Do not buy Crown Crates!!!

Bouldercleave

runagate wrote: »

Well, they are in fact a scam. The very definition of offering something that someone knows you want while using sleight of hand and tricky means to get you to keep upping the ante to get what you want.

Notably not everyone who plays ESO is sitting here with Yolokin and I, trolling the forums, nude at our PCs except for out open front silk kimonos covered in elegant kelp and koi embroidery, holding hands and singing Adele songs.

Some people only belatedly realize they've been tricked into trying something presented as fun, but in reality a way to get you to spend far more on a chance to get the item you want, rather than simply buying it outright.

That's the whole point of the scam and the *** of Pacrooti and the silence on their part.

You can actually hear their PR flak and "monetization Linda" saying, "OK, I know they're mad but trust us, despite all the promises gone back on and ever decreasing content let's just let this play out and then analyze the numbers."

Which is why we're trying so, so hard to talk sense to them. But, you know, they're so much smarter than their entire fan base they'll never make a misstep. Right?

Which is also why they sold a *** ton of these instantly, Right? It doesn't matter that some individuals are upset if the things are selling like hotcakes.

They took a gamble by putting the boxes out and in the short term it looks like they are getting proven right.

Recremen

Havokatmos93 wrote: »

I got the storm camel in my 1st 4 pack and red pit wolf after 18 crates with gems after liquidating everything I could I'm done with crates until the next mount or cool costume. What else was I gonna spend my black Friday crowns on?

Ideally you could have spent them just buying the items outright from the regular Crown Store instead of this gambling nonsense. These boxes have got to go.

Jsmalls

They definitely should post the odds of getting each type of item at minimum.

That being said bought a 15 pack from eso plus crowns...
Recieved a storm atronach senche mount (exactly what I wanted)
The Palatine mage armor (very much wanted this)
And the Wizard Hat (also wanted this)

And other stuff idc about and 75 crown gems from doubles and extracted consumables.

I got EXTREMELY lucky from what I hear. I can imagine other's experiences aren't as fortunate

Publius_Scipio

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

JimT722

Recremen wrote: »

Havokatmos93 wrote: »

I got the storm camel in my 1st 4 pack and red pit wolf after 18 crates with gems after liquidating everything I could I'm done with crates until the next mount or cool costume. What else was I gonna spend my black Friday crowns on?

Ideally you could have spent them just buying the items outright from the regular Crown Store instead of this gambling nonsense. These boxes have got to go.

I want 2 rewards, none of them apex. It appears one would cost 46 crates on average and the other 25. That means I would be facing spending 15,000 crowns or $120 on average for a body marking and a hairstyle. Since those two items are the only things I would want, where does that leave me.

It's nice ZOS decided to include these items on the pts in July so I would get hyped up for them in their Argonian focused update. Never believed then Rng loot boxes were coming and they never said anything about the availability of them when I praised their work on it in July.

AsteriaStarfall

Purchased the 15 pack. After seeing how low the "conversion" to gems is for duplicates and the crap potions you get. Will not be buying any more. Also since I have yet to see any new content since i first started playing (One tamriel does not count because nothing about it was new) I have decided to take my money elsewhere. On to Guild Wars 2 (which actually releases new story content quite often from what i read)

It's been fun ESO but no more money from me. Reasons i'm leaving for anyone that cares, and if not, you need not reply as i don't care either.

1) Lack of content updates, and crown store items are not content
2) Laughable crown crates
3) 4 classes, nothing new in sight
4) Lack of transmog, glamour, transmute, whatever you would like to call it for changing your armor appearance without the need of crafting entirely new sets of gear each time

It was fun while it lasted, but not for me any more. Take care everyone.

Recremen

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

thomas1970b16_ESO

My sub runs out in about 3 weeks. I will see if I will renew then.

Publius_Scipio

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

Recremen

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

Publius_Scipio

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Callous2208

What about content though? Am I supposed to sit with my thumb up my ass like a drooling idiot rolling dice and draining my bank account. Where's the real stuff ZOS or is this it going forward? Scam crates and silence like the other f2p trash mmos on the market. I don't mean datamined bs or housing. Where's the *** for people who enjoy playing video games and not the morons sitting in town on a goofy looking mount having asinine zone chat debates?

Callous2208

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

Mx13

ThePaleItalian wrote: »

Mx13 wrote: »

ThePaleItalian wrote: »

Please note I am against the crate. But I know each player to their own... but here is my thought on one thing I constantly see on forum posts...


People knew what they were getting for months now, so its on them. The only thing I do not like is people freaking out about a gambling addiction.... no offence but should be close bars because of drunks? Or close fast food places and ban forks because of overweight folks??

Sometimes people need to be the ones to accept the blame themselves, not the means to fuel what they cannot control...

/end rant

Good luck with your crates!!

[Insert "Aliens" meme here]
White knights

I do not get how I am white knighting... I am against the crates and what ZOS is doing.

You might wanna look up what White Knighting means..

@ThePaleItalian
Sorry my meme game is not strong, i wasnt calling you a white knight.

I was refering to those who use the "but...but...gambling addiction" argument, but yeah you're right, SJW is a better term.

Mutagem

Oh, a post telling you not to, but not explaining why....how insightful

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

JD2013

Callous2208 wrote: »

What about content though? Am I supposed to sit with my thumb up my ass like a drooling idiot rolling dice and draining my bank account. Where's the real stuff ZOS or is this it going forward? Scam crates and silence like the other f2p trash mmos on the market. I don't mean datamined bs or housing. Where's the *** for people who enjoy playing video games and not the morons sitting in town on a goofy looking mount having asinine zone chat debates?

We know housing is next. They've never been really big on releasing future plans since Quakecon 2014 really.

Callous2208

JD2013 wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

What about content though? Am I supposed to sit with my thumb up my ass like a drooling idiot rolling dice and draining my bank account. Where's the real stuff ZOS or is this it going forward? Scam crates and silence like the other f2p trash mmos on the market. I don't mean datamined bs or housing. Where's the *** for people who enjoy playing video games and not the morons sitting in town on a goofy looking mount having asinine zone chat debates?

We know housing is next. They've never been really big on releasing future plans since Quakecon 2014 really.

As an rp'r housing will be nice and hopefully wash the taste of *** out of my mouth from this crate fiasco. But I really feel it's important to know about other large content expansions. Otherwise one may be led to believe that those are going to be few and far between, like some f2p mmo that relies on cash shops and rng boxes to milk players instead of quality updates.

JD2013

Callous2208 wrote: »

JD2013 wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

What about content though? Am I supposed to sit with my thumb up my ass like a drooling idiot rolling dice and draining my bank account. Where's the real stuff ZOS or is this it going forward? Scam crates and silence like the other f2p trash mmos on the market. I don't mean datamined bs or housing. Where's the *** for people who enjoy playing video games and not the morons sitting in town on a goofy looking mount having asinine zone chat debates?

We know housing is next. They've never been really big on releasing future plans since Quakecon 2014 really.

As an rp'r housing will be nice and hopefully wash the taste of *** out of my mouth from this crate fiasco. But I really feel it's important to know about other large content expansions. Otherwise one may be led to believe that those are going to be few and far between, like some f2p mmo that relies on cash shops and rng boxes to milk players instead of quality updates.

We know Vvardenfell is in the files. It's rather large (as it should be) and as next May is the anniversary of Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, they may coincide the release with that.

We know Clockwork City and Mephala's realm were being worked on.

One of the Devs said at an event this year that Murkmire is being retooled to be like all other zones as opposed to the planned Adventure Zone.

But we don't know anything about their release schedule or when they plan to unleash these areas. We don't even know yet if housing will have a paid DLC on top of it either as I'm guessing housing will be part of base game patch.

Jimbullbee85

I've opened 30 crates tonight. Got two mounts and a load of other gear, most of which I've traded for gems. Only got 150 gems It was a gamble but my storm atronach bear looks awesome.

Doctordarkspawn

Bouldercleave wrote: »

Moltyr wrote: »

DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!!! (unless you're super rich)

Edited title to remove caps lock and baiting language.

That's not your call to make.

Your playing of devils advocate for a predatory practice does you no credit. All sides are allowed to give their own advice.

@Bouldercleave stop trying to crush dissent like you allways do and let people make the call, informed with differing opinions.

Edit: And fact, for that matter. There's a lovely thread allready started with the help of community ambassadors to calculate the true droprates for all items including Apex. Let people have all the facts before making a decision, as well.

Doctordarkspawn

I'm not spending any money. I dont care enough. I dont support the practice and as a result I've no truck with any of this.

But if your looking for a few reasons not to, look at the state the game is in. Ramptant ballance issues, performance issues, and this is why they push? This is what they release, now, of all times?


I say withhold your money until the game is worth spending it on, at least in the ballance department.

Callous2208

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

I'm not spending any money. I dont care enough. I dont support the practice and as a result I've no truck with any of this.

But if your looking for a few reasons not to, look at the state the game is in. Ramptant ballance issues, performance issues, and this is why they push? This is what they release, now, of all times?


I say withhold your money until the game is worth spending it on, at least in the ballance department.

Wouldn't hold your breath. F2p transitions are always pretty messy. Content and bug fixes are never high on the list of priorities.

Rohamad_Ali

I honestly don't care how lucky anyone has been with crates . That's how they always start off . I just know where it all ends up in the end and I am not contributing the destruction it always causes .

Doctordarkspawn

Callous2208 wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

I'm not spending any money. I dont care enough. I dont support the practice and as a result I've no truck with any of this.

But if your looking for a few reasons not to, look at the state the game is in. Ramptant ballance issues, performance issues, and this is why they push? This is what they release, now, of all times?


I say withhold your money until the game is worth spending it on, at least in the ballance department.

Wouldn't hold your breath. F2p transitions are always pretty messy. Content and bug fixes are never high on the list of priorities.

The game is not going F2P. It's not been announced, It'd be a massive flood on the servers and I doubt most people would stay if they did, due to the fact this game is slowly edging away from the most casual game on earth.

If you had told me that maybe a few major updates ago it could be plausable. But no, not at the current level.

Until they make that announcement, please. Stop perpetuating that rumor based on very little circumstancial evidence.

Publius_Scipio

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

JimT722

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

I'm not spending any money. I dont care enough. I dont support the practice and as a result I've no truck with any of this.

But if your looking for a few reasons not to, look at the state the game is in. Ramptant ballance issues, performance issues, and this is why they push? This is what they release, now, of all times?


I say withhold your money until the game is worth spending it on, at least in the ballance department.

Wouldn't hold your breath. F2p transitions are always pretty messy. Content and bug fixes are never high on the list of priorities.

The game is not going F2P. It's not been announced, It'd be a massive flood on the servers and I doubt most people would stay if they did, due to the fact this game is slowly edging away from the most casual game on earth.

If you had told me that maybe a few major updates ago it could be plausable. But no, not at the current level.

Until they make that announcement, please. Stop perpetuating that rumor based on very little circumstancial evidence.

With the decisions being made, I really have a hard time telling the difference between this game and F2P. It is like a fusion of f2p cash grab strategies made popular with Korean MMO's fused with the entry price of a buy to play. The marketing director does mostly f2p mmo transitions so I guess that may be why this game feels cheap but still has a premium price.

AcadianPaladin

I'm not going to pay for anything unless I know exactly what I'm getting. There are many things in the crown crate inventory system that I would be happy to buy straight our for a reasonable price but I will never buy a box when the contents are uncertain. Period. I would like to see the crown crate content items available for straight purchase.

Similarly but slightly off topic, I will not farm for the chance of getting good drops. I insist on the certainty of preparing what I need and crafting my own set items. That is why I hope that craftible sets do not languish in favor of farming drops.

Doctordarkspawn

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

alexkdd99

Recremen wrote: »

ArrerBoy wrote: »

So don't buy it. I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.

Not buying isn't enough. The practice of selling them should be discouraged. If you aren't helping that then you're complicit in it. I don't see why this is so difficult to grasp.

Lol. Stop worrying what others do with THEIR money. Most of the people I have talked with in game that bought 15 or more crates have been fairly lucky.

Bought 30 crates from crowns bought on sale. Got 2 apex and most of the legendary rewards along with 240 gems.

This is not a scam either. Random is random, it's very simple. These crates are actually way better than any other crates from other games. Your chances are much better in this game.

And people posting about gambling companies must post odds are being a tad ridiculous. This is not a gambling company. You are not receiving anything anytime you spend any money in the crown store.

You are renting a license to use their digital product. I am happy with my purchase. Also anyone with any sense will make their own decisions on how they spend their money, I know I will.

Publius_Scipio

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.