What do you think of Crown Store Random boxes/Lottery box?

Cazzy

No, don't ever add these into the game.

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

and another thing.....

if the mystery items in the loot boxes are otherwise on sale for the same or higher price than the loot box you are not gambling.

you are making a blind purchase...

I'd be totally ok with that. But they've already said some items are only available through the boxes

elvenmad

No, don't ever add these into the game.

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

OK, I see your point, but to be more precise concerning Casino chip's, In a Casino you bet directly with a token/chip you paid for with real money it had a direct money to token value rate.

In an online game you buy their own games currency, same as you did in the Casino, BUT you then exchange that currency for a further item, in this case a lock box, so we have now had 2 total transactions completed from the real money start to finally end up at the non monetary value rng item

You understand, you end up with a item that has no recognise value either monetarily or as a recognized commodity.. bassically you used your real money has part of a chain of exchanges to end up with nothing........and thats before you even open the box.........whether it contains anything or not is irrelevant. except in our case they have guaranteed you will get at least one consumable. each of these transactions/exchanges you did your self, it was YOUR choice, the item you ended up with was the item you were clearly informed you would get.

VerboseQuips

No, don't ever add these into the game.

MissBizz wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

Some good ideas being posted now to deal with this . The limited time exclusive to lockbox then crown store later deal is better then nothing . The idea of keeping exclusive items out of RNG boxes is best idea if we have to have these . Hope ZOS_MattFiror ZOS_GinaBruno and ZOS_JessicaFolsom are reading those posts from MAdkat124b14_ESO and others like MissBizz put in her good video .

Yeah I think putting items up for sale after a chance of them in the grab bag wouldn't be too bad. That was people can still choose to buy an item and make an informed decision on what exactly they are purchasing. Link to my video if anyone was wondering.

Thank you for this video, it is awesome. You could really well put words on the feelings I too share about this (and I think those feelings are shared by many people in the fanbase). I don't mind people having cheap access to what I paid for - good for them. I do mind having only a random and unlikely access to things into which I am interested - this is unrespectful from Zenimax.

starkerealm

No, don't ever add these into the game.

elvenmad wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

OK, I see your point, but to be more precise concerning Casino chip's, In a Casino you bet directly with a token/chip you paid for with real money it had a direct money to token value rate.

In an online game you buy their own games currency, same as you did in the Casino, BUT you then exchange that currency for a further item, in this case a lock box, so we have now had 2 total transactions completed from the real money start to finally end up at the non monetary value rng item

You understand, you end up with a item that has no recognise value either monetarily or as a recognized commodity.. bassically you used you real money has part of a chain of exchanges to end up with nothing........and thats before you even open the box.........whether it contains anything or not is irrelevant. except in our case they have guaranteed you will get at least one consumable.

That's exactly the loophole being exploited here. Not that they convert it to another currency, but that ten fortifying crown meals or ten tripots are equivalent in value to a mount that previously sold in the store for $40.

anitajoneb17_ESO

No, don't ever add these into the game.

Cazzy wrote: »

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

and another thing.....

if the mystery items in the loot boxes are otherwise on sale for the same or higher price than the loot box you are not gambling.

you are making a blind purchase...

I'd be totally ok with that. But they've already said some items are only available through the boxes

There's one thing I don't really understand (I'm addressing the "very-very-anti-loot-boxes here).
Gambling/lotteries are based on the system where you spend a little bit of money for a small chance to gain a large or very large amount of money. That's how the expenditure looks insignificant (and people don't realize how low the chance is, because pictures and happy stories of people who have won is thrown in their face all the time).
I can understand that the very large amount of money has a magnetic impact on people and drives them to buy another and another ticket...

But... an exclusive mount ? Is this THAT important ? Is it THAT fascinating that people would buy boxes over and over for that incredible expectation to get an exclusive mount ? Even the most obsessed completionist can live with a missing mount in his collection, can't he ... ???

iRogue32

Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmetics

Personally, I think that it is best to wait until we get more information about these boxes and this new gem system, before we get out the pitch forks and torches. That being said I do understand how these boxes do not bode well with people.

Abeille

No I dislike the random crown store boxes, to much of a gamble

iRogue32 wrote: »

Personally, I think that it is best to wait until we get more information about these boxes and this new gem system, before we get out the pitch forks and torches. That being said I do understand how these boxes do not bode well with people.

I think that the more we wait, the smaller the chance of something actually changing before release is. These boxes are going to show up on the PTS in two weeks, after all.

elvenmad

No, don't ever add these into the game.

starkerealm wrote: »

elvenmad wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

OK, I see your point, but to be more precise concerning Casino chip's, In a Casino you bet directly with a token/chip you paid for with real money it had a direct money to token value rate.

In an online game you buy their own games currency, same as you did in the Casino, BUT you then exchange that currency for a further item, in this case a lock box, so we have now had 2 total transactions completed from the real money start to finally end up at the non monetary value rng item

You understand, you end up with a item that has no recognise value either monetarily or as a recognized commodity.. bassically you used you real money has part of a chain of exchanges to end up with nothing........and thats before you even open the box.........whether it contains anything or not is irrelevant. except in our case they have guaranteed you will get at least one consumable.

That's exactly the loophole being exploited here. Not that they convert it to another currency, but that ten fortifying crown meals or ten tripots are equivalent in value to a mount that previously sold in the store for $40.

well. they don't actually say there is a mount in there, only that there is a 'chance', that is another HUGE difference too, and more specifically what is that 'chance' ? 1:10 or 1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000 ? now you see, they have not lied, just twisted the real truth.

In the video he clearly says your guranteed to get 'a' consumable, so you could get 1 Crown Fortifying Meal , and you would have got what he said you would.

nimander99

No, don't ever add these into the game.

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

Fair enough, I live in the U.S myself. I have yet to see a single gaming company successfully sued in court for this practice. Hence: TERA, Neverwinter, B&S... And soon to be ESO. The list goes on. The reason these aren't won in court is because gamer's aren't winning $money$, they are winning pixels. So the courts look at it for what it is... Idiots being parted with their money.

starkerealm

No, don't ever add these into the game.

elvenmad wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

elvenmad wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

OK, I see your point, but to be more precise concerning Casino chip's, In a Casino you bet directly with a token/chip you paid for with real money it had a direct money to token value rate.

In an online game you buy their own games currency, same as you did in the Casino, BUT you then exchange that currency for a further item, in this case a lock box, so we have now had 2 total transactions completed from the real money start to finally end up at the non monetary value rng item

You understand, you end up with a item that has no recognise value either monetarily or as a recognized commodity.. bassically you used you real money has part of a chain of exchanges to end up with nothing........and thats before you even open the box.........whether it contains anything or not is irrelevant. except in our case they have guaranteed you will get at least one consumable.

That's exactly the loophole being exploited here. Not that they convert it to another currency, but that ten fortifying crown meals or ten tripots are equivalent in value to a mount that previously sold in the store for $40.

well. they don't actually say there is a mount in there, only that there is a 'chance', that is another HUGE difference too, and more specifically what is that 'chance' ? 1:10 or 1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000 ? now you see, they have not lied, just twisted the real truth.

Nobody's making that argument.

The legal loophole being exploited is that it's not gambling so long as you're getting a random mix of items with at least roughly equivalent value to the money spent.

That's why they're putting consumables in these boxes, and, quite frankly, the only reason.

Garldeen

No, don't ever add these into the game.

o

Cazzy wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Cazzy wrote: »

...and will there be motifs in them?

Why do you ask ? Didn't you uninstall the game and install FF instead ?

I unsubbed not uninstalled I haven't played since Friday either - but I don't want to leave. It just may force me to.

Edit: yeah, I've been playing FF and NMS

Off topic and will prob get deleted, but how you finding FF?

starkerealm

No, don't ever add these into the game.

nimander99 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

Fair enough, I live in the U.S myself. I have yet to see a single gaming company successfully sued in court for this practice. Hence: TERA, Neverwinter, B&S... And soon to be ESO. The list goes on. The reason these aren't won in court is because gamer's aren't winning $money$, they are winning pixels. So the courts look at it for what it is... Idiots being parted with their money.

No, the reason the existing lawsuits haven't gone anywhere is because the cases have been horribly managed. Most of the lawsuits in the US that actually went to trial were by lunatics representing themselves. The CSGO betting scene is the first one likely to actually get there because the money's too good.

Additionally, check your terms of service, you might not actually be allowed to sue ZOS, or Cryptic, or... you get the idea. Since a EULA that stipulates use of third party arbitration is legally binding here.

Recremen

No, don't ever add these into the game.

starkerealm wrote: »

elvenmad wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

elvenmad wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

OK, I see your point, but to be more precise concerning Casino chip's, In a Casino you bet directly with a token/chip you paid for with real money it had a direct money to token value rate.

In an online game you buy their own games currency, same as you did in the Casino, BUT you then exchange that currency for a further item, in this case a lock box, so we have now had 2 total transactions completed from the real money start to finally end up at the non monetary value rng item

You understand, you end up with a item that has no recognise value either monetarily or as a recognized commodity.. bassically you used you real money has part of a chain of exchanges to end up with nothing........and thats before you even open the box.........whether it contains anything or not is irrelevant. except in our case they have guaranteed you will get at least one consumable.

That's exactly the loophole being exploited here. Not that they convert it to another currency, but that ten fortifying crown meals or ten tripots are equivalent in value to a mount that previously sold in the store for $40.

well. they don't actually say there is a mount in there, only that there is a 'chance', that is another HUGE difference too, and more specifically what is that 'chance' ? 1:10 or 1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000 ? now you see, they have not lied, just twisted the real truth.

Nobody's making that argument.

The legal loophole being exploited is that it's not gambling so long as you're getting a random mix of items with at least roughly equivalent value to the money spent.

That's why they're putting consumables in these boxes, and, quite frankly, the only reason.

I'd rather not discuss the legality of all of this since I'm not a lawyer, but if the legal argument were based on guaranteeing something of "roughly equivalent value" then I'd find the whole thing untenable. I mean, you figure that people would have to actually buy the consumables for them to be considered of value. But who's actually doing that? Just offering something AT a certain value seems pretty separated from that thing actually being purchased at the listed price. This is just another reason why the fiat currency system is so bogus and why I wish they had listed Crown Store items using real dollar values.

nimander99

No, don't ever add these into the game.

I also saw someone mention testing Neverwinter's lockbox mount drop rate on the test shard. I did the same on Owl server a few months back. It took me 2,456 keys to get one Legendary mount. It's roughly $1.25 per key (going from memory here forgive me) so if it were real money then it took me $3070 to get the 'unique item' I wanted (thank the Eight it was a test server and not real money).

So instead of 3000 Crowns for a cool mount which is how it is now. I could potentially spend $3070 just to get a mount skin.

Anyone who is not against this "cause its cosmetic an stuffs" is blind to what this will do to the community.

If you think the forums and zone chat are toxic now, you just wait till these boxes drop.

elvenmad

No, don't ever add these into the game.

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

Fair enough, I live in the U.S myself. I have yet to see a single gaming company successfully sued in court for this practice. Hence: TERA, Neverwinter, B&S... And soon to be ESO. The list goes on. The reason these aren't won in court is because gamer's aren't winning $money$, they are winning pixels. So the courts look at it for what it is... Idiots being parted with their money.

No, the reason the existing lawsuits haven't gone anywhere is because the cases have been horribly managed. Most of the lawsuits in the US that actually went to trial were by lunatics representing themselves. The CSGO betting scene is the first one likely to actually get there because the money's too good.

Additionally, check your terms of service, you might not actually be allowed to sue ZOS, or Cryptic, or... you get the idea. Since a EULA that stipulates use of third party arbitration is legally binding here.

ToS are only an agreement between you and the company, they are NOT a legal agreement, they can write whatever they want in ToS, legally they mean NOTHING. at the very worse they can do is ban you from using their service thats it.

Actually another thing re; ToS, if you read them fully it clearly states everything the account, the characters, etc etc always belong to the company, they agree to allow you access to use them as a service, YOU never own anything, no matter how much money you trow at your account you NEVER own anything. so in short how can you sue over something that never would be or has been your property ???

WeerW3ir

No, don't ever add these into the game.

Just bad idea. I pay for crownstore items but i not will pay for RNG boxes. What will be the next? dropped RNG chests and you have to buy key to open it like in CSGO or TF or etc? Oh plz. consider this rng box thingy...

starkerealm

No, don't ever add these into the game.

elvenmad wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

Fair enough, I live in the U.S myself. I have yet to see a single gaming company successfully sued in court for this practice. Hence: TERA, Neverwinter, B&S... And soon to be ESO. The list goes on. The reason these aren't won in court is because gamer's aren't winning $money$, they are winning pixels. So the courts look at it for what it is... Idiots being parted with their money.

No, the reason the existing lawsuits haven't gone anywhere is because the cases have been horribly managed. Most of the lawsuits in the US that actually went to trial were by lunatics representing themselves. The CSGO betting scene is the first one likely to actually get there because the money's too good.

Additionally, check your terms of service, you might not actually be allowed to sue ZOS, or Cryptic, or... you get the idea. Since a EULA that stipulates use of third party arbitration is legally binding here.

ToS are only an agreement between you and the company, they are NOT a legal agreement, they can write whatever they want in ToS, legally they mean NOTHING. at the very worse they can do is ban you from using their service thats it.

If you're in the United States, a contract that stipulates any dispute must first pass through third party arbitration prior to any court action is, in fact, legally binding. And, can, in fact, prevent you from suing a company over a tort.

Miaura

No, don't ever add these into the game.

Allready earlier posted my "no" and reason that I want to buy my product fair and square instead of a tiny chance of the wanted item, plus that "retiring" cosmetics to these gamble boxes ruins the nice fair crownstore that had just only started to have a respectable variety. And yeah it is a sleezy practise in general, giving a bad vibe of the company involved and very bad for people with addictions falling too much for it.

One more thing I want to add to the devs to think of, seriously:
@ZOS_GinaBruno

I love the game. Cosmetics are important to me, but not everything. Buying them occasionally, and fairly, adds to the very happy feel I get from this game .
Imagine a player like me, equipped with an adult but only "working class sized" wallet; I love the game a lot, enough to stay a long time, also enough to buy sub, even love the cosmetics enough to buy extra crowns now and then. I can`t afford everything at once or every exlusive item on a few days offer though. No matter. The game and happy feel it gives me are what matters...
I like to look at the crownstore and even think of what I might grab next month. Sometimes I do other stuff with family, even play other games. But I come back.

Now: bring in the boxes!
What if a player like me caves in, especially cause she could not afford some of the "regular" non exlusive cosmetic items before they got retired/dumped into the boxes sooner and sooner after their release, to be filler along with the" super exlusive prices". She decides to buy just a few boxes. Maybe one more.
Crap; got a bunch of consumables as expected. No matter. Sigh.Just a few boxes...
Guess consumables are "allways good", yeah? Even those you could make yourself without real money...

Then, next week , you devs do release something beautiful in the crownstore, fair and square. That player like me can`t afford to buy the item she would have wanted a lot, cause she just bough some crappy consumables in a "Lucky" box lottery last week/few weeks ago/whatever the working class wallet shows to be too little ago.
The whole game starts to taste quite sour, not to mention paying sub for it, etc. Yeah, you feel cheated.
Does not matter whether "companies need to make money" etc sounds sensible to them, the individual feels cheated and looses the happy feel.
The happy feel would be lost for days or weeks. Certainly wont buy boxes anymore. But not that item I wanted either.
Is that good in the long run, giving many players this experience?


Please if you must have boxes, at least bring back to store everything you took away for this, and make the boxes just an option to try get lucky and get items allready in the Crownstore for cheaper.
Would be healthier for serious gambling addicts etc. too.
"Exlusive" super mounts or costumes could be on a few days offer to be bought from the store at the same time as their respective boxes and I bet you could still make tons of money, and cause tons less grief.

GorraShatan

No, don't ever add these into the game.

lordrichter wrote: »

What you have to remember about SecondLife is that the currency is purchasable with real money and is tradable in game. This does not apply to ESO. Crowns are literally worthless in game and cannot be traded.

This means that SecondLife cannot be used as an example, in the case of ESO and the boxes.

They said they are bringing in gifting with crowns fYI.

Abeille

No I dislike the random crown store boxes, to much of a gamble

GorraShatan wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

What you have to remember about SecondLife is that the currency is purchasable with real money and is tradable in game. This does not apply to ESO. Crowns are literally worthless in game and cannot be traded.

This means that SecondLife cannot be used as an example, in the case of ESO and the boxes.

They said they are bringing in gifting with crowns fYI.

Fiddlesticks. I did see that thread on Reddit yesterday, but just now I saw Gina's post here.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Hi folks,

This email is legitimate and related to a gifting program we're working on. We've sent it to only a small number of our players to start so we can get feedback and refine the program. If you're interested in helping us, please submit a Support ticket and we'll get you on the list!

I wonder how it is done. If we have to purchase it like if it was to ourselves and then we can send it as a gift from our inventory/collections, that means that drops from the RNG Box can very well be tradeable through gifting.
But maybe you select "buy as a gift" in the Crown Store instead. That would make the boxes tradeable, but not necessarily what is inside them. I wonder if the Crown Gems part of the Crown Store will be part of it, too.

nimander99

No, don't ever add these into the game.

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nimander99 wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

Esquire1980g_ESO wrote: »

Abeille wrote: »

I get really indecisive when I see law debates here because, as a lawyer, I do want to participate on it. But, because I know the law is different everywhere, I also know that it doesn't matter much if I participate on it lol
Note: Although there are no ZOS servers here in Brazil, for any company to offer their services here, they must follow our law. Since there are Brazilian costumers, I decided to weight in.

I don't think that, here, this would be considered gambling - which is forbidden, lotteries being a monopoly of the government and any other kind of raffle needing to be authorized first - for two reasons:
1 - Crowns wouldn't be considered legitimate currency, but something that you buy within a game for legitimate currency - and you always get the exact number of Crowns you paid for.
2 - The definition of a gambling game in my country's Criminal Law is "A game on which winning or losing depend exclusively or mainly on luck". When you open a box, you won't find an empty box. Ever. Therefore, I doubt any judge will consider "losing" if you only get consumables. I don't think they would even consider opening the box "a game"; more like buying consumables and having a chance of getting something extra - and this is allowed.

Councillor,

For your review. https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2010/fil10035a.pdf for overveiw. For US statute, see 31 USC 5361 - 5366, 12 CFR Part 233, and 31 CFR Part 32 (Treasury) called out in the overview referenced above. This Act does have specifics for "Cross Border" included. The definitions seem to be broad and the term "Due Diligence" is used more than once. You can read the overview/Statute and gain a opinion if such would be included. There are cases filed, by State Atty Generals now per this Act and they are making their way thru the Courts at his moment under authority of the UIGE.

The problem I see here, is customers making complaints v gaming companies to " transaction companies" with which "Due Diligence" would then be required and/or a State/Fed Atty General looking for another trial case.

Civil Tort is also being used, in fact now v a gaming company where customers are asking the Courts for relief. http://www.polygon.com/2016/6/23/12020154/counter-strike-csgo-illegal-gambling-lawsuit-weapon-skins-valve and this article included the actual complaint, which is why I linked the article and not the case, itself.

I have also refrained from offering legal opinions on a gaming forum altho I now have one. I have reviewed other legal opinions on Martindale, etc. You are free to make your own conclusions.

Thank you for the information, I will certainly give it a read.

I love studying international law, although Consumer Rights isn't really my area. I work with Criminal Justice - In fact, my final presentation on College was an analysis of the evolution of age of majority and of criminal responsibility in England and Wales, in light of the recent discussion about lowering the age of criminal responsibility in Brazil.

Law in the USA is heavily based on legal precedents, which makes this very interesting to study because it is so different from here. Here, what a judge decides doesn't stop other judges for deciding differently, unless we are talking about the Supreme Court and they specifically say "That's how it is decided from now on". Yes, two cases that are identical can have completely different outcomes here, even in the same city.

I'll be sure to accompany the development of that case.

Game companies get around this by making us buy in game currency i.e Crowns. So the service we are purchasing is Crowns, what we do with them is not protected by the many anti internet gambling laws across EU. Its why games like TERA and Neverwinter get away with selling their gambling boxes.

I've been so excited for the future of this game, One Tamriel is right around the corner. Holiday events are coming up. Vvardenfel etc. But this has really taken the wind out of my sails.

Again, people keep bringing that up. And, it honestly wouldn't surprise me of some of the people in said companies think it's enough. It might actually be an effective screen in other countries, but in the US, gambling regulations can attach when betting occurs using tokens that have been purchased with actual money.

As I recall, one of the original purposes of casino chips was an attempt to skirt around existing laws regulating gambling. Rather obviously, that loophole got closed a long time ago.

Fair enough, I live in the U.S myself. I have yet to see a single gaming company successfully sued in court for this practice. Hence: TERA, Neverwinter, B&S... And soon to be ESO. The list goes on. The reason these aren't won in court is because gamer's aren't winning $money$, they are winning pixels. So the courts look at it for what it is... Idiots being parted with their money.

No, the reason the existing lawsuits haven't gone anywhere is because the cases have been horribly managed. Most of the lawsuits in the US that actually went to trial were by lunatics representing themselves. The CSGO betting scene is the first one likely to actually get there because the money's too good.

Additionally, check your terms of service, you might not actually be allowed to sue ZOS, or Cryptic, or... you get the idea. Since a EULA that stipulates use of third party arbitration is legally binding here.

Yup, the EULA that we accept is a legally binding contract that allows us to 'rent' our character's. Our accounts can be terminated at any time for any reason (or no reason at all). American gamer's have virtually no recourse with online games. The EULA is ironclad.

jedtb16_ESO

Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmetics

Cazzy wrote: »

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

and another thing.....

if the mystery items in the loot boxes are otherwise on sale for the same or higher price than the loot box you are not gambling.

you are making a blind purchase...

I'd be totally ok with that. But they've already said some items are only available through the boxes

so what?

provided an equivalent of said item is available at the same or higher price than the box it is still a blind purchase.

Evergnar

No, don't ever add these into the game.

33.6k views
1.6k responses
67% don't want/like it.
30% ok with it so long as cosmetic only (which we know it won't be)

Might want to rethink this one Zos.

Rohamad_Ali

No, don't ever add these into the game.

Eiagra wrote: »

I feel a little insightful education may help some, so here's a few videos from the Extra Credits crew that I highly recommend. Some of them show warnings of what the industry is doing, while others show support for what the industry is doing. Some of them have to do with the Free-to-Play model commonly seen on the mobile market, but I believe they still have some relevance here. Hopefully these are useful.

Microtransactions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXA559KNopI

The Skinner Box

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

Free to Play Laws - Can We Stop Predatory Practices?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBtXyv0Q1Eg

Doing Free to Play Wrong - How Bad Monetization Harms F2P Games

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz9OXy86a0

Free to Play Is Currently Broken - How High Costs Drive Players Away from F2P Games

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwI0u9L4R8U

There's probably some others I could find, but I got to get on with my day. Seriously, they have a lot of insightful videos regarding the video game industry, and while they might not be spot-on with EVERYthing, they are fairly close to the mark with many things. Give their channel a look, because they rally as much for the player as the developer, and that's something I can respect them for.

Watched all of these . Very good videos with very good ideas . Money bomb was a good one . Buy a box and it drops prizes for everyone around you . Good way to generate money and some fun .

wayfarerx

Yes I like the random boxes idea so Long as they only have cosmetics

So at the start of this thread I said:

wayfarerx wrote: »

As long as they:

• Only contain cosmetic stuff
• Never contain exclusive items
• Never contain the tiger mount

then I don't really care. I won't ever buy one but I won't begrudge anyone who wants to gamble for an old limited-time cosmetic.

Today I was chatting in this thread (now closed), defending the idea of lockboxes because I thought my comment above was still accurate. Then @MissBizz linked me this video where, at 8:30, Matt says that there will be exclusive mounts in the lockboxes.

So consider me fully on the lockbox-hate train. Gambling for exclusive stuff is bad, it makes me want to play this game less and detracts from the respect that I have for the developers.

Cazzy

No, don't ever add these into the game.

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

Cazzy wrote: »

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

and another thing.....

if the mystery items in the loot boxes are otherwise on sale for the same or higher price than the loot box you are not gambling.

you are making a blind purchase...

I'd be totally ok with that. But they've already said some items are only available through the boxes

so what?

provided an equivalent of said item is available at the same or higher price than the box it is still a blind purchase.

I mean no offense or disrespect but you're failing to see the issue a lot of us have. I don't think explaining any more than I have done so, nor you explaining to me, will change our minds. We will just have to agree to disagree

Cazzy

No, don't ever add these into the game.

@wayfarerx Gina also said: Thanks for your thoughts on the upcoming Crown Crates, everyone. Just want to clarify a few points -

First, Crown Crates will be available later this year, and will only include cosmetic or convenience items. You'll find things like potions and other consumables, pets, costumes, and - yes - sometimes even mounts. This will give you a chance to try and obtain previous limited time offers, or even some very unique items as Matt mentioned. It will not include things like armor or weapons.

In the event you get an item that you already own, you can exchange it for a currency called Crown Gems which will allow you to buy a different item of your choice.

Mercutio

This is a little off topic, but could I get a hamburger?

Cazzy

No, don't ever add these into the game.

wonkydog wrote: »

o

Cazzy wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Cazzy wrote: »

...and will there be motifs in them?

Why do you ask ? Didn't you uninstall the game and install FF instead ?

I unsubbed not uninstalled I haven't played since Friday either - but I don't want to leave. It just may force me to.

Edit: yeah, I've been playing FF and NMS

Off topic and will prob get deleted, but how you finding FF?

It's great! A little complicated to get used to but that video really helped

Rohamad_Ali

No, don't ever add these into the game.

Mercutio wrote: »

This is a little off topic, but could I get a hamburger?

Of course , medium or well done ? You'll need to wait for the chicken to be finished tho ..