Lets get some facts out of the way. They are not gambling.

TamrielSaviour215 · April 2018

maroite wrote: »

So by your definition, happy meals are a form of gambling? I buy it in hopes of getting that one toy I want. You just described RNG, not gambling. You could buy 15, worth more, but you get other items and the chance to get the one you want. If you don't get the one you want, ZOS doesn't come along and take ALL of the other items away from you. If they did, THAT would be closer to gambling.

No. False. The main point of a happy meal is the food. You know what you are getting there. The MAIN POINT of a crate is to...who knows. That is the issue at hand. You are paying for something and you have NO IDEA of ANYTHING inside that crate. I know if I buy a happy meal, I am getting the food I ordered and a (random?) toy as well. Pretty sure if you asked at McDonalds, the 18 year old kid behind the counter wont care which one he has to give you. They will give you what you want.

jedtb16_ESO · April 2018

TamrielSaviour215 wrote: »

It depends on what you consider 'value' to be. A lot of people that buy crates are hoping they get something that they dont have to spend a lot of money on. The problem is, when you buy a crap ton of these crates trying to get something of higher perceived 'value' throughout the community, it really does look like gambling. Spending money to MAYBE get something that you have a small chance of obtaining is absolutely gambling lol. If I go put $20 on #17 at a roulette table, I have a 35:1 chance of hitting. I am assuming my odds of hitting something that the community sees 'value' in are far more unobtainable than that. With that said, I don't particularly care because I don't buy them. EVER. Because I have seen them as a gamble. If you want to, go ahead. But you are 100% taking your chances with ACTUAL money to get something that you CLEARLY see as having value. Otherwise, you wouldn't try.

Games like PUBG which now give you mostly crates that you have to spend $2.50 to open are even worse. Because I got a skirt in a free crate and sold it on steam for $120. People buy those crates hoping to hit something they can sell. THAT is gambling.

Just because you are not selling your ESO items on steam, you still find a VALUE to them. It is not monetary but if you didnt see a value in it, you wouldnt spend the money. You cannot tell me there is not value tied to this.

yes, you do. but if the ball stops on 18 you get nothing. with the crates you always get something (4 or 5 somethings in fact) and that is a substantive difference.

Istoppucks · April 2018

Wayshuba wrote: »

Istoppucks wrote: »

I question this approach. So we have a group of gamers who are now in favor of allowing the government to come in a regulate video games. These same governments have passes, created and talked about how video games cause violence.

These people are now in favor of opening the door for government to come in and do as they please with video games ? If you think they will stop at "gambling" good luck.

I would prefer they don't, but at this point this trend has to be stopped or mitigated. When companies like EA and Activision are making more than half their revenue from "loot crates" they have become nothing more than casinos.

More importantly, the industry itself cannot self-regulate itself. The ESRB already says a game that has gambling mechanics in it is gambling. Then they say that loot crates are not gambling. Right.

As someone who is over 50, how they are done doesn't bother me personally. As someone who also has a 12 year old son and seeing how they have effected him - absolutely I want this legislation passed.

As an aside, do you know why the ESRB was created? Because governments were in fact about to regulate video games because violence was being exposed to younger children. By copying the rating system of the movie industry, they helped to appease government regulators before laws were passed. Unfortunately, the same ESRB has failed miserably when it comes to loot crates.

Now you have a representative on a personal crusade - and gaining momentum - to pass legislation defining them as gambling and thus making the game carry an Adult Only rating. Government regulators on personal crusades to pass legislation usually succeed in the long run - at least in the US.

In eso case it is rated M. I am very aware of what games my kid, his friends, nieces and nephews play when they come over. Its not the responsibility of the game developers to parent these kids.

I play on the Xbox there are setting which stop kids from making purchases i think its time for parents to have a little more responsibility in this area.

ZOS_KatP · April 2018

Hi all,

We've had to remove a handful of posts for violating our policies on off-topic posting, baiting, and flaming. In a discussion such as this one, it's important to remember that all opinions are welcome, and countering them with personal attacks, insults, and sarcasm is not the way to go about having a constructive conversation. Please refrain from arguing and bashing other individuals or further action will be taken against this thread.

Thank you.

Yzalirk · April 2018

TamrielSaviour215 wrote: »

It depends on what you consider 'value' to be. A lot of people that buy crates are hoping they get something that they dont have to spend a lot of money on. The problem is, when you buy a crap ton of these crates trying to get something of higher perceived 'value' throughout the community, it really does look like gambling. Spending money to MAYBE get something that you have a small chance of obtaining is absolutely gambling lol. If I go put $20 on #17 at a roulette table, I have a 35:1 chance of hitting. I am assuming my odds of hitting something that the community sees 'value' in are far more unobtainable than that. With that said, I don't particularly care because I don't buy them. EVER. Because I have seen them as a gamble. If you want to, go ahead. But you are 100% taking your chances with ACTUAL money to get something that you CLEARLY see as having value. Otherwise, you wouldn't try.

Games like PUBG which now give you mostly crates that you have to spend $2.50 to open are even worse. Because I got a skirt in a free crate and sold it on steam for $120. People buy those crates hoping to hit something they can sell. THAT is gambling.

Just because you are not selling your ESO items on steam, you still find a VALUE to them. It is not monetary but if you didnt see a value in it, you wouldnt spend the money. You cannot tell me there is not value tied to this.

Killing Floor 2 does the same thing and it is just shameful. It is a great game but when you have to spend $2.50 to open a single box, you die a little inside.

Istoppucks · April 2018

Stewart1874 wrote: »

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-19-the-netherlands-declares-some-loot-boxes-are-gambling

Literally says its gambling FACT (as the OP likes to put things )

I'm kinda at a loss on why folks are so keen to justify this practise anyway, imo the crown store quality has suffered since the introduction of crown crates

Wrong! Four out of ten were told to make changes because get ready ....you could sell the loot box item for REAL MONEY.

Charliff1966 · April 2018

Istoppucks wrote: »

Stewart1874 wrote: »

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-04-19-the-netherlands-declares-some-loot-boxes-are-gambling

Literally says its gambling FACT (as the OP likes to put things )

I'm kinda at a loss on why folks are so keen to justify this practise anyway, imo the crown store quality has suffered since the introduction of crown crates

Wrong! Four out of ten were told to make changes because get ready ....you could sell the loot box item for REAL MONEY.

[Snip].

Tried to tell that several times, they dont care and skip the parts that doesnt fit in their rage.

[Edited for quote]

TamrielSaviour215 · April 2018

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

yes, you do. but if the ball stops on 18 you get nothing. with the crates you always get something (4 or 5 somethings in fact) and that is a substantive difference.

You are correct. But the point is that you are not getting what you want the overwhelming amount of time. And that is what the argument is about. People don't get what they want so they continue to keep trying. And while you are correct, the stuff that you get doesn't even get used by most people. Could you use the items? Yes. but I would say everything I have ever gotten in my free crates has remained untouched. When people don't get what they want and they continue to keep buying new crates to continue to keep missing, that sounds a lot like gambling lol.

vamp_emily · April 2018

I can almost bet that if we got a group of people together and went to investors seeking financing for a game, all we would have to mention is "we will have scam crates in the game". Those investors would be throwing cash at us just for a piece of the profits.

After watching the Facebook hearing, I really think we need new regulations in the gaming industry. Call it gambling, scamming or whatever you want. There is definitely something wrong with the current system. Maybe not for the gaming companies but their users need to be protected.

For starters I would love for gaming companies to do away with their fake currency, and display real currency. For example, instead of stuff costing 5,000 crowns it should say something like $35.00.

maroite · April 2018

Wayshuba wrote: »

maroite wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

They're not gambling directly no.

However they take a lot of the methods and manipulations used in gambling to create the same effect.
Even the Dutch body looking into them agreed on this during the week.

You keep talking about this but the Dutch only linked 4 games, where the users could Re-SELL items for REAL money, to gambling.

smh

reiverx wrote: »

One day gambling laws will catch up. At the moment, it's not really obvious how destructive these practices are.

Collectible Card Games with randomized booster packs have been around for decades. They are, in every way except for being physical, the same thing as crown crates. (Well and the fact that I don't think you can actually sell stuff from Crown Crates for real money as dupes turn into crystals.)

NO laws have been made against them - Specifically look at Magic:The Gathering. There are cards that are worth thousands of dollars. They were obtained from buying randomized packs of cards.

The only difference is you don't have to leave your house to get crown crates. Although no you can just order most CCG's via websites and have stuff delivered to your door.

Not quite the same. One thing with ALL collectible, randomized card games is you are guaranteed a certain number of classifications in each pack. For example, in a 15 card pack you may be guaranteed 8 commons, 5 uncommons and 2 rares. Meaning, you do know somewhat what you are getting, but not exactly what you are getting.

Loot crates work no where near the same way. You get four or five things, which can be anything, with a slight chance at getting a rare but the more likely outcome of getting commons and uncommons. If you were guaranteed a rare (but random at what rare), that would be one thing.

Furthermore, cards can be resold for something of value. Loot crates leave usually little chance you can do that.

Loot crates, in function, by all intents and purposes follow all of the same mechanics as gambling. The only difference is they do it for digital goods rather than real cash and you always get something. There is a reason the laws were established to have a minimum age for gambling - because it is well know they create addictive tenancies which the laws are meant to keep children from being exposed too.

People do not get addicted to gambling because of the money - they do because of the mechanics. They are chasing that night when they can win big. The same can be said of the ultra-rare digital items in loot crates (they are the big win).

This is why they are pursuing legislation that will not stop loot crates, but rather require any company that has loot crates in games to carry an Adults Only rating (which in itself will kill a massive amount of sales for a game).

Until that legislation is passed, however, you can expect gaming companies to try and maximize as much as they can from loot crates. One of the worst things anyone can face in any industry is a politician on a crusade to get laws passed - they usually succeed eventually - and that is exactly what is happening now with loot crates. I expect the legislation to eventually pass (and so does EA, which is why they are starting to evolve to other practices), but until then, I am sure the gaming industry will keep pumping out the loot crates as fast as possible.

Finally, to the OPs definition you didn't complete it. Here is the full definition:

1.to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2.to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance.

Gambling is simply using money or anything of value (digital coins, etc.) on a game of chance. Loot crates fit both of those Oxford definitions of gambling. So, yes, they are gambling.

The resale of items (re:Cards) is exactly what made the Netherlands consider 4 games to be promoting gambling. So if you can't resell items from Crown Crates, by definition, it is not gambling. At least by the Netherlands's definition.

The mechanics of gambling is you spend money or property or whatever, in hopes of gaining an increase but with the chance of losing everything.

Crown crates you pay money, you get something. Always. There is NEVER the chance of losing everything and walking away with nothing. So crown crates actually do not follow the mechanics of TRUE gambling. The chance of losing everything and having nothing is what defines gambling.

The key word in the definition is "risk" (stake is synonymous). You're not risking anything when you trade money for an in game item that then opens into random loot. You're getting something for your money, despite it being digital. There is no risk outside of the fact that if there is something you REALLY want in the crate, you may not get it.

I won't disagree with you that loot boxes are addictive, in similar ways to gambling at a casino. I don't agree that they're the same as with loot boxes you always get something for your money, even if its not what you wanted.

Wayshuba wrote: »

maroite wrote: »

Yzalirk wrote: »

Crown Crates are a form of gambling. You buy them in the hopes of getting what you desire. Just because they do not have a definite monetary value does not exclude them as gambling.

They may not exactly have a real life monetary value however; but certain items do. For example, the Dragon Priest Costume was being sold in the Crown Store a while back for 1000 Crowns, or something like that. Regardless, that has an equivalent of like $10. I have a chance of buying the 4-pack of crates to get that costume, which would be cheaper in actuality assuming I get it, or the 15-pack of crates which would be more than what it is worth. When it comes down to it, it is up to a determined algorithm to give me that specified item out of all items in the crates on top of duplicates.

So by your definition, happy meals are a form of gambling? I buy it in hopes of getting that one toy I want. You just described RNG, not gambling. You could buy 15, worth more, but you get other items and the chance to get the one you want. If you don't get the one you want, ZOS doesn't come along and take ALL of the other items away from you. If they did, THAT would be closer to gambling.

Wow, is this one so far off base. A Happy Meal? Have you bought one lately? If the toys are cycled by the week you get the one they have that week. If not, you can just ask for the toy you want when you buy it for your kid and that's what they will put it. No chance at all.

Finally, even if it is random, your are buying the food and it comes with a toy and none of the toys have any more value than the other one. It is like a loot crate that only has commons. There are no ultra-rares you are chasing in a happy meal.

It was meant to be silly. just like describing purchasing a crown crate with guaranteed items for set amount of cash as gambling is silly. Honestly haven't bought one in a while, but I do know that some happy meal toys ARE and have become more valuable, and you weren't always able to exchange/choose. Even when you could it depended on whether the store actually had the one you wanted.

You buy the food. You buy the crate. You're always getting at least 4 loot. Just because you're not getting the one specific item you'd really like doesn't make crown crates gambling. You pay for a crate. You get 4 loot (or 5).

DaveMoeDee · April 2018

Idiosyncratic definitions and metaphorical use may sound compelling, but they have no bearing on legality.

Also, loot boxes don't have to be gambling to be regulated. Legislators are free to pass laws regulating loot boxes if they think that is wise. I am no lawyer, but I would also assume that they can declare loot boxes to be covered by certain gambling regulations, even if they are not currently governed by them due to not qualifying as gambling.

We don't need to rely on dictionary definitions. If it is considered to be in the public's best interest, laws can be passed, such as requiring public disclosure of drop probabilities.

Edit: also, dictionary definitions are pretty irrelevant to the law in this case because the laws will define what gambling is.

Kuramas9tails · April 2018

Turelus wrote: »

Yet here in the UK we have an advertising standard agency to make sure they don't cross any lines. Video games have no such agency which is why they're allowed to employ more and more questionable methods of monetisation.

Also you're aware in my first post I agreed with you they're not gambling right? I just said they employ the same methods as gambling which is pretty clear for all to see.

@Turelus [snip] We know it's a risk reward with real money and thus, is gambling. I work for addiction treatment facilities on a marketing team and I know the mental behavior behind crown crates are in line with people in casinos, Fantasy Football Leagues, Bingo and more. It IS a gamble. Some people can manage, mentally, with gambling while others can not. That is why gambling problems are in line with addiction treatment and that people who have these issues need CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy). That is also why some people become addicted to some things while others can not. It varies from person to person so just because a sum of people can manage crown crates does not mean it is not parallel with gambling. Gambling can become an addiction for some people and is a real issue that I, on a marketing team, market to get people help (in our programs of course).

[Edited to remove bait]

heaven13 · April 2018

Let's quote something directly from the article, shall we? For those that keep going "only 4 are considered gambling" (which is true, but there's more in there if you read it)

From Eurogamer article]

So, it sounds like these four games now need a gambling licence to operate in the Netherlands. But there's a more general addiction warning about all loot boxes in video games. The gaming authority said "all of the loot boxes that were studied could be addictive".

"Loot boxes are similar to gambling games such as slot machines and roulette in terms of design and mechanisms," it said.

As a result, the gaming authority demanded publishers and developers modify loot boxes with "addiction-sensitive" elements. That is, they must remove "almost winning" effects, visual effects and the ability to keep opening loot boxes quickly one after the other. They must also implement measures to exclude vulnerable groups or demonstrate the loot boxes on offer are harmless.

So yes, only 4 of the companies investigated need to get a gambling license to operate in the Netherlands but the Netherlands Gaming Authority is looking to get adjustments made to lootboxes as a whole.

Numerikuu · April 2018

Sorry (not sorry)

maroite · April 2018

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

maroite wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

In the U.S. it's definined like this:

A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value (true)

...upon the outcome of a contest of chance (RNG of crates)

... or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, (Still RNG, so still true.)

..upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.
Your definition of "something of value" doesn't matter.

Your definition of "gambling" doesnt' matter.

Yours is the only recent thread about this topic.

Your declaration that it's not is no more useful than threads that declare that it is.

The govt. will be the one making the call in the long run, and your feelings or interpretation on the matter will be as relevant then as they are now. (HINT: They aren't.)

maroite wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

They're not gambling directly no.

However they take a lot of the methods and manipulations used in gambling to create the same effect.
Even the Dutch body looking into them agreed on this during the week.

You keep talking about this but the Dutch only linked 4 games, where the users could Re-SELL items for REAL money, to gambling.

smh

reiverx wrote: »

One day gambling laws will catch up. At the moment, it's not really obvious how destructive these practices are.

Collectible Card Games with randomized booster packs have been around for decades. They are, in every way except for being physical, the same thing as crown crates. (Well and the fact that I don't think you can actually sell stuff from Crown Crates for real money as dupes turn into crystals.)

NO laws have been made against them - Specifically look at Magic:The Gathering. There are cards that are worth thousands of dollars. They were obtained from buying randomized packs of cards.

The only difference is you don't have to leave your house to get crown crates. Although no you can just order most CCG's via websites and have stuff delivered to your door.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

In the U.S. it's definined like this:

A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value (true)

...upon the outcome of a contest of chance (RNG of crates)

... or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, (Still RNG, so still true.)

..upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.
Your definition of "something of value" doesn't matter.

Your definition of "gambling" doesnt' matter.

Yours is the only recent thread about this topic.

Your declaration that it's not is no more useful than threads that declare that it is.

The govt. will be the one making the call in the long run, and your feelings or interpretation on the matter will be as relevant then as they are now. (HINT: They aren't.)

Contest of chance implies that you're competing against other people, not randomly opening packages. There is no "contest" in buying a randomized package of goods and opening it. You're also cutting up the statements to fit your argument. "future contingent event" is critical to "not under his control or influence."

You're also not staking anything. You're purchasing a crate that has random loot. You're trading your money 1 for 1. There is no chance that you will pay ZOS, and end up getting 0 crates. (outside of bugs but I'm sure ZOS usually corrects this OR your CC/Bank will.)

No, the implication is your own assumption.

Let's look at it two different ways. You'll be wrong in both cases.
Slot machines: Clearly gambling, though you are not competing against other people in this game of chance. So your assumption does not apply.

Unless... you wish to argue that you are playing against "the house." In this case one could argue that with Crates, you are also playing against "the house." "The house," in such an instance is ZoS.

Both still indicate games of chance, which fit the definition.
You're choosing to interpret the second half of the statement as one continuous section. Again, you're making an assumption. Reading the entire part, taking the "or" in to account, that portion reads as ("A" or "B") and "C."

You're choosing to interpret it as "A" or ("B" and "C.") With "A" being "outcome of contest of chance," "B" being "future contingent event," and "C" being "not under his control or influence."

Crates are most certainly a contest of chance with the outcome not under the player's control or influence.

And you're not staking anything? You are most certainly staking crowns, a virtual item that arguably has value, as it has to be purchased with IRL currency, on chance of a result.

Your argument that there is no chance you'll end up with no crates is flawed on two counts, yet again.
The obvious one, which you're choosing to ignore, is that no one buys crates just for crates' sake. They buy them for the potential contents.

There is absolute chance that you'll end with no crates, because if the items produced are unused, the net result is that you did not receive value-in-kind for your $$ (even after $ to Crown conversion).

The second can be taken even further if you end up acquiring items of value (in that they can be purchased with crowns, which are purchased with currency) because the typical outcome will yield less value than if the items were purchased outright.

If you want to take it a step further still, based on your own definition of "value." These are all virtual goods with no intrinsic value, therefore you are spending IRL currency for crowns, for crates, which are guaranteed to translate to zero value.

Let me say that last part again: You are using a system that takes an item of value and guarantees no value in return. (By that definition, they shouldn't be regulated, they should be outright banned.)

The great thing about things that eventually become law, is that they end up being in a form that does not need to imply anything. It's why they're written to the level of detail that they are. It's why lawyers get paid so well to find the missing places in between that have yet been clarified enough to not be subject to implication or interpretation.

It is not a direct exchange of goods/services at a predetermined value. It's random. Chance. Neither the outcome nor the value of the outcome is guaranteed. The cost, however, is guaranteed.

(If you disagree, I would love to see you purchase a single crown crate and predict the contents, or do whatever you like under your control to guarantee the content (outcome.)) Be sure to stream it, and I'll happily concede. For good measure, and not dumb luck RNG (because it's not a game of chance, right?) you'll have to do it two times in a row.

I don't think it could fit the very definition of gambling any more perfectly.

I am a firm believer in peoples' right to make their own choices, provided they are capable to do so and it does not directly impact another's. Regulation and oversight is there to keep, in large part, to keep people safe, even if it's from themselves in some cases.

I've seen no such safeguard in place regarding crown crates. Just as a bartender is legally obligated to "cut you off," the same potential shared responsibility should have to be present for the one supplying the product.

It's still everyone's god-given right to wreck themselves in the fashion they see fit, if they choose to. It doesn't make it common. It doesn't make it right. And trying to argue grammatical semantics doesn't change the fact that it still fits the definition to a T.

TL;DR; Legally, at present. It is not gambling. If you were to interpret the definition as the average person would, it absolutely is.

Once again you separate the FULL definition, to fit your agenda.

I guess I'm just not your average person. I know the risks of crown crates and can control myself and don't consider spending money and getting something in return as gambling.

DaveMoeDee · April 2018

maroite wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

maroite wrote: »

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

In the U.S. it's definined like this:

A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value (true)

...upon the outcome of a contest of chance (RNG of crates)

... or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, (Still RNG, so still true.)

..upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.
Your definition of "something of value" doesn't matter.

Your definition of "gambling" doesnt' matter.

Yours is the only recent thread about this topic.

Your declaration that it's not is no more useful than threads that declare that it is.

The govt. will be the one making the call in the long run, and your feelings or interpretation on the matter will be as relevant then as they are now. (HINT: They aren't.)

maroite wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

They're not gambling directly no.

However they take a lot of the methods and manipulations used in gambling to create the same effect.
Even the Dutch body looking into them agreed on this during the week.

You keep talking about this but the Dutch only linked 4 games, where the users could Re-SELL items for REAL money, to gambling.

smh

reiverx wrote: »

One day gambling laws will catch up. At the moment, it's not really obvious how destructive these practices are.

Collectible Card Games with randomized booster packs have been around for decades. They are, in every way except for being physical, the same thing as crown crates. (Well and the fact that I don't think you can actually sell stuff from Crown Crates for real money as dupes turn into crystals.)

NO laws have been made against them - Specifically look at Magic:The Gathering. There are cards that are worth thousands of dollars. They were obtained from buying randomized packs of cards.

The only difference is you don't have to leave your house to get crown crates. Although no you can just order most CCG's via websites and have stuff delivered to your door.

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

In the U.S. it's definined like this:

A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value (true)

...upon the outcome of a contest of chance (RNG of crates)

... or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, (Still RNG, so still true.)

..upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome.
Your definition of "something of value" doesn't matter.

Your definition of "gambling" doesnt' matter.

Yours is the only recent thread about this topic.

Your declaration that it's not is no more useful than threads that declare that it is.

The govt. will be the one making the call in the long run, and your feelings or interpretation on the matter will be as relevant then as they are now. (HINT: They aren't.)

Contest of chance implies that you're competing against other people, not randomly opening packages. There is no "contest" in buying a randomized package of goods and opening it. You're also cutting up the statements to fit your argument. "future contingent event" is critical to "not under his control or influence."

You're also not staking anything. You're purchasing a crate that has random loot. You're trading your money 1 for 1. There is no chance that you will pay ZOS, and end up getting 0 crates. (outside of bugs but I'm sure ZOS usually corrects this OR your CC/Bank will.)

No, the implication is your own assumption.

Let's look at it two different ways. You'll be wrong in both cases.
Slot machines: Clearly gambling, though you are not competing against other people in this game of chance. So your assumption does not apply.

Unless... you wish to argue that you are playing against "the house." In this case one could argue that with Crates, you are also playing against "the house." "The house," in such an instance is ZoS.

Both still indicate games of chance, which fit the definition.
You're choosing to interpret the second half of the statement as one continuous section. Again, you're making an assumption. Reading the entire part, taking the "or" in to account, that portion reads as ("A" or "B") and "C."

You're choosing to interpret it as "A" or ("B" and "C.") With "A" being "outcome of contest of chance," "B" being "future contingent event," and "C" being "not under his control or influence."

Crates are most certainly a contest of chance with the outcome not under the player's control or influence.

And you're not staking anything? You are most certainly staking crowns, a virtual item that arguably has value, as it has to be purchased with IRL currency, on chance of a result.

Your argument that there is no chance you'll end up with no crates is flawed on two counts, yet again.
The obvious one, which you're choosing to ignore, is that no one buys crates just for crates' sake. They buy them for the potential contents.

There is absolute chance that you'll end with no crates, because if the items produced are unused, the net result is that you did not receive value-in-kind for your $$ (even after $ to Crown conversion).

The second can be taken even further if you end up acquiring items of value (in that they can be purchased with crowns, which are purchased with currency) because the typical outcome will yield less value than if the items were purchased outright.

If you want to take it a step further still, based on your own definition of "value." These are all virtual goods with no intrinsic value, therefore you are spending IRL currency for crowns, for crates, which are guaranteed to translate to zero value.

Let me say that last part again: You are using a system that takes an item of value and guarantees no value in return. (By that definition, they shouldn't be regulated, they should be outright banned.)

The great thing about things that eventually become law, is that they end up being in a form that does not need to imply anything. It's why they're written to the level of detail that they are. It's why lawyers get paid so well to find the missing places in between that have yet been clarified enough to not be subject to implication or interpretation.

It is not a direct exchange of goods/services at a predetermined value. It's random. Chance. Neither the outcome nor the value of the outcome is guaranteed. The cost, however, is guaranteed.

(If you disagree, I would love to see you purchase a single crown crate and predict the contents, or do whatever you like under your control to guarantee the content (outcome.)) Be sure to stream it, and I'll happily concede. For good measure, and not dumb luck RNG (because it's not a game of chance, right?) you'll have to do it two times in a row.

I don't think it could fit the very definition of gambling any more perfectly.

I am a firm believer in peoples' right to make their own choices, provided they are capable to do so and it does not directly impact another's. Regulation and oversight is there to keep, in large part, to keep people safe, even if it's from themselves in some cases.

I've seen no such safeguard in place regarding crown crates. Just as a bartender is legally obligated to "cut you off," the same potential shared responsibility should have to be present for the one supplying the product.

It's still everyone's god-given right to wreck themselves in the fashion they see fit, if they choose to. It doesn't make it common. It doesn't make it right. And trying to argue grammatical semantics doesn't change the fact that it still fits the definition to a T.

TL;DR; Legally, at present. It is not gambling. If you were to interpret the definition as the average person would, it absolutely is.

Once again you separate the FULL definition, to fit your agenda.

I guess I'm just not your average person. I know the risks of crown crates and can control myself and don't consider spending money and getting something in return as gambling.

So if I have a roulette table where, even if you lose, you are always guaranteed to get at least 1 cent back, that is no longer gambling? I am not saying loot boxes are gambling. I am just saying I'm not convinced by that justification.

TamrielSaviour215 · April 2018

This is the issue. If we could get the community to put a list together on what they would pay for every item in the crates then people would see the issue. The people saying 'well you're getting something in the crates where in "Real Gambling" you can lose everything are not comprehending that that is the loophole. But how many things do you get from those crates that you actually use? How much of those items would you actually spend real money to get? I am assuming that the overwhelming majority of people would not spend a penny on much of it. You are getting it so they can say "well they got something" but on a larger scale its like paying for a Lambo and driving off in a 1988 Corolla. Just because monetarily its on a much smaller scale than that, it is still completely lopsided to not be in the favor of the consumer. Thus, it is gambling.

heaven13 · April 2018

vamp_emily wrote: »

I can almost bet that if we got a group of people together and went to investors seeking financing for a game, all we would have to mention is "we will have scam crates in the game". Those investors would be throwing cash at us just for a piece of the profits.

After watching the Facebook hearing, I really think we need new regulations in the gaming industry. Call it gambling, scamming or whatever you want. There is definitely something wrong with the current system. Maybe not for the gaming companies but their users need to be protected.

For starters I would love for gaming companies to do away with their fake currency, and display real currency. For example, instead of stuff costing 5,000 crowns it should say something like $35.00.

Completely agree. Some companies have done away with fake currency, which I think is a step in the right direction. Pay for real money when you want something, rather than having to buy into the fake and have a balance that will never be refunded. Especially given the fact that a lot of games that use fake currency make most of their listings so the currency conversion price is either just below or just under so you never actually can spend it all.

Back on topic to the boxes, I'd have no problems with them if there were some changes made:

Publish Odds
Make items also available for direct purchase (want something specific, buy it direct. Want to just have fun and get some mystery items, open a box and possibly get cool stuff for cheaper than if you'd bought direct)
Remove the non-purchasable limitations for radiant apex.

With point #2, people who like crates (or deals) would still purchase crates. They could get a lot of cool stuff and enjoy the experience of opening boxes. Those that want specific items or do not care to give their crowns for a chance at random goodies could buy directly. Win/win.

JKorr · April 2018

VaranisArano wrote: »

So, is this why, despite being not that different from my state lottery, ZOS doesn't yet have to release the odds of getting various tiers of items in the Crown Crates the way my state lottery has to disclose the odds of (not) breaking even and the tiers of rewards?

And this is why I stick to the free Crown Crates. Because I know the House always wins, but I prefer to know my official odds of losing.

From the very beginning, there was CYA operating. The original official announcement was only things you are absolutely 100% guaranteed to get every single time when you purchase a crown crate are the consumables. Period. The consumables are, ostensibly, what everyone is buying the crown crates for; consumables bundled to give a higher value than buying the consumable separately would be. Buying the crates gives you the consumables; a slight chance at a costume/hat/pet, and a very slight chance at an apex reward. But of course no one is buying them for the costume/hat/pet or apex reward, right?

This CYA is the official stand on the subject, even though during the PTS trial when everyone bought as many crates every day as they could [PTS players got 5500 crowns every day to buy the crates] the overwhelming opinion was that the literally hundreds of potions/poisons/food people were piling up were totally pointless because the players could make better potions/poisons/food with their crafters. It was after many, many complaints/discussions on the pts that the "trade unwanted consumables for gems" thing came into being. Originally you only got gems for duplicates.

So, yes. Technically the people who spent over a $1000.00 buying crowns to buy crates were only buying them for the consumables. The gambling for the special/apex rewards doesn't enter into it.

Syncronaut · April 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FApve3vF2CU&t=0s

I wonder iz Zos game is on that list now. Super curious.

Oh and just a small reminder, you know how eso crown crates card look like?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/txflH0KcgRw/maxresdefault.jpg
A lot like a yakuza cards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanafuda

Its good to know a bit of history.

badmojo · April 2018

The contents of crown crates have no value.

How much does a radiant apex go for on the open market? Oh right, you cant sell it unless you violate the games terms of service and risk a ban by selling your account on the blackmarket.

Collectable cards (hockey, pokemon, mtg, etc) have real value because you can sell them on the open market, and they also get sold to customers in mystery packs which have a chance to contain great cards or bad cards. They have been around for decades, sold to children, and are still not legally considered gambling.

The videogame Rust has a bit of chance involved in it. When you purchase a copy of that game you are assigned a character with a gender, skin color, and hair based on an algorithm. You might dislike the character you just paid real money for, does that mean you were gambling and lost? Is that any different than getting an item you dislike in a crown crate? You purchased digital goods, you recieved digital goods, the fact that those goods arent exactly what you wanted doesnt make it gambling because you were informed that the items would be selected from a large pool of digital goods.

Turelus · April 2018

I think the most confusing thing in this thread is why the two people fighting like crazy to prove they're not gambling care so much.

Also I am most confused why people always fight to defend a system which is clearly less consumer friendly than the alternatives.

Feanor · April 2018

I just want to add one more thought before I withdraw from the thread because this one has been moderated already and I don’t want to risk my posting rights.

I have posted about the matter being freedom and that I strongly think that people should decide themselves what to do. There has been a recent ruling of the German Constitutional Court. It has nothing to do with crown crates, but everything to with the individual freedom and the boundaries of law that are set because the freedom exists.

The Court had to decide about a patient with a mental illness. The patient was in a closed psychiatric hospital. Besides the mental illness the patient also suffered from various other illnesses, which - as the doctors assessed - needed treatment to not get worse. Yet the patient refused to get treated. The law in the local state had a provision that patients in such hospitals can be treated in the case of illness even against their will.

The patient challenged the decision to treat him forcibly that was based on the law. The Constitutional Court had to decide whether the law provision is in accordance with the personal freedom as it is a part of the German Constitution.

It ruled that the provision was not in accordance with the Constitution and that a treatment against the will of a person could only be done in the case of a life threatening illness when the consent of the patient cannot be obtained.

This has nothing to do with crown crates. But it shows that personal freedom is a very fundamental thing that should not be given up lightly - even if it’s just unimportant virtual objects with apparently no value.

Turelus · April 2018

DaveMoeDee wrote: »

So if I have a roulette table where, even if you lose, you are always guaranteed to get at least 1 cent back, that is no longer gambling? I am not saying loot boxes are gambling. I am just saying I'm not convinced by that justification.

I think you might be onto something here... Let's go into business and we can be rich!

Syncronaut · April 2018

Turelus wrote: »

I think the most confusing thing in this thread is why the two people fighting like crazy to prove they're not gambling care so much.

Also I am most confused why people always fight to defend a system which is clearly less consumer friendly than the alternatives.

Because they are badly informed.

More drastic option is gambling addiction, as those addicted will sometimes defend their dopamine games, as if those are taken away, they got nothing left.

Turelus · April 2018

Syncronaut wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

I think the most confusing thing in this thread is why the two people fighting like crazy to prove they're not gambling care so much.

Also I am most confused why people always fight to defend a system which is clearly less consumer friendly than the alternatives.

Because they are badly informed.

More drastic option is gambling addiction, as those addicted will sometimes defend their dopamine games, as if those are taken away, they got nothing left.

It's not even like the outcry this week has been about outright banning them. Mostly just about how adding the motif was another low blow from ZOS.

People were much more accepting of crates before Radiant Apex and now this. If ZOS would stop pushing the boundaries and spitting in peoples faces then people might be less angry all the time.

Charliff1966 · April 2018

How should ZOS keep out vunerable people out of their game? Heck, how should any internet company keep vunerable people out of their products? It's a M-rated game yet parents let minors play. Why should ZOS care?

VyersReaver · April 2018

A lot of emotions in this post, you might want to skip it.

@TC, how pathetic do you have to be to defend a corporate business practice that is manipulative of weaknesses that are usually inherent in the audience of MMO-market? I.e. addictive natures that binds us to a game, need for grind, etc. We have it, you can't deny it, otherwise most of us wouldn't stay long-term.

And this actively exploits that weakness to milk money. It might not fall under the strict definition of gambling, but it has to be shunned and stigmatized as much as possible. For the future of the gaming industry is shaping up to be bleak and lifeless, with games being used as virtual casinos. If you want that - please leave this game and join a Korean F2P MMO that has those. See if I care.

Inarre · April 2018

Istoppucks wrote: »

Here are the FACTS Loot crates in most mmorpgs including eso are NOT gambling.

gam·ble
ˈɡambəl/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: gambling
1. play games of chance for MONEY; bet.
2. In the US that also add betting for things of value.

Things of value require the ability to sell the item for real money.

HUH? You show in your own definition that at least in the US gambling includes items of value. So.... Basically loot boxes ARE gambling?

Istoppucks wrote: »

Things of value require the ability to sell the item for real money.

Says who? There are all types of value.

val·ue
ˈvalyo͞o/
noun
1.
the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.

josiahva · April 2018

I agree with the OP here, aside from the technical definition...when you gamble you either win, or you lose the money invested...but with loot crates, you are GUARANTEED to get something. To be clear, I think 99% of the stuff in them is junk, but you are guaranteed to get something of the same value as something else you want. I mean, realistically speaking, a crown tri-potion is the EXACT SAME VALUE as a radiant apex mount...that is to say 0$. The only thing changing here is subjective, how much you want a given item. I just think the whole idea is stupid...but those that actually buy the things have no right to complain about what they get out of them.