Fixes that will make gambling clearly ethical

ChaosWotan

@LadyNalcarya

@idk

My family is a combination of old and new money. Even those who have done nothing but inherit old money will have an education and upbringing, since early childhood, that have taught them the value of self-control. Some of them will still indulge in excessive partying and drugs, but they can easily afford rehab and will not become slaves of debt, in most cases, unless they are neurologically incapable of impulse control, from birth.

Perhaps one way of improving the fixes in the OP is to let everyone have a chance to win the most exclusive items in a game, like a $10 000 house, but to put a limit on how much you can spend on gambling each month (like maybe 5-10 percent of an average middle or working class income in your country) unless you can prove to ZOS that you can afford it in other ways. In other words, if you don't have one of those exclusive credit cards, you have to apply if you want to join the table of the high-rollers.

Very few systems are without any disadvantage. The fixes I suggested will make ESO immune to accusations presented by the anti-gambling/sweepstakes group. It's a good enough solution from that particular perspective. However, if you argue from the viewpoint of libertarian ethics or anarcho-capitalism, like David Friedman who says that freedom is the right of each of us to go to hell in his own fashion, then it follows logically from those premises that the fixes in the OP are morally insufficient. No dispassionate thinker will have a problem with that, but will just point out that ethics, especially in a case like this, depends on your perspective, basically, as long as science is not able to prove that one particular moral theory is objectively true/valid.

@lordrichter

After some people have started to bully others in the name of PAWS, you should at least change name, in order to avoid association with bullies. Have the last days read a little about how conflicts in online games can get out of control, including threats in real life, as already mentioned by you in another post, so have changed my mind and now think that it's best to just let everyone be as they are, with no organised pressure one way or another. Those who are serious about fighting injustice should pick a better cause than combatting crate gambling, especially when it involves methods that are worse than the gambling itself.

LadyNalcarya

@ChaosWotan
Umm I'm not sure there's a $10k house in this game. The most expensive one was around $150 I think. Another ~$100-200 if you fill it with crown store furniture. If you buy crown packs on sale, its 40% cheaper.
You make it sound like ESO crown store is insanely expensive and luxurious. But it isnt. Just log in, port to Craglorn or Rawl'Kha and you'll see tons of those shiny mounts. If anything, theyre more comparable to a pair of Wrangler jeans than to a Ferrari, and pretty much everyone who can afford a gaming pc can technically afford them.
There is a problem with crown crates. They do not allow you to buy items you want directly from the store, and thats not consumer friendly. But it has nothing to do with being rich... I'm not rich but I still have a ton of crown collectibles (what? I have ESO+ and it gives me extra crowns)

ChaosWotan

@LadyNalcarya

This thread is not only about ESO but game-gambling in general. In Star Citizen, one can buy a spaceship for $10,000. Gaming developments in the (near) future will make it likely that we will sooner or later see gambling in that range too, also in ESO if this game survives the competition. This development is prb unavoidable, partly because average gamers don't care enough to stop it, as long as it's only cosmetics and not p2w. That's why I'm not spending more energy on stopping it, but rather present suggestions about how to make gambling as ethical as possible.

LadyNalcarya

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@LadyNalcarya

This thread is not only about ESO but game-gambling in general. In Star Citizen, one can buy a spaceship for $10,000. Gaming developments in the (near) future will make it likely that we will sooner or later see gambling in that range too, also in ESO if this game survives the competition. This development is prb unavoidable, partly because average gamers don't care enough to stop it, as long as it's only cosmetics and not p2w. That's why I'm not spending more energy on stopping it, but rather present suggestions about how to make gambling as ethical as possible.

Well, if that spaceship actually gives them combat advantages, then yeah, that means that game is crap. If not... Well, thats kinda stupid, but its their money and their choice.
But it has nothing to do with ESO. This game is flawed, but lets face it: developers will always seek ways to monetize their games, and selling cosmetics is the best choice (since it doesnt affect gameplay). P2W, on the other hand, already ruined many games, and thats not because people can't afford it: its because P2W developers usually neglect anything that isnt a money sink which greatly affects the quality of the game.
And if ZOS goes full P2W, it will surely lose a huge part of its playerbase. Non-P2W aspect is one of the reasons I support this game, and I'm sure I'm not alone. But hey, you will be able to show off your wallet if thats what you want.

ChaosWotan

@LadyNalcarya

What I support personally, and actually was a bit "obsessed" about, is that games should be subscription-based and that all players should have equal ingame opportunity to achieve all items within the game, as achievements, independently of external factors that are not game-related. Because achievements make it more fun to play, instead of just go shopping it, in an online store.

But we don't have the pure sub system in ESO anymore. The second best option, imo, is to sell all items in the crown store. For example, if a radiant mount costs up to 50k crowns, people will still buy them. The least best option is the (almost) pure radiant gambling system we have now, but it can be tweaked and improved, if ESO wants to.

idk

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@LadyNalcarya

@idk

My family is a combination of old and new money. Even those who have done nothing but inherit old money will have an education and upbringing, since early childhood, that have taught them the value of self-control.

You are making an assumption that does not hold up to reality.

There have been plenty of wealthy people who are learned and yet lack self control. They are alcoholics and gamblers, find their way to illegal drugs. The difference is some of them have enough money so they do not go broke in the pocess, yet some do find their way to rock bottom.

Some have people to help protect them from the publicity. But it does not protect them from harming themselves.

So the assumption does not hold up. It is an excuse for developing your idea and nothing more.

BTW, I had a great grandfather who pioneered an industry and had a successful hobby of breeding race horses. He did extremely well and was wealthy 3 times. Yes, he was broke 4 times including when he passed. All due to his lack of control when it came to gambling on his race horses. Wealthy, learned and yet lacked the self control. Oh, self made man as well, started off working on a trolley car (mass transit laborer).

As for your comment of subscription based, unfortunately that went out the door for MMOs. I can only thing of fairly old MMOs that are subscription based. Even FF, which I think is sub, is an old game. They just keep coming out with new versions for whatever reason. Yes, I prefer sub requirement, but the industry changed and the crates are part of what was added to fill the gap.

ChaosWotan

@idk

Addictions and lack of self-control can occur in all families, rich and poor. Remember when I was a teenager and someone I know broke into a wine cellar, drank too much, fell asleep and got caught. That was a rather expensive affair, but not a huge problem when one has parents to pay for it and avoid arrest. And let's not talk about trashed hotel rooms... We rich have more resources to deal with it. Using computer games to tempt people into gambling is shady in any case, imo, but there is a difference between a poor teenager losing $1000 on ESO gambling and me or you doing it.

Think I just read somewhere that Warframe is doing great now, with no or little monetization, is that correct?

r3turn2s3nd3r

The rich can lose it all the same as anyone else. Having a lot of money means nothing and does not buffer them from the damages that can be done.

Ask Antoine Walker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Walker#Legal_troubles

Ask David Milch

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Milch#Thoroughbred_horse_racing

Ask Harry Kakavas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakavas_v_Crown_Melbourne_Ltd

These were very successful people and should have the self control as supposedly it's inherent to get that rich to begin with, yet they lost it all. And we're talking HUNDREDS of millions in some cases. Kakavas lost $164,000,000 in 5 and half hours once.

Pops_ND_Irish

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.

hehe very good ! Gambling label on the game, geez.

ChaosWotan

@r3turn2s3nd3r

Anecdotal stories. In general, it's better to be rich and have a gambling addiction than it is to be poor and have this kind of addiction. Partly because the latter can't afford the best treatment. A wealthy person will prb not bet his whole fortune in order to get an aesthetic item in a game. He may lose $10,000, and manage that easily, but a $5000 loss can ruin a relatively poor 18 year old teenager.

r3turn2s3nd3r

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@r3turn2s3nd3r

Anecdotal stories. In general, it's better to be rich and have a gambling addiction than it is to be poor and have this kind of addiction. Partly because the latter can't afford the best treatment. A wealthy person will prb not bet his whole fortune in order to get an aesthetic item in a game. He may lose $10,000, and manage that easily, but a $5000 loss can ruin a relatively poor 18 year old teenager.

Of course they're anecdotal, I was under the impression this was all academic anyways. However, I can now see you are cherry picking your arguments to fit your narrative.

What I get from what you are saying is that a gambling problem is only bad if the amount lost affects someone's pocketbook beyond some arbitrary amount based on their financial standing in society.

Nevermind that the underlying addiction itself is the problem, the only problem is the amount that can be lost based on financial standing. Got it.

And one has to WANT to help themselves before the treatment is even remotely going to help, whether it's the 'best' treatment or not. And what is the 'treatment' for a gambling addiction?

Last I knew it was:
1. Recognize you have a problem or wind up in a family intervention
2. Join GA / see a therapist
3. Have a solid support group (family, friends)

There is no magic pill. There is no shot you can get. It is solely on the person with the addiction to 'cure' themselves. And even after 'treatment', many will relapse.

ChaosWotan wrote: »

"This thread is not only about ESO but game-gambling in general."

Above quote makes this statement 100% irrelevant:
"A wealthy person will prb not bet his whole fortune in order to get an aesthetic item in a game."

We're not talking about just this game or at least that's what you said. Just because a wealthy person can afford to take a $10000 loss in a game doesn't change the fact that they MAY or MAY NOT have an addiction.

And a relatively poor 18 year old teenager 'probably' isn't going the have the money to lose to begin with. And the same 18 year old that can lose $5000 trying for a cosmetic can lose that same $5000 at the casino or racetrack and NO ONE is going stop them. But, so as long as he didn't lose it in ESO it's all good. Yes?

idk

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@idk

Addictions and lack of self-control can occur in all families, rich and poor.

I think you have already explained that you are fine with the wealthy losing it all and want to prevent those with less means from accessing the cool stuff even if they have solid self control. There is no logic in that. For certain there is nothing more ethical about it.

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@idk

Think I just read somewhere that Warframe is doing great now, with no or little monetization, is that correct?

I am certain you read wrong. Warframe is a F2P game. They are required to monetize outside of a subscription, since it is F2P, to gain any revenue short of advertising in their game.

In fact, Warframes has a currency that is obtained mostly from real world cash. Yes, a new player gets some Platinum when they start and some of the items from the cash shop can be purchased with normal in game currency. Yes, a player can play the game without investing any real world currency, however, those that want to be competitive are going to spend.

ChaosWotan

@r3turn2s3nd3r

Not cherry-picking, just saying that a few examples are not enough to prove anything. Here is a better argument against "my" argument in the OP: let's say an owner of a company starts to play ESO, gets exposed to gambling and it triggers a latent addiction, with the result that he starts to bet his fortune on horse racing, loses much of it and suddenly fifty of his employees are jobless. That will have more serious consequences than a poor fellow getting addicted to gambling.

On the other hand, it's common sense that a resourceful person is in general better equipped to handle an addiction than an individual with few resources.

If ESO has a gambling system that is totally open to everyone, it will target vulnerable people among both the rich and poor. With the two tier system, as presented in the OP, it will at least make one of these two groups less exposed to gambling. Anyone who favours that solution can then argue that one needs impulse control to be an owner of a company and therefore it's much less likely that a CEO will lose all self-control, in a computer game, compared to a person with few resources.

Here I'm only talking about game-gambling, no matter whether it's ESO or other video games. If ESO tries to regulate its own gambling system, by for example putting a limit on how much you can gamble, and a person then leaves the game to gamble in another place that has no limits, it's still the case that ESO has acted as responsible as possible, given the nature of gambling. The alternative is to have no gambling, but libertarians may then start to complain about that too. No system can satisfy everyone hundred percent.

Finally, I'm personally against game-gambling in any case, since I support subscription, so have no ego-attachment to "my" arguments or "my" narrative in the OP where the topic is how to make an existing gambling system more ethical. It's just my two cents. I'm definetely no expert in this case. If anyone has a better solution, let's go for that instead.

Slick_007

ChaosWotan wrote: »

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,

im well over 18 and have never needed a credit card for anything and as such, do not have one. your ridiculus idea would stop me from playing. im sure others would be in my situation also.

Easily_Lost

"Niobium wrote: »

No. Just no. On so many levels. I am NOT giving my personal information or credit card information over to a gaming company. Why would you do that? You don't like loot crates but you gamble with your personal information??

Why do you get to decide what I can and can't spend my money on just because you can't control your spending habits to get a sparkly mount and a new costume?

Got a gambling problem and this affects you? Do NOT be here. Find a game where there is no gambling whatsoever. Why risk your recovery on an MMO?

Got kids? This isn't rated for kids. It's not up to the company to parent a child.

Don't like Crown Crates? Boycott the company. Stop giving them money. Stop playing the game. You being in game advertises this game for any new comer because they see how populated it is. If you continue to play then you endorse every facet of the game. The biggest impact any consumer can have is via money - so if you truly believe it, put that where your mouth is and GTFO.

Meanwhile, I'm buying some crates.

^^ This ^^

ChaosWotan

@Easily_Lost

You forget that ZOS has sold 10 million copies of ESO without telling buyers that it contains gambling. There are gambling addicts that have stopped playing the game after gambling was introduced, as reported in earlier threads.

@Slick_007

As mentioned in the OP, the fixes are only meant to neutralise the arguments from the anti-gambling group, if they ever get enough power to put serious pressure on ZOS. As already discussed earlier here, ESO can create a system where you can buy the game and crown store items with debit card, but you must have a credit card in order to gamble. Many people, especially libertarians, will be opposed to that too, but please remember that these fixes are only meant as one possible solution IF the anti-gambling lobby gets enough political power to stop the current system.

Assumedly, most people in the anti-gambling group are primarily interested in protecting the weakest and least resourceful members of society against gambling. They care more about this than protecting individuals who have many resources. One may agree or disagree with that attitude, but section 3) in the OP will still serve it's function of neutralising one of the main motives behind the anti-gambling campaign: the will to primarily protect those with few resources. At the same time, point 3) will give the rich the opportunity to gamble as much as they want, get the coolest items in the game, and provide ZOS with money in the process. All in all, that is arguably a reasonable compromise IF the anti-gambling group ever gets enough power to force ZOS to change the current system.

Personally I doubt that the anti-gambling lobby will be able to change the law, and the realist in me has already accepted that it's unrealistic to stop increasing monetization, as explained in an earlier thread. Basically, the case is therefore closed, imo.

Yagorn

xenowarrior92eb17_ESO wrote: »

ugh...this again...here have this.

You know this picture is quite counter intuitive considering your profile picture don't you ?

mrdiamond666

Gambling you may get something, may get nothing, with these you get something, not always great, but like I was at the store earlier and those sealed packages with figures in em, those are just as much gambling as these crates are, yes an 8 yr old can buy those, so these crates are bit gambling as you still get something, but gambling in the term of will I get mount it crappy pots?

Jade1986

thatlaurachick wrote: »

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?

Sounds like they want a class system that benefits the 1%.

Jade1986

Cously wrote: »

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.

Clearly you dont have kids. You cannot watch your kid 24/7. And if you did, people would call you a slacker and moocher for taking government benefits.

Jade1986

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?

The analogy is accurate. Just because something is law, does not make it right, and does not mean it will stay so forever.

Orticia

Do not add a must have credit card to buy game and in game stuff. Not everyone uses credit cards. It is not a go to thing in all countries.

TelvanniWizard

What about prohibiting scam crates and selling stuff in the crown store, like normal people do?

QuebraRegra

magictucktuck wrote: »

DarkAedin wrote: »

#nocrowncrates
Wouldnt u rather buy the item u want rather then gamble for it?
This is a video game, i dont come here to gamble, i come to play an mmo.
They have made $0.00 off me since they started this farce. Before crown crates i was buying up the crown store items left and right.
Food for thought.

You play inventory online?

Feels like it without ESO+

Raideen

ChaosWotan wrote: »

After some people have started to bully others in the name of PAWS, you should at least change name, in order to avoid association with bullies. Have the last days read a little about how conflicts in online games can get out of control, including threats in real life, as already mentioned by you in another post, so have changed my mind and now think that it's best to just let everyone be as they are, with no organised pressure one way or another. Those who are serious about fighting injustice should pick a better cause than combatting crate gambling, especially when it involves methods that are worse than the gambling itself.

Can you elaborate? I have not seen any thing happen from PAWS supporters that I have not seen happen from the anti-Paws camp.

ChaosWotan

@Raideen

Have only heard what others have said about PAWS during the debates here in this forum, and did some googling and saw how other gaming conflicts have become very nasty. My quasi-Gandhi boycott approach to crate gambling was therefore very naive. Now I actually don't care who is telling the truth or who have the better arguments in the gambling conflict. Like everyone else I started ESO because I wanted to have fun and meet people in a friendly community. Better to focus on that instead of quarreling. If the latter is unavoidable, I rather play another game.

Bringing up PAWS will prb just restart this repetitive conflict. The only good that can come out of that is that the admins close this thread.

Merry Christmas everybody. Be kind to each other.

Raideen

ChaosWotan wrote: »

@Raideen

Have only heard what others have said about PAWS during the debates here in this forum, and did some googling and saw how other gaming conflicts have become very nasty. My quasi-Gandhi boycott approach to crate gambling was therefore very naive. Now I actually don't care who is telling the truth or who have the better arguments in the gambling conflict. Like everyone else I started ESO because I wanted to have fun and meet people in a friendly community. Better to focus on that instead of quarreling. If the latter is unavoidable, I rather play another game.

Bringing up PAWS will prb just restart this repetitive conflict. The only good that can come out of that is that the admins close this thread.

Merry Christmas everybody. Be kind to each other.

I saw others posting negative stuff about PAWS as well, but those are the exact same people who have been bullying and harassing themselves, in fact they often start the arguing. There is nothing wrong with someone posting their opinion as we are all paying customers, but in every thread the usual suspects (same ones bashing paws) come in to white knight for ZoS.

I started ESO to have fun as well, my fear however is that fun is resting on the backburner and maxing profit is on the front burners. The very reason I come here to post my experiences with loot boxes is to help the people running the game understand that for many people, I would heavily argue most people, have problems with these practices. This is a game first and foremost, it should be fun and the focus should be on making the game fun, profit comes when people are satisfied with the game product and freely give out their money. But as many can attest, loot boxes and designing the game to revolve around them often means fun is not the priority. You are a philosopher, I am a designer. I can smell the rot a mile away and easily see the web that is woven that connects all these parts together, many see the same. I know a lead dev for a AAA company who's belief was "We make games to be fun first, the money follows", his company was purchased by an investment firm and he was promptly let go. Within a matter of months the company jumped on the microtransaction/loot crate bus and people started leaving in droves.

I don't think that brining up paws in and of itself starts a conflict. The conflict arises when a person or group post their opinion and then have to defend that position time and time again, over and over against their opposition who themselves are not here to listen or provide facts but instead paint a negative picture about a person or a community who stands in the way of profit. That is why the battle continues, because the opposition does not rely on facts. Instead they try to defame the anti-crate crowd so that when some random comes along they garner their favor. We see this petty defaming in politics all day long. The issue is most people do not see through the smoke and mirrors to see what the real agenda is and fall pray to the debate. It happens to me, it happens to you, it happens to everyone. I know who they are now and their goal. I don't need to enter a debate with them, ignore works wonders once you know who the bullies and trolls are.

Bryanonymous

Gambling... lol

Stewart1874

Okay i'll bite (I won't even say remove them to make it ethical! :P )

Perhaps removing Crown gems so instead items are converted to crowns and players can buy items they want directly with crowns thus removing the gambling element for those who want the content but are not prepared to gamble for it.

Obviously pricing would need to be reworked but I doubt thats particularly difficult.

Elsonso

Stewart1874 wrote: »

Okay i'll bite (I won't even say remove them to make it ethical! :P )

Perhaps removing Crown gems so instead items are converted to crowns and players can buy items they want directly with crowns thus removing the gambling element for those who want the content but are not prepared to gamble for it.

Obviously pricing would need to be reworked but I doubt thats particularly difficult.

Crazy talk!

Crown Crates are a separate but parasitic eco-system from the rest of the game and the Crown Store. Once in there, you are in your own little world. When you leave, they want you to come back. That is why they went to all the effort to create a brand new currency, just for Crown Crates. You have to buy Crown Crates and use them to get the currency. If they just gave out Crowns and let people buy stuff, what need for Crown Crates?