Fixes that will make gambling clearly ethical

ChaosWotan

@r3turn2s3nd3r

Section 3) is just an argument that will neutralise the anti-gambling argument that crown crates exploit vulnerable people and can trigger gambling addiction. What I personally endorse is actually rather irrelevant in an academic/scholarly debate about gambling, to the degree we can call this little informal debate "academic"

@Huyen

But in your country, you can get a debit card to buy the game on the internet, right?

Ermiq

Fleshreaper wrote: »

It's NOT gambling. You are paying money and you are GETTING something. That something you get is random and it may not be what you wanted but you still got something for your money.

Yes, that's what the law says. Now think about such thing as scam. You know sometimes scam can be very smart and literally lawfully. That's why they're making changes in law sometimes.
Casinos doesn't give you something back because all that they can give is a money or a material thing that cost money. The game gives you digital garbage because it costs nothing, they can give you 1 million exp scrolls and nothing will be lost to them. Think about it.

Fleshreaper wrote: »

If you don't want to spend your money on crown potions and scroll, then don't buy the crate.

Nice. So if I just want a costume then I should forget about it. You are so great in solving the problems.

CaffeinatedMayhem

ChaosWotan wrote: »

1) give ESO owners an option to disable the crate gambling system, either forever or at 3/6/12 month intervals.

2) new buyers who want to purchase the game on the internet must not only have a credit card which shows that they are 18 years old, but must also provide a telephone number which is registered in the same name as the card, and then confirm via sms that they have received a message from ESO clearly notifying them that the game includes gambling. Parents will then notice it if their kids have used their card, and will also know the risk involved if they let their kids play the game (preferably with gambling disabled, as an extra parents control).

3) create a two tier crate gambling system: one level with good odds and relatively cool items for those with normal credit cards, with a limit on how much you can spend each month, that can be adjusted if you show ZOS that you are good for it. And then a second level with exclusive items for people who have credit cards that you can only get if you have high income.

4) put a gambling warning on the cover of the disc version of the game.

If ZOS starts to feel serious pressure from anti-gambling lobbyists and lawmakers, the company can neutralise it by implementing the above.

Most of this is just reactionary feel-goods, but I've highlighted the real issue, and the biggest one for me: Why should IRL income determine what you get? Or have any bearing on the game at all? I bought the same $60 game (pre-order no less!) and I pay the same sub. Crowns cost the same for me. Why should the fact that I'm in a low tax bracket determine anything in this game?

Carbonised

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

5. Don’t buy them if you can’t control yourself.

Seriously people. I love Barbie stuff as much as the next person but it’s time to put on the big boy pants and be an adult.

Considering that pretty much every civilized country today has state legislation that prohibits minors from access to everything from alcohol, tobacco and gambling to media content with sexual or violent themes, then what you write here seems pretty ignorant to me.

Of course it always sounds cooler to just demand that people 'toughen up' instead. State legislators have long ago realized that that's not how things work, especially regarding minors under 18 years, hence why every modern country has regulations for these things.

And as for Woeler's counterargument that this game is PEGI 18, well, in Europe yes. In the States, ESO's ESRB rating is mature(M), which means 17+. Meaning that anyone between 17 and 18 years are well within that guideline, as well as legally still being a minor. Also, the PEGI/ESRB ratings aren't legislation. It's a recommendation. The responsibility to verify the age of their customers falls solely on ZOS. Just like the responsibility to verify the age of minors fall on the casino owner, the bartender or whomever is offering services prohibited from minors. If a cop busts you selling alcohol to minors, you're not getting away with the excuse that "officer, if they were underage they shouldn't even be in my bar in the first place".

r3turn2s3nd3r

@ChaosWotan

Yes, I get that it's simply academic and not necessarily your personal endorsement, but the counter argument is still valid none the less.

Is it fair to put an extreme (and I will cede that I do consider point 3 to be 'extreme') constraint on those who do not have a problem simply to 'control' those who do?

And, academically speaking,

Should casinos be required to do a credit check on you as you walk through the door and then say you can only play .25 slots because your credit is sub par?

ChaosWotan

@thatlaurachick

@r3turn2s3nd3r

I personally support subscription and that all items should be available to all players as achievements in the game, but this system doesn't work anymore, apparently, so ESO started with crown crates. That made many players happy, and many players unhappy. Guess there is no system that will make everyone happy. So one has to compromise and adjust, through learning and discussing the pros and cons of different systems.

The point in this thread is that ESO can actually avoid accusations made by the anti-gambling lobby if the company implements the fixes in the OP. If they one day notice that the pressure against gambling is strong enough to justify this kind of countermeasure. Now, if they change the crown crates accordingly, you have to live with it, because they are the owners of ESO. Like we in the anti-gambling group must learn to live with the current system, or leave the game.

teiselaise

Ok first, I don't like crown crates and this is not me defending it, I just want to say: From what I know, crown crates is not gambling, and does not have to follow the rules.

So, I'm not 100% sure about the rules of gambling, but are Pokemon cards and those gum dispensers with differently colored gum gambling? I would say no, since you will get something in return, maybe not what you wanted but something, in gambling, you risk getting nothing, if crown crates are gambling, going to the grocery would also be gambling, the apple you buy can have a worm or be rotten inside, if you take an airplane to America, it can be delayed an hour, so if your logic about gambling is real, you cannot breath before you turn 18, since the oxygen mass may vary, I would quite frankly be dead by now since im only 16 and didn't reach 18 before your laws came. With you I'm not talking to the op but to everyone claiming that crown crates are gambling.

I know that some of these examples are extreme, just use them as a way to understand my point.

Fleshreaper

Eremith wrote: »

Fleshreaper wrote: »

It's NOT gambling. You are paying money and you are GETTING something. That something you get is random and it may not be what you wanted but you still got something for your money.

Yes, that's what the law says. Now think about such thing as scam. You know sometimes scam can be very smart and literally lawfully. That's why they're making changes in law sometimes.
Casinos doesn't give you something back because all that they can give is a money or a material thing that cost money. The game gives you digital garbage because it costs nothing, they can give you 1 million exp scrolls and nothing will be lost to them. Think about it.

Fleshreaper wrote: »

If you don't want to spend your money on crown potions and scroll, then don't buy the crate.

Nice. So if I just want a costume then I should forget about it. You are so great in solving the problems.

"The game gives you digital garbage because it costs nothing", RIGHT, it costs nothing to make..... Someone didn't have to spend hours programming code. But hey, you feel you are entitled to someone else's hard work for nothing. <Sigh> A scam is by the very definition designed to trick/fool someone.

Let me make it clear. I do not buy crates and I don't support the idea of them. But not because it's gambling because it's not.

CaffeinatedMayhem

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@thatlaurachick

@r3turn2s3nd3r

I personally support subscription and that all items should be available to all players as achievements in the game, but this system doesn't work anymore, apparently, so ESO started with crown crates. That made many players happy, and many players unhappy. Guess there is no system that will make everyone happy. So one has to compromise and adjust, through learning and discussing the pros and cons of different systems.

The point in this thread is that ESO can actually avoid accusations made by the anti-gambling lobby if the company implements the fixes in the OP. If they one day notice that the pressure against gambling is strong enough to justify this kind of countermeasure. Now, if they change the crown crates accordingly, you have to live with it, because they are the owners of ESO. Like we in the anti-gambling group must learn to live with the current system, or leave the game.

Right, so your compromise is to "punish" those with lower income. It's true that no system will make everyone happy, but why must reasonably priced items (older costumes and mounts) only be availbe to those who can afford to gamble for them? Why not just put them out for purchase and leave the Seasonal stuff (apex mounts etc) in the crates. Then people can waste money all they want for the "cool" stuff, and I can use my monthly crowns allowance on something I actually want. Win-win. The only other thing I would add is that chances must be published like any other form of gambling (sweepstakes, casinos, etc)

Tandor

lordrichter wrote: »

Fleshreaper wrote: »

It's NOT gambling. You are paying money and you are GETTING something. That something you get is random and it may not be what you wanted but you still got something for your money. Gambling, you have a very good chance of getting nothing. If you don't want to spend your money on crown potions and scroll, then don't buy the crate.

Yeah, it is gambling.

Not if what you receive in a crate is always worth the cost of the crate. It's a purchase with a guaranteed value and the chance of additional value over and above that. You may consider the items worthless, in which case you're under no pressure to buy them, but you do receive them and they do have a value as compared with gambling where you either receive your winnings or lose your stake. I don't know off-hand of any recognised form of gambling where you always receive your stake back and may get additional winnings on top.

Tan9oSuccka

Carbonised wrote: »

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

5. Don’t buy them if you can’t control yourself.

Seriously people. I love Barbie stuff as much as the next person but it’s time to put on the big boy pants and be an adult.

Considering that pretty much every civilized country today has state legislation that prohibits minors from access to everything from alcohol, tobacco and gambling to media content with sexual or violent themes, then what you write here seems pretty ignorant to me.

Of course it always sounds cooler to just demand that people 'toughen up' instead. State legislators have long ago realized that that's not how things work, especially regarding minors under 18 years, hence why every modern country has regulations for these things.

And as for Woeler's counterargument that this game is PEGI 18, well, in Europe yes. In the States, ESO's ESRB rating is mature(M), which means 17+. Meaning that anyone between 17 and 18 years are well within that guideline, as well as legally still being a minor. Also, the PEGI/ESRB ratings aren't legislation. It's a recommendation. The responsibility to verify the age of their customers falls solely on ZOS. Just like the responsibility to verify the age of minors fall on the casino owner, the bartender or whomever is offering services prohibited from minors. If a cop busts you selling alcohol to minors, you're not getting away with the excuse that "officer, if they were underage they shouldn't even be in my bar in the first place".

Carbonised wrote: »

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

5. Don’t buy them if you can’t control yourself.

Seriously people. I love Barbie stuff as much as the next person but it’s time to put on the big boy pants and be an adult.

Considering that pretty much every civilized country today has state legislation that prohibits minors from access to everything from alcohol, tobacco and gambling to media content with sexual or violent themes, then what you write here seems pretty ignorant to me.

Of course it always sounds cooler to just demand that people 'toughen up' instead. State legislators have long ago realized that that's not how things work, especially regarding minors under 18 years, hence why every modern country has regulations for these things.

And as for Woeler's counterargument that this game is PEGI 18, well, in Europe yes. In the States, ESO's ESRB rating is mature(M), which means 17+. Meaning that anyone between 17 and 18 years are well within that guideline, as well as legally still being a minor. Also, the PEGI/ESRB ratings aren't legislation. It's a recommendation. The responsibility to verify the age of their customers falls solely on ZOS. Just like the responsibility to verify the age of minors fall on the casino owner, the bartender or whomever is offering services prohibited from minors. If a cop busts you selling alcohol to minors, you're not getting away with the excuse that "officer, if they were underage they shouldn't even be in my bar in the first place".

Yes, yes. Because all laws are followed to the letter.

How many age gates did you bypass as a minor? I sure did, it wasn't hard to figure out even back in 1996 and it still isn't anything other than a "feel-good" deterrent to pacify armchair law aficionados and helicopter parents.

r3turn2s3nd3r

thatlaurachick wrote: »

Right, so your compromise is to "punish" those with lower income.

Actually, as proposed it would also 'punish' those with high income too if they didn't have an 'elite' credit card.

It would possibly also create 'social classes' with in the game. Possibly lead to harassment / grieving as you would easily be able to tell who was a 'have' or 'have not'. That should not be allowed to happen.

Narvuntien

1. Make is crystal clear it is gambling
2. All crates have 1 rare item of varying quality or
3. Every crate has items worth the same amout of crown gems.

Juju_beans

Those crates are totally optional. You can play the game just fine without purchasing those crates.
If you don't like them then don't buy them.

Since ESO is B2P they have to generate revenue somehow. ESO+ and the crown store are their ways to generate revenue.

And it's not like buying crates is shoved in your face every time you log in..it's not.

ChaosWotan

@teiselaise

Life itself is a gamble

Think it's most accurate to describe the crown crates as a hybrid, a combination of gem store and casino. The radiant mounts, however, are pure gambling, I have argued earlier, because you can't buy them with gems, but your post now made me realise that it's more correct to label it "almost pure gambling", since one can still get enough gems to buy the now downgraded and relatively poor-looking apex mounts.

@thatlaurachick

All reasonably priced items can be put in the crown store. But ESO decides all those things anyway, no matter what we think is fair.

CaffeinatedMayhem

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@thatlaurachick

All reasonably priced items can be put in the crown store. But ESO decides all those things anyway, no matter what we think is fair.

And this is right? That we just bend over? What I'm telling you is that it isn't. And just giving in isn't the right response. Demand better of companies that you give your money to.

teiselaise

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@teiselaise

Life itself is a gamble

Think it's most accurate to describe the crown crates as a hybrid, a combination of gem store and casino. The radiant mounts, however, are pure gambling, I have argued earlier, because you can't buy them with gems, but your post now made me realise that it's more correct to label it "almost pure gambling", since one can still get enough gems to buy the now downgraded and relatively poor-looking apex mounts.

@thatlaurachick

All reasonably priced items can be put in the crown store. But ESO decides all those things anyway, no matter what we think is fair.

Well I'm glad someone understands

Hokiewa

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@teiselaise

Life itself is a gamble

Think it's most accurate to describe the crown crates as a hybrid, a combination of gem store and casino. The radiant mounts, however, are pure gambling, I have argued earlier, because you can't buy them with gems, but your post now made me realise that it's more correct to label it "almost pure gambling", since one can still get enough gems to buy the now downgraded and relatively poor-looking apex mounts.

@thatlaurachick

All reasonably priced items can be put in the crown store. But ESO decides all those things anyway, no matter what we think is fair.

Except the radiant mounts aren't pure gambling as stated by many. You buy a crate, you receive goods. There is no crate in the game that when you purchase it, you either get a radiant mount or you get nothing. That's the definition of gambling, which the crates do not meet.

teiselaise

Hokiewa wrote: »

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@teiselaise

Life itself is a gamble

Think it's most accurate to describe the crown crates as a hybrid, a combination of gem store and casino. The radiant mounts, however, are pure gambling, I have argued earlier, because you can't buy them with gems, but your post now made me realise that it's more correct to label it "almost pure gambling", since one can still get enough gems to buy the now downgraded and relatively poor-looking apex mounts.

@thatlaurachick

All reasonably priced items can be put in the crown store. But ESO decides all those things anyway, no matter what we think is fair.

Except the radiant mounts aren't pure gambling as stated by many. You buy a crate, you receive goods. There is no crate in the game that when you purchase it, you either get a radiant mount or you get nothing. That's the definition of gambling, which the crates do not meet.

Yes please

CaffeinatedMayhem

teiselaise wrote: »

Hokiewa wrote: »

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@teiselaise

Life itself is a gamble

Think it's most accurate to describe the crown crates as a hybrid, a combination of gem store and casino. The radiant mounts, however, are pure gambling, I have argued earlier, because you can't buy them with gems, but your post now made me realise that it's more correct to label it "almost pure gambling", since one can still get enough gems to buy the now downgraded and relatively poor-looking apex mounts.

@thatlaurachick

All reasonably priced items can be put in the crown store. But ESO decides all those things anyway, no matter what we think is fair.

Except the radiant mounts aren't pure gambling as stated by many. You buy a crate, you receive goods. There is no crate in the game that when you purchase it, you either get a radiant mount or you get nothing. That's the definition of gambling, which the crates do not meet.

Yes please

So.... who says that the definition is completely correct? Why not address limiting addicitve behavior, which loot boxes clearly meet. Why not address fairness - it's very obvious Crown Crate rewards are biased based on crown purchases, why is this allowed? Why shouldn't the probabilites be published? (China already requires this). Why must be just say "it is" instead of "how can we make it better"?

Hokiewa

thatlaurachick wrote: »

teiselaise wrote: »

Hokiewa wrote: »

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@teiselaise

Life itself is a gamble

Think it's most accurate to describe the crown crates as a hybrid, a combination of gem store and casino. The radiant mounts, however, are pure gambling, I have argued earlier, because you can't buy them with gems, but your post now made me realise that it's more correct to label it "almost pure gambling", since one can still get enough gems to buy the now downgraded and relatively poor-looking apex mounts.

@thatlaurachick

All reasonably priced items can be put in the crown store. But ESO decides all those things anyway, no matter what we think is fair.

Except the radiant mounts aren't pure gambling as stated by many. You buy a crate, you receive goods. There is no crate in the game that when you purchase it, you either get a radiant mount or you get nothing. That's the definition of gambling, which the crates do not meet.

Yes please

So.... who says that the definition is completely correct? Why not address limiting addicitve behavior, which loot boxes clearly meet. Why not address fairness - it's very obvious Crown Crate rewards are biased based on crown purchases, why is this allowed? Why shouldn't the probabilites be published? (China already requires this). Why must be just say "it is" instead of "how can we make it better"?

Well, circuit courts in the U.S. have stated that definition several times regarding this very thing. Do you have any actual empirical evidence to suggest a mass of gambling addicts have invaded ESO? Even though again, it's not gambling. You are receiving something for your purchase. It's actually even more detailed than that, as Crowns have no monetary value, you can't exchange them for cash, only for digital goods. Crates themselves are two degrees separate from your money (which is INTENTIONAL on gaming companies and circumvents some countries restrictions on these things).

teiselaise

thatlaurachick wrote: »

teiselaise wrote: »

Hokiewa wrote: »

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@teiselaise

Life itself is a gamble

Think it's most accurate to describe the crown crates as a hybrid, a combination of gem store and casino. The radiant mounts, however, are pure gambling, I have argued earlier, because you can't buy them with gems, but your post now made me realise that it's more correct to label it "almost pure gambling", since one can still get enough gems to buy the now downgraded and relatively poor-looking apex mounts.

@thatlaurachick

All reasonably priced items can be put in the crown store. But ESO decides all those things anyway, no matter what we think is fair.

Except the radiant mounts aren't pure gambling as stated by many. You buy a crate, you receive goods. There is no crate in the game that when you purchase it, you either get a radiant mount or you get nothing. That's the definition of gambling, which the crates do not meet.

Yes please

So.... who says that the definition is completely correct? Why not address limiting addicitve behavior, which loot boxes clearly meet. Why not address fairness - it's very obvious Crown Crate rewards are biased based on crown purchases, why is this allowed? Why shouldn't the probabilites be published? (China already requires this). Why must be just say "it is" instead of "how can we make it better"?

Yeah, as I said in the top, I don't like crown crates, and yeah they are definitely addicting, I just wanted to say that they are not gambling, I don't agree with any of zos'es decision.

CaffeinatedMayhem

Hokiewa wrote: »

<snip>
So.... who says that the definition is completely correct? Why not address limiting addicitve behavior, which loot boxes clearly meet. Why not address fairness - it's very obvious Crown Crate rewards are biased based on crown purchases, why is this allowed? Why shouldn't the probabilites be published? (China already requires this). Why must be just say "it is" instead of "how can we make it better"?

Well, circuit courts in the U.S. have stated that definition several times regarding this very thing.

Again, why does that make it so? Circuit courts also used to state that black people were, by nature, inferior. That is definitely not true, and the law was changed for the better.

Carbonised

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

Yes, yes. Because all laws are followed to the letter.

Ehm, perhaps not the argument you'd wanna use in your defense in a court any time soon, buddy.

ChaosWotan

@Hokiewa

Well, then we just have to tweak and update the legal definition of "gambling". The old definition is not written in stone after all. For example, if you spend a thousand dollars to get a chance to ride a F-22 Raptor and you instead get a free bus ticket home, as a consolation prize, then you have been gambling. In other words, if you totally love a radiant item, but end up with an apex mount you don't like at all, you have gambled after losing 300 dollars.

Hokiewa

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@Hokiewa

Well, then we just have to tweak and update the legal definition of "gambling". The old definition is not written in stone after all. For example, if you spend a thousand dollars to get a chance to ride a F-22 Raptor and you instead get a free bus ticket home, as a consolation prize, then you have been gambling. In other words, if you totally love a radiant item, but end up with an apex mount you don't like at all, you have gambled after losing 300 dollars.

Not legally. It's certainly not going to be overturned in the U.S. because of cosmetic items.

No, in the U.S. the anecdote regarding the F-22 you provide is not gambling, it is legally defined as a sweepstakes. While the laymen's definition of sweepstakes may include gambling in the description, it's not a legally binding definition. They are two remotely different things and two remotely different rules apply. With real tangible goods, value again doesn't make a difference in the determination of gambling or not. You received a chance to ride a F-22, instead you got a bus ticket.

Cously

Personal responsability. Deal with the consequences. I find the idea of loot boxes rather disgusting, I'm guilty of have bought some on occasion to get gems for some items that were exclusive. But as a staunch defender of the free market, the company can setup any systems it wants. If you allow your kids to use your credit card or finance their leisure without supervising where they are spending money on then you only have yourself to blame and frankly you are a horrible and lazy parent.

ChaosWotan

@Hokiewa

Then we in the anti-gambling group just have to redefine ourselves as the anti-sweepstakes group

Hokiewa

thatlaurachick wrote: »

Hokiewa wrote: »

<snip>
So.... who says that the definition is completely correct? Why not address limiting addicitve behavior, which loot boxes clearly meet. Why not address fairness - it's very obvious Crown Crate rewards are biased based on crown purchases, why is this allowed? Why shouldn't the probabilites be published? (China already requires this). Why must be just say "it is" instead of "how can we make it better"?

Well, circuit courts in the U.S. have stated that definition several times regarding this very thing.

Again, why does that make it so? Circuit courts also used to state that black people were, by nature, inferior. That is definitely not true, and the law was changed for the better.

Are you really comparing the two?

Hokiewa

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@Hokiewa

Then we in the anti-gambling group just have to redefine ourselves as the anti-sweepstakes group

Go for it. But as I've stated before, when you spend money on crowns, your financial transaction is complete. What you do with those crowns, that have no monetary value, is up to you. The separation btw the act of purchasing the crowns with cash, and the purchasing of crates, is a further protection by gaming companies. It is intentional and it bypasses the definition of sweepstakes, gambling, or whatever new sin you can come up with.