buy?1 -
JamilaRaj✭✭✭✭✭
✭Yes but I just want it to be pay to win items, plus cosmeticsSo, wait, will there be no new Crown store stuff to buy? Will it be how it is now but with added crates? Or more crates with less stuff to buy?
Always look on the bright side. At least putting stuff (or chance for it) into scamboxes instead of the cash shop will not negatively affect the gameplay, because there was no gameplay involved in getting that stuff to begin with.Edited by JamilaRaj on September 21, 2016 1:13PM1 -
Slurg✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭No I dislike the random crown store boxes, to much of a gambleSo, wait, will there be no new Crown store stuff to buy? Will it be how it is now but with added crates? Or more crates with less stuff to buy?
The question is still out there unanswered on the official thread. I would hope if they wanted to reassure us that they would still sell new items at a fixed price instead of putting them straight into the crates they'd have an official statement by now. So right now it looks like more crates and less stuff to buy.Happy All the Holidays To You and Yours!
Remembering better days of less RNG in all the things.3 -
Elsonso✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmeticsjedtb16_ESO wrote: »i think (unless you live in a particularly restrictive country) that it would be impossible to get to adulthood without an awareness and understanding of the nature of lotteries. do you honestly think that the billions of adults who buy lottery tickets think they are going to win the jackpot every time they buy a ticket?
People who buy lottery tickets either don't understand the nature of lotteries, or do it just for the kicks, knowing they're playing a losing game.
People who buy one lottery ticket might do it for fun. People who buy 10 of them? I am not sure.So, wait, will there be no new Crown store stuff to buy? Will it be how it is now but with added crates? Or more crates with less stuff to buy?
I think there will be new Crown Store stuff to buy directly. Think of each item on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 is getting "take my money yesterday, why is this not already in the store!" from players. The closer to 10 the item gets, the more likely it will be exclusive to Crown Crates.
Of course, "want" does not equal "quality". If you are picky about quality in the same way that ZOS is not, you may not want to buy the "10" stuff, anyway. The male torso problem. The poor quality texture problem. The annoying audio decisions. Animation problems. That stuff may make you thank the day they put those things out of consideration.
1
This discussion has been closed.