Loot Boxes now becoming Illegal. How does this effect Crown Crates?

vamp_emily

Kilandros wrote: »

As an actual RL lawyer I wish you wouldn't throw around terms you clearly don't understand. Also, just FYI, but Federal Courts apply state law all the time. And even if state law isn't binding (i.e., a federal court is not bound to it because they'll be applying federal laws), state rulings are frequently quite influential if there are limited federal rulings on the issue. If I was clerking for a federal judge hearing a novel federal issue (I did in fact clerk for a fed judge out of law school) and there were limited to no federal precedent, I would then look to state precedent.

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

As a RL lawyer what do you think about these gaming practices ( loot boxes )? I would love to hear what you have to say and if you think its it should be Illegal.

Elsonso

Kilandros wrote: »

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

If we weren't being armchair lawyers, we would be armchair programmers/developers. Personally, I'd rather people be armchair lawyers. Much rather.

vamp_emily wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

As an actual RL lawyer I wish you wouldn't throw around terms you clearly don't understand. Also, just FYI, but Federal Courts apply state law all the time. And even if state law isn't binding (i.e., a federal court is not bound to it because they'll be applying federal laws), state rulings are frequently quite influential if there are limited federal rulings on the issue. If I was clerking for a federal judge hearing a novel federal issue (I did in fact clerk for a fed judge out of law school) and there were limited to no federal precedent, I would then look to state precedent.

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

As a RL lawyer what do you think about these gaming practices ( loot boxes )? I would love to hear what you have to say and if you think its it should be Illegal.

Might be better to ask that of a RL politician or law maker.

Kilandros

vamp_emily wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

As an actual RL lawyer I wish you wouldn't throw around terms you clearly don't understand. Also, just FYI, but Federal Courts apply state law all the time. And even if state law isn't binding (i.e., a federal court is not bound to it because they'll be applying federal laws), state rulings are frequently quite influential if there are limited federal rulings on the issue. If I was clerking for a federal judge hearing a novel federal issue (I did in fact clerk for a fed judge out of law school) and there were limited to no federal precedent, I would then look to state precedent.

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

As a RL lawyer what do you think about these gaming practices ( loot boxes )? I would love to hear what you have to say and if you think its it should be Illegal.

I don't know enough about the substantive laws governing gambling (to say nothing of internet gambling) to speak intelligently on the issue. Do I think it's currently illegal? No, clearly not or they wouldn't be doing it. ZOS, EA, etc. have insanely good legal teams who make sure these things fit within the letter of the law. Do I think lawmakers will change that? Maybe. A few of my classmates are staffers on the Hill and I've heard it's being talked about. But they talk about lots of things.

Rohamad_Ali

I hope the practice gets banned world wide .

Wreuntzylla

Kilandros wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

sheepdog2142_ESO wrote: »

Definition of Gambling for US Law:
A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.

Of course, under US laws, definitions are only somewhat relevant, and under federal precedent (i.e nobody cares what Hawaii thinks) digital goods from loot boxes are not “something of value.”

Nothing’s happening, continue your playing.

As an actual RL lawyer I wish you wouldn't throw around terms you clearly don't understand. Also, just FYI, but Federal Courts apply state law all the time. And even if state law isn't binding (i.e., a federal court is not bound to it because they'll be applying federal laws), state rulings are frequently quite influential if there are limited federal rulings on the issue. If I was clerking for a federal judge hearing a novel federal issue (I did in fact clerk for a fed judge out of law school) and there were limited to no federal precedent, I would then look to state precedent.

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

I think the misapprehension is with respect to preemption and pleadings, and how states vary in their legal approach to gambling. The problem for the poster is really that states are typically divided as to the definition of gambling, and Hawaii falls on one side of the line with a bunch of other states. If Hawaii actually makes a change or their courts make certain interpretations, the slow adopter-quick follower states will be right there.

olivesforge wrote: »

sheepdog2142_ESO wrote: »

One could argue the items in the crown crates are both valuable and desirable otherwise people would not by them. If you take the definition of Value or Valuable if you will and apply it with the legal definition of gambling there is something to see here.

Several already argued something similar in multiple courts. They all lost. At least in the US, there’s no question. Loot crates contain nothing of value (as defined legally, not as defined by non-legal dictionaries which have no standing under law), and even if they did, the value is the lowest possible result, not the highest.

The underpinning of these decisions is that because, by contract or otherwise, you can't dispose of the virtual good, it has no extrinsic value. This is part of the reason you can't sell crown store goods player-to-player and why account selling is illegal. It generally works in those jurisdictions that require extrinsic value, but sometimes still fails if their is a secondary market, whether or not it results in a breach of contract.

The cases you are referring to have never reached a state or federal high court. Moreover, in those jurisdictions that don't necessarily follow the extrinsic value rule, the cases are settled and never see the light of a courtroom.

The bottom line is that you can determine what is going to happen in any given circumstance by following the money. There have not been any interesting legal theories put forward (e.g., virtual property under the 'mixed with labor' theory of property) or any interest by legislatures because it has not represented enough dollars to devote any attention to it.

This year, worldwide video game revenue is expected to hit 100B USD and add about 10B USD every year after. It's no surprise that legislators are suddenly interested in protecting the children...

Kilandros

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

sheepdog2142_ESO wrote: »

Definition of Gambling for US Law:
A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.

Of course, under US laws, definitions are only somewhat relevant, and under federal precedent (i.e nobody cares what Hawaii thinks) digital goods from loot boxes are not “something of value.”

Nothing’s happening, continue your playing.

As an actual RL lawyer I wish you wouldn't throw around terms you clearly don't understand. Also, just FYI, but Federal Courts apply state law all the time. And even if state law isn't binding (i.e., a federal court is not bound to it because they'll be applying federal laws), state rulings are frequently quite influential if there are limited federal rulings on the issue. If I was clerking for a federal judge hearing a novel federal issue (I did in fact clerk for a fed judge out of law school) and there were limited to no federal precedent, I would then look to state precedent.

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

I think the misapprehension is with respect to preemption and pleadings, and how states vary in their legal approach to gambling. The problem for the poster is really that states are typically divided as to the definition of gambling, and Hawaii falls on one side of the line with a bunch of other states. If Hawaii actually makes a change or their courts make certain interpretations, the slow adopter-quick follower states will be right there.

Presumably loot boxes would fall within the interstate commerce clause because they're offered over the internet and across state lines so federal law would preempt state law. I'm not sure why you or anyone else is talking about definitions right now since, as far as I know, no court has ruled that loot boxes are a form of gambling.

idk

Another guessing thread on the possible fate of crown crate?

Lol. No one knows what will develope or what possible changes to law will occur so every answer in here is nothing more than a guess.

Wreuntzylla

Kilandros wrote: »

vamp_emily wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

As an actual RL lawyer I wish you wouldn't throw around terms you clearly don't understand. Also, just FYI, but Federal Courts apply state law all the time. And even if state law isn't binding (i.e., a federal court is not bound to it because they'll be applying federal laws), state rulings are frequently quite influential if there are limited federal rulings on the issue. If I was clerking for a federal judge hearing a novel federal issue (I did in fact clerk for a fed judge out of law school) and there were limited to no federal precedent, I would then look to state precedent.

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

As a RL lawyer what do you think about these gaming practices ( loot boxes )? I would love to hear what you have to say and if you think its it should be Illegal.

I don't know enough about the substantive laws governing gambling (to say nothing of internet gambling) to speak intelligently on the issue. Do I think it's currently illegal? No, clearly not or they wouldn't be doing it. ZOS, EA, etc. have insanely good legal teams who make sure these things fit within the letter of the law. Do I think lawmakers will change that? Maybe. A few of my classmates are staffers on the Hill and I've heard it's being talked about. But they talk about lots of things.

I take it you are a fairly new attorney or perhaps public service oriented?

Corporations make exposure v. profit decisions constantly.

In the gaming industry, it's an easier decision from the consumer side because the amount of money put forward by any individual gamer is far, far less than the available damages required to attract a decent law firm on contingency. Further, because it's a hobby, there aren't many public interests groups that will pick these cases up. The one way to actually get past this conundrum is through consolidation but I am willing to bet most people did not opt out of the class action waiver and that at least poses a hurdle for class action attorneys to consider as to the available plaintiff pool on a state by state basis.

Exposure to law or regulation is a bit of a different story, of course, because a company cannot avoid a lawsuit brought by a state AG or federal agency, or criminal state/federal criminal charges. Moreover, sovereignty principles often give government litigants some level of deference. In that case you have to look to the possible penalties and how solidified the law is in order to make the exposure evaluation.

The richest lawyers find a way to do what the corporation wants while minimizing exposure. Lawyers who try to eliminate exposure find themselves looking for a job.

vamp_emily

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

The underpinning of these decisions is that because, by contract or otherwise, you can't dispose of the virtual good, it has no extrinsic value. This is part of the reason you can't sell crown store goods player-to-player and why account selling is illegal. It generally works in those jurisdictions that require extrinsic value, but sometimes still fails if their is a secondary market, whether or not it results in a breach of contract.

The cases you are referring to have never reached a state or federal high court. Moreover, in those jurisdictions that don't necessarily follow the extrinsic value rule, the cases are settled and never see the light of a courtroom.

The bottom line is that you can determine what is going to happen in any given circumstance by following the money. There have not been any interesting legal theories put forward (e.g., virtual property under the 'mixed with labor' theory of property) or any interest by legislatures because it has not represented enough dollars to devote any attention to it.

This year, worldwide video game revenue is expected to hit 100B USD and add about 10B USD every year after. It's no surprise that legislators are suddenly interested in protecting the children...

Thanks for the post, now it makes sense why this practice is legal.

LittlePinkDot

Legal gambling age is 19 in Canada and 18 in Europe I think
I dont understand why the US has a legal drinking/gambling age of 21, but you can work in *** at 18. So you're too young to drink, but not too young to get banged by 10 people on camera...wtf.

Kilandros

.

Wreuntzylla

Kilandros wrote: »

.

You think right and anyone landing a federal clerkship is most definitely one of the bright bulbs in the box. If you don't become an educator, you should become a force to be reckoned with.

My point was really about the unfortunate realities of life that eventually turn you into a cynical curmudgeon at way to early an age. Realistically, not everything can be determined by following the money, but 99.9999% of eventualities can be...

Slyjinxy

Um, lootboxes are far from becoming illegal. A suggestion and an inquiry are nothing. OP makes it sound like banning is immanent, not even close. Stop being a drama queen.

idk

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

vamp_emily wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

As an actual RL lawyer I wish you wouldn't throw around terms you clearly don't understand. Also, just FYI, but Federal Courts apply state law all the time. And even if state law isn't binding (i.e., a federal court is not bound to it because they'll be applying federal laws), state rulings are frequently quite influential if there are limited federal rulings on the issue. If I was clerking for a federal judge hearing a novel federal issue (I did in fact clerk for a fed judge out of law school) and there were limited to no federal precedent, I would then look to state precedent.

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

As a RL lawyer what do you think about these gaming practices ( loot boxes )? I would love to hear what you have to say and if you think its it should be Illegal.

I don't know enough about the substantive laws governing gambling (to say nothing of internet gambling) to speak intelligently on the issue. Do I think it's currently illegal? No, clearly not or they wouldn't be doing it. ZOS, EA, etc. have insanely good legal teams who make sure these things fit within the letter of the law. Do I think lawmakers will change that? Maybe. A few of my classmates are staffers on the Hill and I've heard it's being talked about. But they talk about lots of things.

I take it you are a fairly new attorney or perhaps public service oriented?

Corporations make exposure v. profit decisions constantly.

In the gaming industry, it's an easier decision from the consumer side because the amount of money put forward by any individual gamer is far, far less than the available damages required to attract a decent law firm on contingency. Further, because it's a hobby, there aren't many public interests groups that will pick these cases up. The one way to actually get past this conundrum is through consolidation but I am willing to bet most people did not opt out of the class action waiver and that at least poses a hurdle for class action attorneys to consider as to the available plaintiff pool on a state by state basis.

Exposure to law or regulation is a bit of a different story, of course, because a company cannot avoid a lawsuit brought by a state AG or federal agency, or criminal state/federal criminal charges. Moreover, sovereignty principles often give government litigants some level of deference. In that case you have to look to the possible penalties and how solidified the law is in order to make the exposure evaluation.

The richest lawyers find a way to do what the corporation wants while minimizing exposure. Lawyers who try to eliminate exposure find themselves looking for a job.

What's funny is how some talk smack about something being legal or illegal based on guesses and whims.

The instant a guessing game thread like this one comes along they become an expert arm chair attorney.

Wreuntzylla

Kilandros wrote: »

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

olivesforge wrote: »

sheepdog2142_ESO wrote: »

Definition of Gambling for US Law:
A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.

Of course, under US laws, definitions are only somewhat relevant, and under federal precedent (i.e nobody cares what Hawaii thinks) digital goods from loot boxes are not “something of value.”

Nothing’s happening, continue your playing.

As an actual RL lawyer I wish you wouldn't throw around terms you clearly don't understand. Also, just FYI, but Federal Courts apply state law all the time. And even if state law isn't binding (i.e., a federal court is not bound to it because they'll be applying federal laws), state rulings are frequently quite influential if there are limited federal rulings on the issue. If I was clerking for a federal judge hearing a novel federal issue (I did in fact clerk for a fed judge out of law school) and there were limited to no federal precedent, I would then look to state precedent.

I wish you guys wouldn't pretend to be armchair lawyers, but alas.

I think the misapprehension is with respect to preemption and pleadings, and how states vary in their legal approach to gambling. The problem for the poster is really that states are typically divided as to the definition of gambling, and Hawaii falls on one side of the line with a bunch of other states. If Hawaii actually makes a change or their courts make certain interpretations, the slow adopter-quick follower states will be right there.

Presumably loot boxes would fall within the interstate commerce clause because they're offered over the internet and across state lines so federal law would preempt state law. I'm not sure why you or anyone else is talking about definitions right now since, as far as I know, no court has ruled that loot boxes are a form of gambling.

Yes, but very few areas of U.S. law fully preempt and even then "fully" is not complete. Taking interstate commerce as an example, the dormant commerce clause allows quite a bit of room for states to move around in. Further, some areas of law are almost exclusive to states, whether or not involving interstate commerce (e.g., contract law).

Federal law and regulation say far less than people think on the matter of gambling and state law often occupies a larger amount of that space. It's often unenlightening to look at federal laws because the federal government only states the minimum. As a result, to see the furthest extent of the gambling laws, you have to look to state law.

olivesforge

Kilandros wrote: »

I don't know enough about the substantive laws governing gambling (to say nothing of internet gambling) to speak intelligently on the issue. Do I think it's currently illegal? No, clearly not or they wouldn't be doing it. ZOS, EA, etc. have insanely good legal teams who make sure these things fit within the letter of the law. Do I think lawmakers will change that? Maybe. A few of my classmates are staffers on the Hill and I've heard it's being talked about. But they talk about lots of things.

Clearly, you don't. I can suggest several decent CLEs you need to attend - the ABA runs one a year if you're in Chicago, and Findlaw has a decent one in its yearly subscription model. Also the class which Texas CLE runs next to SxSW is truly excellent, and I found even the lay presentation at PAXEast and soon at PAXWest to be quite interesting. All of these would aid your currently poor understanding.

This is a mostly settled issue, and no regulatory decision from Hawaii is going to matter. Certainly I've heard some of the grumbling in both state leges and on the hill as well, but regulating loot boxes falls somewhere in between sanctioning Sao Tome and Principe for its use of loud music near the US Embassy, and regulating the percentage of spicy in internet memes. It's no where near a priority.

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

I take it you are a fairly new attorney or perhaps public service oriented?

Corporations make exposure v. profit decisions constantly.

My reaction as well. Giving a "oh yeah federal courts sometimes listen to states" is the sort of answer I'd expect out of my 1Ls in R&W, or by somebody who was a clerk. Interesting and technically correct, but useless in a courtroom.

Also the whole "I clerked" is a dead giveaway. I'm not hiring first-year associates here, I don't care.

But aside from the lawyer fight, Bethesda has clearly followed the track which the rest of the companies have set here - they have placed really good but gameplay-wise useless items into a RNG system for us to enjoy. By it's nature, RNG isn't equitable, but compared to other models, what Bethesda and what Bungie has done over on Destiny 2 are doing here is pretty good.

The only way to win, however, is not to play the loot box game.

olivesforge

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

Yes, but very few areas of U.S. law fully preempt and even then "fully" is not complete. Taking interstate commerce as an example, the dormant commerce clause allows quite a bit of room for states to move around in. Further, some areas of law are almost exclusive to states, whether or not involving interstate commerce (e.g., contract law).

Federal law and regulation say far less than people think on the matter of gambling and state law often occupies a larger amount of that space. It's often unenlightening to look at federal laws because the federal government only states the minimum. As a result, to see the furthest extent of the gambling laws, you have to look to state law.

Going full nerd - as far as land gambling, ship gambling or Indian gambling goes, there's near-absolute control for state level Gaming Boards, but states regulating internet or sports gambling have run into at least partial preclusion. UIGEA's Title 8 definately claims a large part of the space, but problematically we still don't have a definition of what such gambling is. Still, precedent out of the 5th suggests the Wire Act definitely applies.

If a state were to define loot boxes as gambling, we'd be in for a long, fun show, but I think it would be pretty easy for Bethesda or anyone else to argue that the 5th and the UIGEA set a pretty clear precedent that where internet gaming is concerned, there is deference to federal law.

Ultimately, it's all irrelevant because buying, then opening sealed packs of merchandise which might contain super-highly-valuable merchandise isn't gambling. Again, the lovely 5th (not that I'm biased), has set precedent on whether "gambling" on the contents of boxes which might contain something of high value but at least have something in them is real gambling. The answer is an absolute no. It's Price v. Pinnacle (138 F.3d 602, for the nerds), and the 9th (300 F.3d 1083)(that's why I say Hawaii is irrelevant in this), has fully adopted it.

I'm sorry guys. I might hate lootboxes too, but there's a difference between not liking something and saying that it's illegal.

LittlePinkDot

olivesforge wrote: »

Wreuntzylla wrote: »

Yes, but very few areas of U.S. law fully preempt and even then "fully" is not complete. Taking interstate commerce as an example, the dormant commerce clause allows quite a bit of room for states to move around in. Further, some areas of law are almost exclusive to states, whether or not involving interstate commerce (e.g., contract law).

Federal law and regulation say far less than people think on the matter of gambling and state law often occupies a larger amount of that space. It's often unenlightening to look at federal laws because the federal government only states the minimum. As a result, to see the furthest extent of the gambling laws, you have to look to state law.

Going full nerd - as far as land gambling, ship gambling or Indian gambling goes, there's near-absolute control for state level Gaming Boards, but states regulating internet or sports gambling have run into at least partial preclusion. UIGEA's Title 8 definately claims a large part of the space, but problematically we still don't have a definition of what such gambling is. Still, precedent out of the 5th suggests the Wire Act definitely applies.

If a state were to define loot boxes as gambling, we'd be in for a long, fun show, but I think it would be pretty easy for Bethesda or anyone else to argue that the 5th and the UIGEA set a pretty clear precedent that where internet gaming is concerned, there is deference to federal law.

Ultimately, it's all irrelevant because buying, then opening sealed packs of merchandise which might contain super-highly-valuable merchandise isn't gambling. Again, the lovely 5th (not that I'm biased), has set precedent on whether "gambling" on the contents of boxes which might contain something of high value but at least have something in them is real gambling. The answer is an absolute no. It's Price v. Pinnacle (138 F.3d 602, for the nerds), and the 9th (300 F.3d 1083)(that's why I say Hawaii is irrelevant in this), has fully adopted it.

I'm sorry guys. I might hate lootboxes too, but there's a difference between not liking something and saying that it's illegal.

I doubt beligium will make it illegal. Considering Europe has socialized systems like Canada, the government will problem see that money is being made and then invent a new tax so they can milk ZoS profits.

Kiralyn2000

I wonder what some of these people think about grab-bags (at fairs, carnivals, store sales, etc); CCG card packs; those gum-ball machines with the prize capsules, toy figure blind-boxes, etc.


'Cause, you know, under some of the general "gambling" definitions people have been throwing around lately, they all fit.

edit: and a lot of them are targeted at children! /gasp

ADarklore

Well, IF they ever do end up making things like Crown Crates illegal, what you'll see is ZOS putting these mounts in the Crown Store for 10,000 to 15,000 Crowns... and people WILL buy them. If you think that ZOS would suddenly put everything in the Crown Store from the Crates at a 'reasonable' price you are mistaken, they'll have to make up lost revenue somehow and that will be increased prices for Crown Store items. So sure, you remove the 'gamble' aspect but now you're stuck with extremely high prices to purchase them outright.

Coolits

Apparently Chris Lee and his team are already drafting the bills necessary to legislate against loot box gambling, interesting stuff!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5WxcGYvvgJo

Change is coming

Radiance

Storymaster wrote: »

If the selling of crime crates is stopped, is this going to have a negative impact on ESO's regular content schedule that has insofar been nonpareil to any mmorpg out there? That's what I am really concerned about, despite my disgust for crime crates.

Don't even try to push the argument they need the revenue! They get PLENTY from the monthly subscription from MILLIONS of people... This is just an outright lie!
I have no problem with the concept of Crown crates but this latest random, temporary Storm Crate Drop That doesn't allow the use of Crate Gem currency ON storm crate items is what has gotten me all kinds of upset to the point I will NEVER buy another Crown Crate, have not played in a few days and seriously considering canceling my Subscription because I am morally AGAINST gamble and these PREDATORY practices they've pushed on People who play games for hours on end and are thus evidently prone to addictive behavior. This is very wrong and unsettling to me. If you are putting money into something, you should be getting something you want back! Even if they are just Pixels. It is very concerning to me that they would implement such a system that makes their Paying Customers unhappy, you want them to have a pleasant experience so they continue to return. This is not a good way to do business... not in the slightest.

Raideen

Coolits wrote: »

Apparently Chris Lee and his team are already drafting the bills necessary to legislate against loot box gambling, interesting stuff!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5WxcGYvvgJo

Change is coming

This is amazing! Thank you for the link.

Hokiewa

ajdawson18ub17_ESO wrote: »

Storymaster wrote: »

If the selling of crime crates is stopped, is this going to have a negative impact on ESO's regular content schedule that has insofar been nonpareil to any mmorpg out there? That's what I am really concerned about, despite my disgust for crime crates.

Don't even try to push the argument they need the revenue! They get PLENTY from the monthly subscription from MILLIONS of people... This is just an outright lie!
I have no problem with the concept of Crown crates but this latest random, temporary Storm Crate Drop That doesn't allow the use of Crate Gem currency ON storm crate items is what has gotten me all kinds of upset to the point I will NEVER buy another Crown Crate, have not played in a few days and seriously considering canceling my Subscription because I am morally AGAINST gamble and these PREDATORY practices they've pushed on People who play games for hours on end and are thus evidently prone to addictive behavior. This is very wrong and unsettling to me. If you are putting money into something, you should be getting something you want back! Even if they are just Pixels. It is very concerning to me that they would implement such a system that makes their Paying Customers unhappy, you want them to have a pleasant experience so they continue to return. This is not a good way to do business... not in the slightest.

You have literally no idea how many paid subs there are or aren't.

eirinnpryderi

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

I hope the practice gets banned world wide .

This ones agrees, ZOS has been getting proggresively sloppier since Crime Crates release, now they probably are seeing what to do about them because it would make them boost the ESRB to Only Aduly if this goes in the good direction and they would then lose a good amount of player base, or keep it M and erase the Crates

beetleklee

I was ok with crates before even though I find them really expensive, since they're just cosmetics, but with the introduction of Radiant mounts and now the re-introduction of past crates where you can't even buy the items with gems, they're more predatory than ever. I was pretty ticked when I found out you couldn't but the Storm Atro stuff with gems, really predatory on people's gambling habits. I'd be ok with crates becoming illegal.

idk

It would be funny if nothing changes for years as is likely the case, at best.

Coolits

Chris Lee posted another video this week which among other things highlights six states that are now actively investigating legislation surrounding loot boxes plus Apple has changed its ToS on the Apple store to make it compulsory for game publishers to disclose percentages for every item contained within loot boxes.

I think apple is pretty much preparing for what it sees as the inevitable legislation against loot boxes by doing the right thing and generating good press for itself

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6xURhmqwhpc&t=1s

massivelyop.com/2017/12/21/apple-now-demands-lootbox-odds-disclosures-from-appstore-games/

Tieberion

I wouldn't mind paying slightly higher prices in say the Crown store, if it meant eliminating loot boxes.

Radiance

Tieberion wrote: »

I wouldn't mind paying slightly higher prices in say the Crown store, if it meant eliminating loot boxes.

As if they're not high enough lol, we're trying to abolish this abomination, not help them find new ways to bleed us dry!
Just open the Crown Crate Showcases to selective purchase with crowns and/Or uphold the use of their already established Gem currency.