Fixes that will make gambling clearly ethical

Rainraven

Turelus wrote: »

Or just stop treating gamers like mugs and start selling thing to us directly again.

^ Ethical

ChaosWotan

@Hokiewa

A clever legal buffer there, to avoid judicial accusations of gambling. Nicely done But almost all laws only reflect the mores and customs of different cultures at different time periods, so laws and definitions can be changed, through politics. Though I'm about 60 percent certain that we anti-gamblers/sweepstakers are defending a lost cause in most countries, but who knows what the future might bring.

Hokiewa

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@Hokiewa

A clever legal buffer there, to avoid judicial accusations of gambling. Nicely done But almost all laws only reflect the mores and customs of different cultures at different time periods, so laws and definitions can be changed, through politics. Though I'm about 60 percent certain that we anti-gamblers/sweepstakers are defending a lost cause in most countries, but who knows what the future might bring.

I don't disagree with that assertion that if enough people demand change it won't happen though companies will simply find new methods. Companies will find a way, and it's usually relatively easy.

Tan9oSuccka

Carbonised wrote: »

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.

I’m not the one on trial, guy.

People need to be accountable for their actions and or children.

It’s obviously Frank Zappa’s fault little Tommy hit himself in the head with a hammer. Likewise, it’s Zenimax’s fault little Tommy spent 200 dollars on crown crates.

Elsonso

Hokiewa wrote: »

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 by the legal definition in the U.S. it isn't, not remotely.

That is what this whole international debate is about, right? How the legal definition of gambling should be applied to loot crates, and to what extent.

Personally, I expect that they will remain below the level of the legal definition. At least, in most places.

Woeler wrote: »

This game is PEGI 18. Meaning that any kid below that age playing this game is outside of the group the game is legally responsible for. If parents allow their kids, THEY are responsible. This is why these PEGI ratings are there in the first place.

That is what the last numbered point in the OP is talking about. Should PEGI and ESRB flag online games with loot crates with the "gambling" tag? ChaosWotan would say they should. As a parent, I would tend to agree. Even for the ones in ESO. This is more for my awareness as a parent than anything else.

I suspect that PEGI and ESRB are not going to do that unless some external force is applied that will get them to change. Even if they do, I expect that the Crown Crates will not rise to the level that requires a mention. If they did, ZOS/Beth would just tweak them to comply with whatever exception (ie loophole) that gets them off that list. As many have noted, as loot crates go, ESO's are pretty mild. It would probably be easy to get them off a gambling list.

ChaosWotan

@Tan9oSuccka

In this thread I'm not spending more time on the endless debate between libertarian ethics and different forms of either left-wing or right-wing communitarianism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/communitarianism/

Just wanted to mention how ESO can make the CC system morally resistant to arguments presented by us in the anti-gambling/sweepstakes group, if the company one day notice that this is necessary as a result of external pressure.

Bax

ChaosWotan wrote: »

credit card which shows that they are 18 years old

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. Credit cards might be popular in the US, but according to my experience, most of the banks in EU prefer debit cards over credit cards. For example, banks in my country usually offer free debit card with the account while credit card has usually either some bigger one-time fee or small monthly fee. I see completely no reason for getting credit card, only advantage it offers is that transactions are postponed till the end of the month, but a lot of banks offer interest-free loans for a debit card nowadays too, so I really see no reason to go for it. So blocking people purely based on credit card is BS.

However, debit cards couldn't be used as age verification, because a lot of banks offer bank products for teenagers with possibility to own debit card. I have my own account since 15 including debit card. I am 28 now and I still wouldn't pick credit card over debit card.

ChaosWotan

@Bax

Duly noted. The wisdom of crowds, as they say

Perhaps one option for ESO then is to only demand a credit card if you want to use the crown crate system in the game. Though @lordrichter is prb right that CC will fall below the threshold of legal sanctions anyway.

Nightves

#nocrowncrates

Taleof2Cities

As a supporter of PAWS, I love seeing players try to rationalize ways of “improving” the current gambling crates.

Keep these entertainment threads coming!

CaffeinatedMayhem

Hokiewa wrote: »

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?

Are you really that dense? Sorry you don't like my examples, but laws change. Period.

ChaosWotan

@Taleof2Cities

PAWS is also an old debate I'm tired of, but from what I have heard I can't support PAWS. If one wants to use controversial methods, one must first discuss it openly, in public, in order to clarify the pros and cons, in line with both Kant and the discourse ethics of Habermas. Furthermore, in our context you can't morally use controversial mehods on behalf of a community after the community has expressed strong opposition to it.

That is all I have to say about PAWS. Please create another thread if you want to discuss PAWS with other people, instead of "hijacking" this one here, because you prb know that your post is inflammatory.

ADarklore

LoL at all these threads about 'laws' and such. In reality, our lawmakers have much bigger things to worry about than what is happening in online gaming. Those who are making noise right now are just trying to draw attention to themselves, probably draw attention away from other things they don't want people focusing on... but in reality, the gaming companies are huge and as such have the power to threaten to withdraw their financial support for political campaigns. Right now there's just a big huff and puff, but they'll never blow the gaming companies houses down. It's not a big enough political topic right now and never will be... as many who live here in the U.S. know, our politicians are bought by large corporations and these corporations will stick together to defend each other and keep business decisions free from political dictation. Even IF let's say Hawaii was to impose some type of regulation, do you really think the U.S. Supreme Court would allow it? They've demonstrated numerous times that they will side with business.

Hokiewa

thatlaurachick wrote: »

Hokiewa wrote: »

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?

Are you really that dense? Sorry you don't like my examples, but laws change. Period.

It's not being dense (I know quite a bit about these models, their evolution, the legal hurdles, corporate structures, and how regulation of this industry happens in the tiniest ways which the companies spend about an hour of billable legal time to get around), it's being realistic. You gave a comparison that was way out in left field and not remotely comparable to a niche complaint.

Companies adapt. That's the reason you have crowns to begin with instead of just purchasing crates straight with cash. To promote change, at least in the U.S., you are going to have to prove a pattern of extensive consumer harm which is not very likely to happen, otherwise there is no political motivation nor judicial reasoning to change current law.

idk

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@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?

@ChaosWotan
Your third item does nothing but place artificial barriers to entry and then permits purchasing crates afterwards.

Saying one can table for one hour or can only play 20 hands if poker doesn't stop the gambling.

In fact, since you are not aware of what, if any, changes will come from government bodies over the next couple years it's not possible to devise another solutions for this industry.

We shouldn't be concerned. If Zos is required to make changes they will find the means to monetize ESO. It's what businesses do.

monktoasty

Gaming is dead..it's only about mone not the gamer and art and enjoyment.

ADarklore

monktoasty wrote: »

Gaming is dead..it's only about mone not the gamer and art and enjoyment.

Gaming is NOT 'dead' as long as people continue to play them... which we will because of a lack of alternative. People are being raised today being couch potatoes, being handed electronic devices at extremely young ages and told by many parents to "go play your games and stop bothering me". So in reality, 'gaming' will continue to rise because it's being embedded into children from the moment they're handed electronic devices- whether it be computers, tablets, or consoles.

ChaosWotan

@idk

Nothing wrong with gambling if you can easily afford it. But among ten million ESO owners there is a real risk that relatively "many" young and poor people will become gambling addicts:

".. 69 studies on adult gambling prevalence were identified. These studies demonstrated that there are wide variations in past-year problem gambling rates across different countries in the world (0.12–5.8%) and in Europe (0.12–3.4%)."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370365/

If one has a barrier which restricts "high-rolling" gaming gambling to rich people, the problem is reduced, since the rich can much more easily afford a gambling addiction, if they ever get it in a game like ESO, since you normally need good impulse control in order to become rich.

Mettaricana

I got a better idea remove all consumables and fluff and only have options for pets costumes mounts and apex no soul gems potions mimic stones amd other garbage

Elsonso

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@Taleof2Cities

PAWS is also an old debate I'm tired of, but from what I have heard I can't support PAWS. If one wants to use controversial methods, one must first discuss it openly, in public, in order to clarify the pros and cons, in line with both Kant and the discourse ethics of Habermas. Furthermore, in our context you can't morally use controversial mehods on behalf of a community after the community has expressed strong opposition to it.

PAWS is simply about not being for Crown Crates. It is not about harassing anyone, or calling them out, or belittling them, or calling them whales (or rich), or demanding that people not buy Crown Crates. It isn't about gambling and keeping people from gambling. It isn't about trying to strong arm people, or ZOS, until Crown Crates are gone. It is just a polite collective voice for the dislike of Crown Crates. That's it. Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff. The only tenet is "Say NO to Crown Crates." The only sanctioned zealous enthusiasm for the cause is adding the line in the signature. There is the expectation that, once done, the person will not buy a crate. Not one. Not ever. No, not even when you are really really drunk. It is all about individuals choosing to not buy Crown Crates. Everyone is welcome to join us at any time.

I know you don't want your thread derailed, but you need to hear this, and others as well. Some people on the forum have an unclear picture of what PAWS is and they are not afraid to share their beliefs.

KanedaSyndrome

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

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

Try and re-read what you wrote. It's quite contradictory. You tell people that can't control themselves to... control themselves.

Tan9oSuccka

KanedaSyndrome wrote: »

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

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

Try and re-read what you wrote. It's quite contradictory. You tell people that can't control themselves to... control themselves.

I love this comment. Is it though? The outlier represents the entire community?

Are you suggesting since that bridge is over there....people have no choice but to jump?

Ermiq

@Fleshreaper

Fleshreaper wrote: »

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.

Hey, I didn't meant that it costs nothing to add new item in the game. I meant that it costs nothing to give you this item. It's different.
Imagine that casino would've been able to give you 5 cents every time you didn't get jackpot. If it would've been doing so, then wouldn't you call it gambling? But they don't do that because it costs them someTHING, some MONEY, 'cause players in casino doesn't need any digital consolation prize, they need money.
The game gives you digital items. You came here for digital items. If they wish they can make millions of those items, and it wouldn't cost them anything. They already got this code, and to give you another one item they just need to click on "give him consolation prize every time he failed" and there it is, another one digital item for the player.
Don't you see the difference?

Gargis

This whole deal has been noticed by congress.

Don't be surprised if one day comes and these gaming companies have to pay up for it.

Off course they will say they will defend themselves in court. Then they will pay anyway.

LadyNalcarya

@ChaosWotan
I'm not sure why youre so obsessed with "the rich".
In this game, despite all issues, one cant (legally) buy any gameplay advantages. And no, people will not worship you if you ride a fancy mount. Its the same as in real life... Most of people only care about themselves and their friends/family, and dont give a damn about random strangers.
Mounts also dont reflect the amount of money you've spent on them. I know people who got plague horses and those super special senches with less than 10 crates (or even from free crates) and I'm pretty sure that there are people who spent ridiculous amount of money without getting any of those "radiant apex" drops.

idk

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@idk

Nothing wrong with gambling if you can easily afford it. But among ten million ESO owners there is a real risk that relatively "many" young and poor people will become gambling addicts:

".. 69 studies on adult gambling prevalence were identified. These studies demonstrated that there are wide variations in past-year problem gambling rates across different countries in the world (0.12–5.8%) and in Europe (0.12–3.4%)."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5370365/

If one has a barrier which restricts "high-rolling" gaming gambling to rich people, the problem is reduced, since the rich can much more easily afford a gambling addiction, if they ever get it in a game like ESO, since you normally need good impulse control in order to become rich.

Your solution is far from ethical.

You are rich so we could care less about your addictive nature. You will be able to buy crown crates for a long time before you realize you cannot pay this months bills.

Lets not forget the average player. We care about you so, you see that cool mount that character is riding, We have forbid you from acquiring it because you are poor. Yes, we think you are not worthy.

Does not sound like good business plan to me.

I guess we can start prescreening people for the neighborhood they can live in or car they can purchase so they do not over extend themselves. Wow, that sounds all to familiar.

Besides you do not have a clue about the wealthy population. Ever hear of old money? I know people who have never had to work a day in their lives. Some have never held down a regular job doing anything, one in particular lives in Manhatten and does nicely without working and without doing anything to gain money from others, outside of her family.

I do not think Zos will consider the ideas presented for good reason. No offense to yourself. I respect you have an opinion. I just do not think it will fly.

MythicEmperor

I am very much against clown crates, but these restrictions wouldn't help anyone. Kids could easily bypass these barriers, and your suggestions are biased against those who have low incomes but are responsible with their money.

While I usually don't value morality in arguments, I can see the concern with these crates. The issue is that the people who are addicted to clown crates would find something else to be addicted to should the crates be removed. Personality traits can't be corrected with regulations.

My issue with clown crates isn't an ethical one, but a logical one. I value efficiency and consistency. Clown crates are neither of these. Direct purchases are, however, as you can clearly see what you are getting and you can receive the item without trial and error.

A good first step would be for ZOS to publish crate odds. That would take the edge off of the situation.

BloodBeast_ESO

If you want to gamble go to Vegas or an Indian Casino or buy a gambling game from GameStop. Don't put it in this game cuz it will screw everything up

Balamoor

Juju_beans wrote: »

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.

That is a very logical and accurate response I concur

In much better news I snagged a Storm Atronach horse today which completes my collection of this seasons mounts

Balamoor

lordrichter wrote: »

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@Taleof2Cities

PAWS is also an old debate I'm tired of, but from what I have heard I can't support PAWS. If one wants to use controversial methods, one must first discuss it openly, in public, in order to clarify the pros and cons, in line with both Kant and the discourse ethics of Habermas. Furthermore, in our context you can't morally use controversial mehods on behalf of a community after the community has expressed strong opposition to it.

PAWS is simply about not being for Crown Crates. It is not about harassing anyone, or calling them out, or belittling them, or calling them whales (or rich), or demanding that people not buy Crown Crates. It isn't about gambling and keeping people from gambling. It isn't about trying to strong arm people, or ZOS, until Crown Crates are gone. It is just a polite collective voice for the dislike of Crown Crates. That's it. Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff. The only tenet is "Say NO to Crown Crates." The only sanctioned zealous enthusiasm for the cause is adding the line in the signature. There is the expectation that, once done, the person will not buy a crate. Not one. Not ever. No, not even when you are really really drunk. It is all about individuals choosing to not buy Crown Crates. Everyone is welcome to join us at any time.

I know you don't want your thread derailed, but you need to hear this, and others as well. Some people on the forum have an unclear picture of what PAWS is and they are not afraid to share their beliefs.

Well you have folks Harassing others in game in your name...I know I know you can't be responsible for that.

It's so Bloody convenient.

Anyway the truth about all that should come out soon enough.