Maintenance for the week of March 25:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 26, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – March 26, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – March 28, 9:00AM EDT (13:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

A Discussion with ZOS on Integrity

Thelon
Thelon
✭✭✭✭✭
in-teg-ri-ty: noun - the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles

Has ZOS protected the integrity of ESO?
Edited by Thelon on August 31, 2016 6:56PM

A Discussion with ZOS on Integrity 82 votes

Yes, ZOS has protected the integrity of ESO
34%
silvereyesArmitasCapnPhotonanitajoneb17_ESOTHEDKEXPERIENCEidkMilvanSanTii.92GraydonEdgemoorkongkimTandorDHaleLolssiEasily_LostLarianaDefiltedBalibeStiltzCaptainVenom 28 votes
No, ZOS has not protected the integrity of ESO
65%
SolarikenMisterBiggleswortharasysb14_ESOKendaricstevvvob16_ESObunnytrixItsGlaiveAra_ValleriaNebthet78BlueVioletthewolphub17_ESOstarkerealmvyndral13preub18_ESOIdinuseSynfaerWowRajajshkaAsysAlayaMrunagate 54 votes
  • UltimaJoe777
    UltimaJoe777
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
    Edited by UltimaJoe777 on August 31, 2016 6:58PM
    Guildmaster of Power With Numbers in PS4 NA Server's Aldmeri Dominion.
    Proud Founder of the Yaysay cult! DOWN WITH THE NAYSAY CULT!! #ToxicRemedy
  • Defilted
    Defilted
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, ZOS has protected the integrity of ESO
    I will take Business Ethics for 500 Alex.
    XBOX NA
    XBOX Series X

    #NightmareBear
  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....

    hint..... its a game not a person.
  • CJohnson81
    CJohnson81
    ✭✭✭✭
    Would you repeat the question?
    Huor Melwasul - Archdemon, The Demons of Light - Warlock, Hufflepuff House - ADXB1 - NA
    I'm only updating this because we're commenting on a thread about signatures. Give me awesomes!
  • JamilaRaj
    JamilaRaj
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....

    hint..... its a game not a person.

    Besides, a company is not a human being either.

    I also disagree with the notion of integrity as "being honest and having strong moral principles". One may very well be completely amoral, but honest about it. In fact, a villain acting selflessly for greater good would be dishonest and lack integrity.

    EDIT: perhaps the only acceptable acting selfessly would be, for a villain, to sacrifice himself for greater wrong.
    Edited by JamilaRaj on August 31, 2016 9:35PM
  • Thelon
    Thelon
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....

    hint..... its a game not a person.

    Ya, that's really intellectual and all, but this is a game policed by people. Do u think ZOS has done a good job protecting the integrity of their game I.e. keeping it free from cheaters, enforcing policies in a clear and consistent manner, etc.?

    @jedtb16_ESO
  • JD2013
    JD2013
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's a game and they're game developers for a business.

    They are not your friends.
    Sweetrolls for all!

    Christophe Mottierre - Breton Templar with his own whole darn estate! Templar Houses are so 2015. EU DC

    PC Beta Tester January 2014

    Elder of The Black
    Order of Sithis
    The Runners

    @TamrielTraverse - For Tamriel related Twitter shenanigans!
    https://tamrieltraveller.wordpress.com/

    Crafting bag OP! ZOS nerf pls!
  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    JD2013 wrote: »
    It's a game and they're game developers for a business.

    They are not your friends.

    this guy got it right.... cynical, but right.
  • Grunim
    Grunim
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    CJohnson81 wrote: »
    Would you repeat the question?

    I'd like to buy a vowel please.

    More seriously, when I read the question, my initial thought was well at least the cash shop doesn't feel like pay to win to me.
    Am a whimsical Generation Jones gamer. Online RPGs hooked me since '94 and no sign of stopping soon...


  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    JamilaRaj wrote: »
    eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....

    hint..... its a game not a person.

    Besides, a company is not a human being either.

    I also disagree with the notion of integrity as "being honest and having strong moral principles". One may very well be completely amoral, but honest about it. In fact, a villain acting selflessly for greater good would be dishonest and lack integrity.

    EDIT: perhaps the only acceptable acting selfessly would be, for a villain, to sacrifice himself for greater wrong.

    for tax purposes and legal responsibility a company is regarded in the same way as a person... in the uk anyway. but integrity is stretching a point.
  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Thelon wrote: »
    eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....

    hint..... its a game not a person.

    Ya, that's really intellectual and all, but this is a game policed by people. Do u think ZOS has done a good job protecting the integrity of their game I.e. keeping it free from cheaters, enforcing policies in a clear and consistent manner, etc.?

    @jedtb16_ESO

    from my experience?

    yes.

    from your experience..... i haven't a clue
  • Rohamad_Ali
    Rohamad_Ali
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, ZOS has not protected the integrity of ESO
    Not at all . Sweeping things under rugs and going to other websites to avoid community is not showing integrity . I have a lot of love for this game and for the people who make it but I cannot lie here and say they have . They have not and I am in hopes this turns around one day .
  • FortheloveofKrist
    FortheloveofKrist
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    A discussion with ZOS on integrity...

    Minus the integrity
    And ZoS
    And the discussion.

  • Villious
    Villious
    ✭✭✭
    Where's the option for 'People make too many pointless polls'?
  • Thelon
    Thelon
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.

    @UltimaJoe777

    Perhaps I can shed some light on how discussions with ZOS operate.

    I've been a part of the "Guild Summits" with ZOS since their conception in August 2014. At the start, we were allowed (and encouraged) to ask questions, criticise, and openly discuss issues we had with the game.

    Nowadays, since these meetings do not help to sell boxes, ( they did help maintain subscribers) we are forbidden from asking questions. Controversy is abhorrent. But fear not, GMs can always post their concerns on the forums to solicit feedback from ZOS and from the community at large.

    Now that you (hopefully) understand how discussions with ZOS work, perhaps you'd like to contribute something more substantial?
  • UltimaJoe777
    UltimaJoe777
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Thelon wrote: »
    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.

    @UltimaJoe777

    Perhaps I can shed some light on how discussions with ZOS operate.

    I've been a part of the "Guild Summits" with ZOS since their conception in August 2014. At the start, we were allowed (and encouraged) to ask questions, criticise, and openly discuss issues we had with the game.

    Nowadays, since these meetings do not help to sell boxes, ( they did help maintain subscribers) we are forbidden from asking questions. Controversy is abhorrent. But fear not, GMs can always post their concerns on the forums to solicit feedback from ZOS and from the community at large.

    Now that you (hopefully) understand how discussions with ZOS work, perhaps you'd like to contribute something more substantial?

    Of course.


    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
    Guildmaster of Power With Numbers in PS4 NA Server's Aldmeri Dominion.
    Proud Founder of the Yaysay cult! DOWN WITH THE NAYSAY CULT!! #ToxicRemedy
  • Thelon
    Thelon
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Thelon wrote: »
    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.

    @UltimaJoe777

    Perhaps I can shed some light on how discussions with ZOS operate.

    I've been a part of the "Guild Summits" with ZOS since their conception in August 2014. At the start, we were allowed (and encouraged) to ask questions, criticise, and openly discuss issues we had with the game.

    Nowadays, since these meetings do not help to sell boxes, ( they did help maintain subscribers) we are forbidden from asking questions. Controversy is abhorrent. But fear not, GMs can always post their concerns on the forums to solicit feedback from ZOS and from the community at large.

    Now that you (hopefully) understand how discussions with ZOS work, perhaps you'd like to contribute something more substantial?

    Of course.


    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.

    That's on ZOS, thank you for your comment
  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Villious wrote: »
    Where's the option for 'People make too many pointless polls'?

    sadly lacking.... should be mandatory.
  • UltimaJoe777
    UltimaJoe777
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Thelon wrote: »
    Thelon wrote: »
    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.

    @UltimaJoe777

    Perhaps I can shed some light on how discussions with ZOS operate.

    I've been a part of the "Guild Summits" with ZOS since their conception in August 2014. At the start, we were allowed (and encouraged) to ask questions, criticise, and openly discuss issues we had with the game.

    Nowadays, since these meetings do not help to sell boxes, ( they did help maintain subscribers) we are forbidden from asking questions. Controversy is abhorrent. But fear not, GMs can always post their concerns on the forums to solicit feedback from ZOS and from the community at large.

    Now that you (hopefully) understand how discussions with ZOS work, perhaps you'd like to contribute something more substantial?

    Of course.


    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.

    That's on ZOS, thank you for your comment

    You're welcome!
    Guildmaster of Power With Numbers in PS4 NA Server's Aldmeri Dominion.
    Proud Founder of the Yaysay cult! DOWN WITH THE NAYSAY CULT!! #ToxicRemedy
  • Darth_Trumpious
    Darth_Trumpious
    ✭✭✭✭
    Yes, ZOS has protected the integrity of ESO
    I don't know what you are talking about but you got my YES vote
  • AzraelKrieg
    AzraelKrieg
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    To quote Rich Lambert; you know you don't have to be here, right?
    Gold Dragons Guildmaster PC-NACR2000+
    Kalthar Wolf-Brother – EP Templar - 50 Maeli Valen - EP NB - 50Naps-During-Trials – EP Templar - 50Rulnakh - EP Sorc - 50Azrael Krieg - EP NB – 50Uvithasa Telvanni – EP DK – 50More-Tail - EP Warden - 50Narile Galen - EP Sorc - 50Bone Soldier - EP Necro - 50Naps-During-Trails - EP Necro - 50
  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    To quote Rich Lambert; you know you don't have to be here, right?

    and that is as honest as it gets
  • UltimaJoe777
    UltimaJoe777
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    To quote Rich Lambert; you know you don't have to be here, right?

    At least you got it right lol others use it in reference to the game rather than the thread.
    Edited by UltimaJoe777 on August 31, 2016 10:36PM
    Guildmaster of Power With Numbers in PS4 NA Server's Aldmeri Dominion.
    Proud Founder of the Yaysay cult! DOWN WITH THE NAYSAY CULT!! #ToxicRemedy
  • Pheefs
    Pheefs
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    This pointless poll feels like Troll Food.

    & What level of business integrity are you referring to anyway?
    The employees get a living wage & benefits & apparently ZOS has a 401K.
    :)
    { Forums are Weird........................ Nerfy nerfing nerf nerfers, buff you b'netches!....................... Popcorn popcorn! }
  • Recremen
    Recremen
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Most of the time, absolutely. They gave CP (not much, but literally anything) to people with vet-ranked characters when the CP system came out, they gave CP to us when vet ranks went away, they did what they could on PC to handle the botters, goldspammers, and bugged quests, and now we've been having a stellar DLC schedule that has been consistent, enjoyable, and I believe fairly priced.

    That said, they have dropped the ball on a few occasions. Going Buy To Play was fine, but implementing a nonrefundable fiat currency system for the Crown Store is by default an immoral, exploitative move. It's not The Worst, since you can still gauge the price of a good, see your Crown balance, notice how much overflow you'll have if you need to buy new Crowns, and then determine if the purchase is worth it based on that new price, but it's still shady as heck and essentially guarantees that your players will be sinking a cost somewhere. The correct thing to do is have a straight-up cash shop, where you purchase items for real-world currency instead of purchase Crowns in exchange for goods. I hope that they move towards this direction someday.

    Similarly, they have completely dropped the ball on these gambling boxes. They should all be destroyed, and their contents scattered to the wind. The argument follows the same pattern as the nonrefundable fiat currency. Offering a gambling service is by default an immoral, exploitative move. In this case, however, it actually IS The Worst, because you cannot determine for yourself the price you are willing to pay for a good. Gambling is predicated on uncertainty and risk. This is why you are not considered to be buying the potential payout of your gamble. You are instead buying the opportunity to gamble, for all the "entertainment" value that's worth.

    As I have shown in my post about RNG, it is entirely possible for someone to purchase an arbitrarily-high number of gambling attempts and still receive nothing. While ZOS has put guaranteed consumables (of uncertain number and type) in the boxes, it would be extremely dishonest to say that people desire them. By and large, people are going to be desiring the exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes contained in the gambling boxes. Since those are not guaranteed, no matter how much you spend, ZOS is necessarily complicit in taking people's money and giving them nothing of value in the way off physical goods, digital goods, or services. The exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes are nothing but enticement to gamble, the entire gem system is simply Second Enticement, and the lot of it is a reprehensible business practice that is a complete betrayal of the normal customer/service-provider relationship.
    Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
    Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster
  • Thelon
    Thelon
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    What does troll food feel like?
    @Pheefs
    Edited by Thelon on August 31, 2016 10:40PM
  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Recremen wrote: »
    Most of the time, absolutely. They gave CP (not much, but literally anything) to people with vet-ranked characters when the CP system came out, they gave CP to us when vet ranks went away, they did what they could on PC to handle the botters, goldspammers, and bugged quests, and now we've been having a stellar DLC schedule that has been consistent, enjoyable, and I believe fairly priced.

    That said, they have dropped the ball on a few occasions. Going Buy To Play was fine, but implementing a nonrefundable fiat currency system for the Crown Store is by default an immoral, exploitative move. It's not The Worst, since you can still gauge the price of a good, see your Crown balance, notice how much overflow you'll have if you need to buy new Crowns, and then determine if the purchase is worth it based on that new price, but it's still shady as heck and essentially guarantees that your players will be sinking a cost somewhere. The correct thing to do is have a straight-up cash shop, where you purchase items for real-world currency instead of purchase Crowns in exchange for goods. I hope that they move towards this direction someday.

    Similarly, they have completely dropped the ball on these gambling boxes. They should all be destroyed, and their contents scattered to the wind. The argument follows the same pattern as the nonrefundable fiat currency. Offering a gambling service is by default an immoral, exploitative move. In this case, however, it actually IS The Worst, because you cannot determine for yourself the price you are willing to pay for a good. Gambling is predicated on uncertainty and risk. This is why you are not considered to be buying the potential payout of your gamble. You are instead buying the opportunity to gamble, for all the "entertainment" value that's worth.

    As I have shown in my post about RNG, it is entirely possible for someone to purchase an arbitrarily-high number of gambling attempts and still receive nothing. While ZOS has put guaranteed consumables (of uncertain number and type) in the boxes, it would be extremely dishonest to say that people desire them. By and large, people are going to be desiring the exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes contained in the gambling boxes. Since those are not guaranteed, no matter how much you spend, ZOS is necessarily complicit in taking people's money and giving them nothing of value in the way off physical goods, digital goods, or services. The exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes are nothing but enticement to gamble, the entire gem system is simply Second Enticement, and the lot of it is a reprehensible business practice that is a complete betrayal of the normal customer/service-provider relationship.

    going buy to play????

    i may be old and cantankerous but it was buy to play from the off....

    didn't read the rest... one fallacy is enough to put me off a wall of text.
    Edited by jedtb16_ESO on August 31, 2016 10:42PM
  • Thelon
    Thelon
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @jedtb16_ESO
    The game was pay to play (subscription required) at launch
  • Recremen
    Recremen
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Recremen wrote: »
    Most of the time, absolutely. They gave CP (not much, but literally anything) to people with vet-ranked characters when the CP system came out, they gave CP to us when vet ranks went away, they did what they could on PC to handle the botters, goldspammers, and bugged quests, and now we've been having a stellar DLC schedule that has been consistent, enjoyable, and I believe fairly priced.

    That said, they have dropped the ball on a few occasions. Going Buy To Play was fine, but implementing a nonrefundable fiat currency system for the Crown Store is by default an immoral, exploitative move. It's not The Worst, since you can still gauge the price of a good, see your Crown balance, notice how much overflow you'll have if you need to buy new Crowns, and then determine if the purchase is worth it based on that new price, but it's still shady as heck and essentially guarantees that your players will be sinking a cost somewhere. The correct thing to do is have a straight-up cash shop, where you purchase items for real-world currency instead of purchase Crowns in exchange for goods. I hope that they move towards this direction someday.

    Similarly, they have completely dropped the ball on these gambling boxes. They should all be destroyed, and their contents scattered to the wind. The argument follows the same pattern as the nonrefundable fiat currency. Offering a gambling service is by default an immoral, exploitative move. In this case, however, it actually IS The Worst, because you cannot determine for yourself the price you are willing to pay for a good. Gambling is predicated on uncertainty and risk. This is why you are not considered to be buying the potential payout of your gamble. You are instead buying the opportunity to gamble, for all the "entertainment" value that's worth.

    As I have shown in my post about RNG, it is entirely possible for someone to purchase an arbitrarily-high number of gambling attempts and still receive nothing. While ZOS has put guaranteed consumables (of uncertain number and type) in the boxes, it would be extremely dishonest to say that people desire them. By and large, people are going to be desiring the exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes contained in the gambling boxes. Since those are not guaranteed, no matter how much you spend, ZOS is necessarily complicit in taking people's money and giving them nothing of value in the way off physical goods, digital goods, or services. The exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes are nothing but enticement to gamble, the entire gem system is simply Second Enticement, and the lot of it is a reprehensible business practice that is a complete betrayal of the normal customer/service-provider relationship.

    going buy to play????

    i may be old and cantankerous but it was buy to play from the off....

    didn't read the rest... one fallacy is enough to put me off a wall of text.

    @jedtb16_ESO You are incorrect, the game was subscription when it first launched. Additionally, you are using both "logical fallacy" and "wall of text" incorrectly.
    Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
    Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster
  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Recremen wrote: »
    Recremen wrote: »
    Most of the time, absolutely. They gave CP (not much, but literally anything) to people with vet-ranked characters when the CP system came out, they gave CP to us when vet ranks went away, they did what they could on PC to handle the botters, goldspammers, and bugged quests, and now we've been having a stellar DLC schedule that has been consistent, enjoyable, and I believe fairly priced.

    That said, they have dropped the ball on a few occasions. Going Buy To Play was fine, but implementing a nonrefundable fiat currency system for the Crown Store is by default an immoral, exploitative move. It's not The Worst, since you can still gauge the price of a good, see your Crown balance, notice how much overflow you'll have if you need to buy new Crowns, and then determine if the purchase is worth it based on that new price, but it's still shady as heck and essentially guarantees that your players will be sinking a cost somewhere. The correct thing to do is have a straight-up cash shop, where you purchase items for real-world currency instead of purchase Crowns in exchange for goods. I hope that they move towards this direction someday.

    Similarly, they have completely dropped the ball on these gambling boxes. They should all be destroyed, and their contents scattered to the wind. The argument follows the same pattern as the nonrefundable fiat currency. Offering a gambling service is by default an immoral, exploitative move. In this case, however, it actually IS The Worst, because you cannot determine for yourself the price you are willing to pay for a good. Gambling is predicated on uncertainty and risk. This is why you are not considered to be buying the potential payout of your gamble. You are instead buying the opportunity to gamble, for all the "entertainment" value that's worth.

    As I have shown in my post about RNG, it is entirely possible for someone to purchase an arbitrarily-high number of gambling attempts and still receive nothing. While ZOS has put guaranteed consumables (of uncertain number and type) in the boxes, it would be extremely dishonest to say that people desire them. By and large, people are going to be desiring the exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes contained in the gambling boxes. Since those are not guaranteed, no matter how much you spend, ZOS is necessarily complicit in taking people's money and giving them nothing of value in the way off physical goods, digital goods, or services. The exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes are nothing but enticement to gamble, the entire gem system is simply Second Enticement, and the lot of it is a reprehensible business practice that is a complete betrayal of the normal customer/service-provider relationship.

    going buy to play????

    i may be old and cantankerous but it was buy to play from the off....

    didn't read the rest... one fallacy is enough to put me off a wall of text.

    @jedtb16_ESO You are incorrect, the game was subscription when it first launched. Additionally, you are using both "logical fallacy" and "wall of text" incorrectly.

    the game was buy to play when it started... you had to buy the box to play it.... i was there buster.

    i did not use the phrase 'logical fallacy' are you early onset or something?

    wall of text = more than 6 lines.
Sign In or Register to comment.