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

heaven13

@Rain_Greyraven if you're getting hate whispers, I'd report them in game. While I do not like crown crates, I will never harass someone over them and no one else should be either. It's ZOS that has developed decided to use this marketing technique and, yes I do wish players would stop buying into them so ZOS would come up with a fairer business practice all can benefit from.

However, at the end of the day, if people want to spend their money, that's their business. Not to mention, there's absolutely ZERO way to tell if someone got a crate reward from buying a lot of crates, a few crates, or opening just the free ones ZOS gave them. I will voice my opinion on crates and that I think they are not consumer friendly which is my right as a consumer. It is not my right to be hateful towards someone else because they participate and I don't.

EDIT: Changed the wording to clarify

badmojo

Merlin13KAGL wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

Istoppucks wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

US Legal defines gambling as following:

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

A legal definition and a dictionary definition are quite different things.

Loot crate items cant be sold and have no value.

The crowns you bought the loot crates for are purchased with money therefore have value and you risk them on the contents of the crates. What you risk is the crowns purchased with money.

You argument is that an item has to be salable to have value? This would imply that all salable items inherently have value.

I can sell a pile of mud to someone willing to buy for a cool $1 million. It doesn't suddenly make it worth $1 million, realistically.

People don't get to arbitrarily decide an items value. @Istoppucks , you realize that's why we use currency and not clamshells or cobblestones, right? it provides a common exchange rate.

I equally don't get to inherit a Ferarri and claim its value as $10 when the IRS comes calling, simply because I have arbitrarily decided that's what I want it to be worth to me.

In a third example, that same Ferarri becomes pretty useless if I find myself in a survival scenario or the classic "stranded on a desert island" scenario.

It's why there is a currency value placed on it, so there is no ambiguity to be had.

Per your own definition, Crates have value (they're obviously sold to customers.). The reason they have value is due to the contents - again, no one buys crates just to have crates on their account, never to open them.

Since that value is variable and subject to chance, it still fits the definition.

badmojo wrote: »

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.

Impressively bad example.

The algorithm that defines your character is based on your Steam ID. It has exactly nothing to do with RNG.

Why does that detail matter? They are both out of the players control. They are both systems where a customer can pay for something and be uphappy with what they are given. Not much would change if rust decided those thing based on random number generation, in fact steam IDs are pretty much an rng system themselves. So..... you dont like the comparison because the Rust game client doesnt do the RNGing, it uses the already randomly generated steam ID? Ok. Fair enough. You are entitled to you opinion.

themaddaedra

Someone got a dictionary. I wonder if same dictionary tells that writing with capitals doesn't make your point more sensible than it actually is.

Definitions change, mostly when people realize they are not enough anymore. Crown crates make the same feeling as gambling, no matter what your capitals say.

TamrielSaviour215

Juju_beans wrote: »

It's not gambling because every loot box contains something. You don't get empty loot boxes.

How many of these items are sitting untouched in your inventory? That is a loophole to make people say "well you get something". As I previously stated, thats like putting in $100,000 into a raffle hoping to win a new Lambo and getting a 1988 Toyota Corolla with 308,000 miles. How many people spend hundreds of dollars over the course of time and end up with stuff they wont use?

I have only opened free crates and I honestly don't think I have ever used anything. Some people will and thats fine. But the odds of getting what you want are sooooo low.

I am not against it. People can do it if they want. I think it is pointless and a waste but stop pretending its not gambling because it def is.

Disclosure: I play 15-20 hours of poker in a casino every week. I am pro gambling. I am not saying take them out. I am just saying......crates are 100% a gamble. If you are saying they are not, its because you dont want to see them go. Come up with a better argument if you want to keep them other than "Its not gambling".

DieAlteHexe

TamrielSaviour215 wrote: »

Juju_beans wrote: »

It's not gambling because every loot box contains something. You don't get empty loot boxes.

How many of these items are sitting untouched in your inventory? That is a loophole to make people say "well you get something". As I previously stated, thats like putting in $100,000 into a raffle hoping to win a new Lambo and getting a 1988 Toyota Corolla with 308,000 miles. How many people spend hundreds of dollars over the course of time and end up with stuff they wont use?

I have only opened free crates and I honestly don't think I have ever used anything. Some people will and thats fine. But the odds of getting what you want are sooooo low.

I am not against it. People can do it if they want. I think it is pointless and a waste but stop pretending its not gambling because it def is.

Disclosure: I play 15-20 of poker in a casino every week. I am pro gambling. I am not saying take them out. I am just saying......crates are 100% a gamble. If you are saying they are not, its because you dont want to see them go. Come up with a better argument if you want to keep them other than "Its not gambling".

The bolded above just hit me. I think that's why I'm not freaking out over this. I do use pretty much everything from any crates I get, even if it's just to turn them into gems (ZoS could be just a tad more generous in the conversion there, not greatly, just a tad). So, since I USE everything I get, I'm good with them. Only time I get irked a bit is when I get emotes (never use 'em) and skins (I've yet to see one that I would sully my characters with...ahhh, opinions, yes? )

This is why I am an advocate of allowing trading. I have so many mounts that I dislike ( a couple are the very über ones) and I would love to be able to trade with someone who really, really wants them. No money, just a flat out trade.

Rain_Greyraven

heaven13 wrote: »

@Rain_Greyraven if you're getting hate whispers, I'd report them in game. While I do not like crown crates, I will never harass someone over them and no one else should be either. It's ZOS that has developed this marketing technique and, yes I do wish players would stop buying into them so ZOS would come up with a fairer business practice all can benefit from.

However, at the end of the day, if people want to spend their money, that's their business. Not to mention, there's absolutely ZERO way to tell if someone got a crate reward from buying a lot of crates, a few crates, or opening just the free ones ZOS gave them. I will voice my opinion on crates and that I think they are not consumer friendly which is my right as a consumer. It is not my right to be hateful towards someone else because they participate and I don't.

As we all know reporting in game does Jack....I mean has anyone ever actually spoken to a GM in ESO? Also just because you personally would no do a thing, does not mean a metric crap ton of other people would not.

After all it's the interwebs.

CurlyQTip

-s for editting-

Merlin13KAGL

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.

1. Slot machines: Clearly gambling, though you are not competing against other people in this game of chance. So your assumption does not apply.
2. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.
4. 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.

Ok. here's the full definition with the relavent parts in place. No spaces, so as not to confound anyone.

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

Feel free to use logic to point out which part doesn't apply here. I'll even give a head start by saying "contest of chance" doesn't apply, since it is not a "game" (the crates).

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

I have no agenda, other than calling *** where *** deserves to be called. Here's my view in summary:

• Is it legally gambing? No.
• Is it gambling in that it fits the definition? Yes.
• Should people be able to purchase/use this feature? Yes. Don't really care.

I've already backed up my points. Feel free to do the same. And as I previously mentioned:

Purchase a single crown crate and predict the contents, or do whatever you like under your control to guarantee the content (control or influence the 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.

Break the definition, on video, two times in a row. Logically, you can do this by:

• Not being a person.
• Not staking something of value ~ purchase crowns without using IRL currency or purchase crates without using crowns.
• Eliminate "chance" (raw video proof x2 should do nicely)
• Influence or control the future contingent event (the opening of the crates and the contents within).
• Have the event (the opening of the crates) not be in the future. You can either open in the same temporal instant you purchase, or you can travel back in time. Your call.
• Receive nothing of value. Monetary, functional, in any way, shape, or form. (contents should add nothing to your account, not items, not costumes, not functionality (personalities/emotes), not gems by conversion)

Any one of those will negate the definition.

Unless you've got the gift of Midas, you won't be able to do it. (Even if you did with 2, it would not be infinitely repeatable.)

You can exercise self control, so it does not negatively affect you. That's all well and good. It still doesn't change the facts above.

Should it be an option for responsible adults? Sure? Should we BS it by calling it something other than what it is?

Hell no.

lassitershawn

Anyone arguing against it being gambling is just twisting words or being overly legalistic. These crates are gambling in the sense that I would wager most people conceive of gambling. That said, you are free to buy them or not and since they fund my dungeons and trials and are purely cosmetic I’m fine with their inclusion.

CurlyQTip

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

The lawmakers looking into it are going to end up telling us what they think of it eventually really

lassitershawn wrote: »

Anyone arguing against it being gambling is just twisting words or being overly legalistic. These crates are gambling in the sense that I would wager most people conceive of gambling. That said, you are free to buy them or not and since they fund my dungeons and trials and are purely cosmetic I’m fine with their inclusion.

And the people arguing it isn't, aren't twisting words in any way shape or form? Get real lol.

Fleshreaper

JD2013 wrote: »

In essence, they are gambling though.

You buy a crate in hope of gaining some kind of item that you would like. You do not know whether or not you are going to "win" something good or not. You have odds.

So, really, despite the fact that you can't sell what you get, they most certainly, in spirit at least, are gambling. You take a gamble for an item you would want. They have sounds, quite brightly coloured, and look as though taking a chance would be "fun"."

Don't get me wrong, I am against crates. But it's still not gambling and here is why. You buy a crate for 500 crown ($5.00), you are "guaranteed", 500 crowns ($5.00) worth of items. is the crate going to contain items exactly worth 500 crown or are they going to be worth 5000 crown. That is chance (RNG) but in the end, you got exactly what you paid for, you just did not get the extra like you had hoped you would.

Anotherone773

TamrielSaviour215 wrote: »

Anotherone773 wrote: »

People dont need what is in those crates. Either pay the price for them or dont. But for every one person that complains about those crates here on the forums, there will be a hundred people that will happily buy them and not say a peep about it. Which group you think they are going to listen too? The hundred that are happily buying them or the one that is complaining?

The thing is, its not about the people complaining anymore. Its about what could potentially be a law. Therefore they will HAVE to listen whether they want to or not.

In the US such laws are unlikely to pass. Even if they do, your going to be the one to feel the pain. You will have two options: 1) be forced to pay significantly more to play the game( here comes $30 a month subs), 2) game shuts down because its no longer profitable.

People dont get that those crates are there so people can pay what they want to play. If you want to play for free, then all you have to do is purchase the game. If players want to buy extras or chances at extras then they can and that pays the way for the free players sucking up bandwidth, server electricity, employees times, etc.

Also people dont seem to understand the concept of gambling. When you gamble you risk X amount for a chance to win Y amount or something of lesser value. Gambling is designed so that on average you will lose most "attempts". It is very possible in gambling to lose your "investment" and get zero in return. I bought a lottery ticket, i didnt win anything. The lottery has my dollar and i have nothing for that dollar.

Chance crates are not gambling because you always win in a chance crate. So its not a gamble. You are guaranteed to win. In fact you are guaranteed to win 4 times in the chance crate and sometimes 5. If you always win, its not gambling. Its more akin to secret santa and mystery boxes than gambling.

People try to turn it into gambling to fit their argument the same way they try to redefine p2w to fit their argument. Its not a gamble if you always win. The problem is people expect to win the top prize instead of a prize. You are guaranteed to win something, so not gambling. The expectations that one will win the top prize is just people being naive.

People set unrealistic expectations for chance crates and then cry and whine when they didnt get that super rare prize. Well imagine if everyone won that super rare prize... it would be like owning a sorrel horse. And studies show its not gamblers that are the problem with chance crates. Gamblers arent the people who are outraged about chance crates. Its the people who are "trying to keep up with the Jones", people who are all about vanity items and having the coolest and most rare vanity items. Those are the people, according to studies, who have problems with chance crates.

Their vanity leads them to spending more money than they can afford. It makes them distressed that they cannot own that super cool rare mount like their guild mates. It would be akin, in their eyes, to everyone around them having designer clothes, and they are wearing stuff from Walmart. Their friends are wearing *** and they dont even have Reebok's. They got shoes that say Atheletic Works on them and cost $20.

Those are the people that are so bent out of shape about crown crates. Gamblers dont do chance crates because the items have no real world value. They rather spend their $20 on scratch offs for the chance to win a million than some game where your guaranteed a win but it has no real value and you cant even reinvest it into your addiction.

badmojo

I wonder how people would react to real physical RNG based loot boxes. Monthly physical loot boxes seem to be really popular these days but I have yet to see any where you can potentially get more than another customer, based on luck. They all seem to follow the pattern of just giving people items that roughly equal the price paid for the box. They might sell more if say 5% of the boxes contained items worth twice as much as the price paid.

Would that be gambling?

Geroken777

Lol this looks like a troll thread

inthecoconut

Anotherone773 wrote: »

TamrielSaviour215 wrote: »

Anotherone773 wrote: »

People dont need what is in those crates. Either pay the price for them or dont. But for every one person that complains about those crates here on the forums, there will be a hundred people that will happily buy them and not say a peep about it. Which group you think they are going to listen too? The hundred that are happily buying them or the one that is complaining?

The thing is, its not about the people complaining anymore. Its about what could potentially be a law. Therefore they will HAVE to listen whether they want to or not.

In the US such laws are unlikely to pass. Even if they do, your going to be the one to feel the pain. You will have two options: 1) be forced to pay significantly more to play the game( here comes $30 a month subs), 2) game shuts down because its no longer profitable.

People dont get that those crates are there so people can pay what they want to play. If you want to play for free, then all you have to do is purchase the game. If players want to buy extras or chances at extras then they can and that pays the way for the free players sucking up bandwidth, server electricity, employees times, etc.

Also people dont seem to understand the concept of gambling. When you gamble you risk X amount for a chance to win Y amount or something of lesser value. Gambling is designed so that on average you will lose most "attempts". It is very possible in gambling to lose your "investment" and get zero in return. I bought a lottery ticket, i didnt win anything. The lottery has my dollar and i have nothing for that dollar.

Chance crates are not gambling because you always win in a chance crate. So its not a gamble. You are guaranteed to win. In fact you are guaranteed to win 4 times in the chance crate and sometimes 5. If you always win, its not gambling. Its more akin to secret santa and mystery boxes than gambling.

People try to turn it into gambling to fit their argument the same way they try to redefine p2w to fit their argument. Its not a gamble if you always win. The problem is people expect to win the top prize instead of a prize. You are guaranteed to win something, so not gambling. The expectations that one will win the top prize is just people being naive.

People set unrealistic expectations for chance crates and then cry and whine when they didnt get that super rare prize. Well imagine if everyone won that super rare prize... it would be like owning a sorrel horse. And studies show its not gamblers that are the problem with chance crates. Gamblers arent the people who are outraged about chance crates. Its the people who are "trying to keep up with the Jones", people who are all about vanity items and having the coolest and most rare vanity items. Those are the people, according to studies, who have problems with chance crates.

Their vanity leads them to spending more money than they can afford. It makes them distressed that they cannot own that super cool rare mount like their guild mates. It would be akin, in their eyes, to everyone around them having designer clothes, and they are wearing stuff from Walmart. Their friends are wearing *** and they dont even have Reebok's. They got shoes that say Atheletic Works on them and cost $20.

Those are the people that are so bent out of shape about crown crates. Gamblers dont do chance crates because the items have no real world value. They rather spend their $20 on scratch offs for the chance to win a million than some game where your guaranteed a win but it has no real value and you cant even reinvest it into your addiction.

Just wondering what your thoughts are on games that are F2P, and don't have loot crates to finance themselves. Honestly, all of this is conjecture and we wont know how "greedy" Zeni is, unless they were to release a breakdown of their finances, how much money they earn from people buying the game, subbing, buy cash shop items, and buying crates, vs how much of those profits are used to develop future content. And I highly doubt they would ever give us that information.

However, I still think there is an argument to be made when there are other MMOs out there that don't utilize all of the same marketing platforms that Zeni does. There are plenty of Free to Play games that don't have a buy model, don't have subscription options, and don't use loot crates, and yet they are still running just fine years later.

heaven13

Anotherone773 wrote: »

TamrielSaviour215 wrote: »

Anotherone773 wrote: »

People dont need what is in those crates. Either pay the price for them or dont. But for every one person that complains about those crates here on the forums, there will be a hundred people that will happily buy them and not say a peep about it. Which group you think they are going to listen too? The hundred that are happily buying them or the one that is complaining?

The thing is, its not about the people complaining anymore. Its about what could potentially be a law. Therefore they will HAVE to listen whether they want to or not.

In the US such laws are unlikely to pass. Even if they do, your going to be the one to feel the pain. You will have two options: 1) be forced to pay significantly more to play the game( here comes $30 a month subs), 2) game shuts down because its no longer profitable.

People dont get that those crates are there so people can pay what they want to play. If you want to play for free, then all you have to do is purchase the game. If players want to buy extras or chances at extras then they can and that pays the way for the free players sucking up bandwidth, server electricity, employees times, etc.

Also people dont seem to understand the concept of gambling. When you gamble you risk X amount for a chance to win Y amount or something of lesser value. Gambling is designed so that on average you will lose most "attempts". It is very possible in gambling to lose your "investment" and get zero in return. I bought a lottery ticket, i didnt win anything. The lottery has my dollar and i have nothing for that dollar.

Chance crates are not gambling because you always win in a chance crate. So its not a gamble. You are guaranteed to win. In fact you are guaranteed to win 4 times in the chance crate and sometimes 5. If you always win, its not gambling. Its more akin to secret santa and mystery boxes than gambling.

People try to turn it into gambling to fit their argument the same way they try to redefine p2w to fit their argument. Its not a gamble if you always win. The problem is people expect to win the top prize instead of a prize. You are guaranteed to win something, so not gambling. The expectations that one will win the top prize is just people being naive.

People set unrealistic expectations for chance crates and then cry and whine when they didnt get that super rare prize. Well imagine if everyone won that super rare prize... it would be like owning a sorrel horse. And studies show its not gamblers that are the problem with chance crates. Gamblers arent the people who are outraged about chance crates. Its the people who are "trying to keep up with the Jones", people who are all about vanity items and having the coolest and most rare vanity items. Those are the people, according to studies, who have problems with chance crates.

Their vanity leads them to spending more money than they can afford. It makes them distressed that they cannot own that super cool rare mount like their guild mates. It would be akin, in their eyes, to everyone around them having designer clothes, and they are wearing stuff from Walmart. Their friends are wearing *** and they dont even have Reebok's. They got shoes that say Atheletic Works on them and cost $20.

Those are the people that are so bent out of shape about crown crates. Gamblers dont do chance crates because the items have no real world value. They rather spend their $20 on scratch offs for the chance to win a million than some game where your guaranteed a win but it has no real value and you cant even reinvest it into your addiction.

Bolded the part I'm replying to.

Incorrect, at least for myself. I have not seen a radiant apex mount (or even an apex mount) yet that I want. That's not why I have problems with crates. In fact, the few things I've seen that I've wanted, but not wanted to gamble for, have been things like pets (chub loon), hairstyles, or costumes. I'd love a link to these studies because I can't imagine I'm such an outlier.

I give absolutely ZERO ***** about keeping up with anyone. The items I am interested in are solely for my own enjoyment and because it fits my character's theme/background/story.

Also, just to play devil's advocate...if everyone had the opportunity to purchase directly or earn the same things as everyone else, would we not see more variety instead of less since more options would be available to every player? I personally feel that those players that are all about artificial scarcity are the ones that feel somehow having something no one else has makes them superior to those that do not have it.

TamrielSaviour215

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Also people dont seem to understand the concept of gambling. When you gamble you risk X amount for a chance to win Y amount or something of lesser value. Gambling is designed so that on average you will lose most "attempts". It is very possible in gambling to lose your "investment" and get zero in return. I bought a lottery ticket, i didnt win anything. The lottery has my dollar and i have nothing for that dollar.

Chance crates are not gambling because you always win in a chance crate. So its not a gamble. You are guaranteed to win. In fact you are guaranteed to win 4 times in the chance crate and sometimes 5. If you always win, its not gambling. Its more akin to secret santa and mystery boxes than gambling.

People try to turn it into gambling to fit their argument the same way they try to redefine p2w to fit their argument. Its not a gamble if you always win. The problem is people expect to win the top prize instead of a prize. You are guaranteed to win something, so not gambling. The expectations that one will win the top prize is just people being naive.

People set unrealistic expectations for chance crates and then cry and whine when they didnt get that super rare prize. Well imagine if everyone won that super rare prize... it would be like owning a sorrel horse. And studies show its not gamblers that are the problem with chance crates. Gamblers arent the people who are outraged about chance crates. Its the people who are "trying to keep up with the Jones", people who are all about vanity items and having the coolest and most rare vanity items. Those are the people, according to studies, who have problems with chance crates.

Their vanity leads them to spending more money than they can afford. It makes them distressed that they cannot own that super cool rare mount like their guild mates. It would be akin, in their eyes, to everyone around them having designer clothes, and they are wearing stuff from Walmart. Their friends are wearing *** and they dont even have Reebok's. They got shoes that say Atheletic Works on them and cost $20.

Those are the people that are so bent out of shape about crown crates. Gamblers dont do chance crates because the items have no real world value. They rather spend their $20 on scratch offs for the chance to win a million than some game where your guaranteed a win but it has no real value and you cant even reinvest it into your addiction.

So I dont know if you saw a later post I put up, but I am pro gambling. I play 15-20 hours of poker in a casino every week. But I think that you are looking at this as getting something makes it not gambling. The thing is, people open the crates with the hopes of getting something valuable. If they wanted these low end common items, they would buy them from the store for 500 crowns. Thats not what people are after when they open crates. Some people are ok with it and take them whether to use or turn into gems (which is cool) but no one opens a crate saying "Man I hope I get that cool body marking" or "I really want that tripotion that I am never going to use". Thus the intent is to get something that costs SIGNIFICANTLY more than what you are paying. Simply receiving items that equal 2000 crowns doesnt justify the fact of why you opened it to begin with. Again. Yes, this is a GAMBLE that you take when opening a crate.

purple-magicb16_ESO

CurlyQTip

Istoppucks wrote: »

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. Eso and most mmorpgs you cannot sell anything from the loot crates for real money therfore they have no value.

If you were no longer allowed to cash in chips at casino's, would that mean they no longer have gambling in casino's?

Istoppucks wrote: »

Lets use facts here.
Lets stick to the facts.

Listen guys, lets stick to the facts guys.

Facts, stick to those facts.

Istoppucks wrote: »

Turelus wrote: »

Istoppucks 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.

Lets use facts here. The Dutch body found 4 out of 10 needed to adjust their rules because....get ready for the fun part....the had items in their crates that could be sold for real money.

Please dont come here with stories you are going to twist to try and prove a point . Lets stick to the facts.

As I said in post above. Facts are they found that the crates were designed to be manipulative, check the video linked above for an analysis of what their reports said.

I never claimed ESO boxes would be effected by the events in the Netherlands and not twisted anything to prove any point, I merely stated what has been in their reports.

Every ad on TV is manipulative. Restaurants make their menues to manipulate the consumer. Car manufacturing manipulate the pricing and extras.

I can go on and on what does your story you copy\paste multiple times on every thread have to do with ESO not being gambling? Well beside it helps prove eso is NOT gambling.

So because one thing is manipulative other things being manipulative is completely acceptable.

That isn't a safe way to thing about these things at all. Does that mean banks are allowed to manipulate people? The media? Twitter? How far are you going to allow that?

The things you listed aren't manipulative in the same way lootboxes can be.

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Here is another fact: getting rid of crates, which are best sellers in all games that have them will negatively affect your gameplay. The income from those are used to offset the rising cost of creating and maintaining games in which the players expect more for less.

This is such a dishonest way of thinking. It's good to see you're a bleeding heart for these massive, multimillion, sometimes billion dollar companies, but the reason lootboxes are such a common thing is to impress share holders. These companies are in no way shape or form shaking a cup out for a little spare change for server costs. If you want a game to cost less to create, stop wasting so much money. If you aren't making money without exploiting customers, you shouldn't be making money. It's very simple logic.

This idea that we should throw a pity party over the cost of gaming is just... what are you thinking. The ones making the money are the ones that need you to think that they're making games out of the kindness of their heart.

Anotherone773 wrote: »

These games are not cheap to run. This is not a SP game. MMOs have ongoing daily costs that can run tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars...thats PER DAY. That doesn't include development of new features.

think of the costs!!!

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Meanwhile players expect to have to pay less and less to play these games. They think The company is being predatory when it is just trying to make a profit providing a service to a bunch of people who think that service should be free.

I don't think its predatory to make DLC and store content. I think it's predatary to make lootboxes. Stuff being too expensive isn't an issue for me.

Anotherone773 wrote: »

One off items dont sell as well as crates. Because they are one and done per person who is interested. That means they have to put more effort into creating more items to sell. That is also how you end up with pay 2 win, required subs, $60-$80 chapters and literally every new feature behind a paywall.

It's almost as if people rebuy them and spend hundreds, sometimes thousands on lootboxes because it does infact exploit gambling tendancies. Video games being virtual casino's in the future isn't my interest.

Anotherone773 wrote: »

This game has to cover an daily operating budget. Those crates allows those people who can afford to spend an extra $20,50,100 a month to cover the cost of that player that invest nothing but the original cost of the game. You know the one with pack mules because they dont have a sub, never buys anything out of the crown store.

Again, bawing about the price of the game. If the company is that dependent on this model of money making, the company isn't going to adapt to the market if lootboxes are outlawed or adjusted.

Anotherone773 wrote: »

So while you complain about how unfair those crates are because you cant get the mount you want... remember that the people that spend a lot of money on those crates, are paying for a lot of people who put very little money towards paying for the upkeep of this game.

Literally all your argument is, is complaining about how this company doesn't make all the money instead of still, a lot of money

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Nothing is life is free. Just because one player gets to play for free doesnt mean it free. Someone else is covering his "free" for him and those crates are what does it.

I don't want free things. This isn't about """FREE""",

how about you don't, if people enjoy the game, the company will be fine enough

Istoppucks wrote: »

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.

Gambling laws restrict things way differently than video game rating systems.

It's not the responsibility of game devs to parent kids, you're right, that's why ESRB exists, and they failed their job, now the government wants to look into this stuff and I really don't like that, because the government was meant to stay away from games as a whole.

https://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.aspx

ADULTS ONLY
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.

You use real money, not virtual money, to use lootboxes. You can pretend it isn't gambling all you want, but ESRB's own guidelines would have this game with an adult rating. Funnily enough, they seem to be going against what their own rules state, and they're getting in a bit of trouble over it.

kikkehs wrote: »

loot boxes in ESO is not gambling, you buy a chance for an item. not gambling.....

Gambling is all about chance. What are you even arguing here. Gambling is strictly risk and reward, you're risking not getting a mount or rare cosmetic when you use a lootcrate.

In gambling you buy a chance to lose or win.

Anotherone773

TamrielSaviour215 wrote: »

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Also people dont seem to understand the concept of gambling. When you gamble you risk X amount for a chance to win Y amount or something of lesser value. Gambling is designed so that on average you will lose most "attempts". It is very possible in gambling to lose your "investment" and get zero in return. I bought a lottery ticket, i didnt win anything. The lottery has my dollar and i have nothing for that dollar.

Chance crates are not gambling because you always win in a chance crate. So its not a gamble. You are guaranteed to win. In fact you are guaranteed to win 4 times in the chance crate and sometimes 5. If you always win, its not gambling. Its more akin to secret santa and mystery boxes than gambling.

People try to turn it into gambling to fit their argument the same way they try to redefine p2w to fit their argument. Its not a gamble if you always win. The problem is people expect to win the top prize instead of a prize. You are guaranteed to win something, so not gambling. The expectations that one will win the top prize is just people being naive.

People set unrealistic expectations for chance crates and then cry and whine when they didnt get that super rare prize. Well imagine if everyone won that super rare prize... it would be like owning a sorrel horse. And studies show its not gamblers that are the problem with chance crates. Gamblers arent the people who are outraged about chance crates. Its the people who are "trying to keep up with the Jones", people who are all about vanity items and having the coolest and most rare vanity items. Those are the people, according to studies, who have problems with chance crates.

Their vanity leads them to spending more money than they can afford. It makes them distressed that they cannot own that super cool rare mount like their guild mates. It would be akin, in their eyes, to everyone around them having designer clothes, and they are wearing stuff from Walmart. Their friends are wearing *** and they dont even have Reebok's. They got shoes that say Atheletic Works on them and cost $20.

Those are the people that are so bent out of shape about crown crates. Gamblers dont do chance crates because the items have no real world value. They rather spend their $20 on scratch offs for the chance to win a million than some game where your guaranteed a win but it has no real value and you cant even reinvest it into your addiction.

So I dont know if you saw a later post I put up, but I am pro gambling. I play 15-20 hours of poker in a casino every week. But I think that you are looking at this as getting something makes it not gambling. The thing is, people open the crates with the hopes of getting something valuable. If they wanted these low end common items, they would buy them from the store for 500 crowns. Thats not what people are after when they open crates. Some people are ok with it and take them whether to use or turn into gems (which is cool) but no one opens a crate saying "Man I hope I get that cool body marking" or "I really want that tripotion that I am never going to use". Thus the intent is to get something that costs SIGNIFICANTLY more than what you are paying. Simply receiving items that equal 2000 crowns doesnt justify the fact of why you opened it to begin with. Again. Yes, this is a GAMBLE that you take when opening a crate.

Scientific studies disagree with you. Your rationalization may work for your case. You might both be a gambler and a person who loves vanity items which would make you biased to what i said since you cannot separate the gambling part from the vanity part.

Study show gamblers have little to no interest in virtual chance crates that have zero real world value. It also shows that the people who normally buy chance crates with vanity items are those that care about appearances. Meanwhile, those that are competitive are most likely to buy chance crates that have items that give them advantages. So this is what we have:

* Crates that contain items with real world value(IE: a sub game time card) = Gamblers
* Crates that contain vanity items= people who care about appearances
* Crates that contain items that give them an edge = Competitive players.

heaven13

@Anotherone773 if you are so concerned with ZOS earning money from crates because it's the only way they can stay afloat, shouldn't they appeal to ALL types of players; both the ones who care about appearances and the competitive players?

jedtb16_ESO

heaven13 wrote: »

@Rain_Greyraven if you're getting hate whispers, I'd report them in game. While I do not like crown crates, I will never harass someone over them and no one else should be either. It's ZOS that has developed this marketing technique and, yes I do wish players would stop buying into them so ZOS would come up with a fairer business practice all can benefit from.

However, at the end of the day, if people want to spend their money, that's their business. Not to mention, there's absolutely ZERO way to tell if someone got a crate reward from buying a lot of crates, a few crates, or opening just the free ones ZOS gave them. I will voice my opinion on crates and that I think they are not consumer friendly which is my right as a consumer. It is not my right to be hateful towards someone else because they participate and I don't.

no that is not true.... blind box sales have been around for a long time.

that is what the crown crates are a blind box sale.

lots of companies use the tactic... interestingly most of them contain toys or collectables for children.

don't believe me google... blind box sale .... and look at the results (other search engines are available.

the only difference is that the crown crated contain virtual items.

TamrielSaviour215

Anotherone773 wrote: »

Scientific studies disagree with you. Your rationalization may work for your case. You might both be a gambler and a person who loves vanity items which would make you biased to what i said since you cannot separate the gambling part from the vanity part.

Study show gamblers have little to no interest in virtual chance crates that have zero real world value. It also shows that the people who normally buy chance crates with vanity items are those that care about appearances. Meanwhile, those that are competitive are most likely to buy chance crates that have items that give them advantages. So this is what we have:

* Crates that contain items with real world value(IE: a sub game time card) = Gamblers
* Crates that contain vanity items= people who care about appearances
* Crates that contain items that give them an edge = Competitive players.

I am not really sure what you are getting at here. I am pro gambling but I dont buy crates. My point is that people open the crates in hopes of getting rare items. You dont open a crate hoping for a common item, or else you would just buy it outright. I dont buy crates because I agree with you, I don't see a value there. BUT PEOPLE DO SEE A VALUE in them. But the rest of your points dont make sense. There isnt much that gives you an edge in these crates. Maybe an exp boost but thats it. Otherwise its P2W and thats what people would really lose their mind about.

As for the middle bullet point....this is exactly the type of person who opens crates. But again, not for the common items. I have no idea what you mean by scientific studies disagree with me. My point is that when you spend money for something hoping for a certain return when you dont know what the outcome is.....THAT IS A GAMBLE THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO TAKE. Therefore, crates are gambling lol.

ADDED THIS...
I was trying to avoid using definitions as everyone is adding their own twists to each one to support their opinion. But this is a definition of GAMBLING:

gam·ble
ˈɡambəl/
verb
gerund or present participle: gambling

1.
play games of chance for money; bet.
"she was fond of gambling on cards and horses"
synonyms: bet, place/lay a bet on something, stake money on something, back the horses, game; informalplay the ponies
"he started to gamble more often"
bet (a sum of money) on a game of chance.
"he was gambling every penny he had on the spin of a wheel"
2.
take risky action in the hope of a desired result.
"the British could only gamble that something would turn up"
synonyms: take a chance, take a risk; More

The bold is my point. You open a crate with the hope of getting something specific. You dont have to "lose everything" for it to still be a gamble.

Datthaw

Dude it's gambling... you're really splitting hairs.

heaven13

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

heaven13 wrote: »

@Rain_Greyraven if you're getting hate whispers, I'd report them in game. While I do not like crown crates, I will never harass someone over them and no one else should be either. It's ZOS that has developed this marketing technique and, yes I do wish players would stop buying into them so ZOS would come up with a fairer business practice all can benefit from.

However, at the end of the day, if people want to spend their money, that's their business. Not to mention, there's absolutely ZERO way to tell if someone got a crate reward from buying a lot of crates, a few crates, or opening just the free ones ZOS gave them. I will voice my opinion on crates and that I think they are not consumer friendly which is my right as a consumer. It is not my right to be hateful towards someone else because they participate and I don't.

no that is not true.... blind box sales have been around for a long time.

that is what the crown crates are a blind box sale.

lots of companies use the tactic... interestingly most of them contain toys or collectables for children.

don't believe me google... blind box sale .... and look at the results (other search engines are available.

the only difference is that the crown crated contain virtual items.

I do believe you; no need for google (and no need to be condescending about it). I should reword to say that it is ZOS that put this marketing technique in their game.

Either way, you've entirely missed the point of that post.

necropola

If it were so clear, then there wouldn't be an ongoing legal battle over whether it is gambling or not.

I personally think that it should not matter whether the "thing" you are betting on has a monetary value or not. When looking at "gambling addiction" it is hard for me to understand that it makes a difference whether someone looses all his/her money to betting on something with "real" or "imaginary" value.

CurlyQTip

Datthaw wrote: »

Dude it's gambling... you're really splitting hairs.

I do love that they have to reword definitions and create these absurd sentimental arguments for huge companies in order to justify lootboxes

Splitting hairs and then splitting those hairs more like it

Tabbycat

Are the items you receive in the crates always at least equal to or greater than the value of crowns you spend to purchase them? For example, if you could purchase all the items separately (whether you wanted them or not) would you spend the same amount of crowns or less?

If no, it's gambling. (loss is involved)

If yes, it's not.

jedtb16_ESO

heaven13 wrote: »

jedtb16_ESO wrote: »

heaven13 wrote: »

@Rain_Greyraven if you're getting hate whispers, I'd report them in game. While I do not like crown crates, I will never harass someone over them and no one else should be either. It's ZOS that has developed this marketing technique and, yes I do wish players would stop buying into them so ZOS would come up with a fairer business practice all can benefit from.

However, at the end of the day, if people want to spend their money, that's their business. Not to mention, there's absolutely ZERO way to tell if someone got a crate reward from buying a lot of crates, a few crates, or opening just the free ones ZOS gave them. I will voice my opinion on crates and that I think they are not consumer friendly which is my right as a consumer. It is not my right to be hateful towards someone else because they participate and I don't.

no that is not true.... blind box sales have been around for a long time.

that is what the crown crates are a blind box sale.

lots of companies use the tactic... interestingly most of them contain toys or collectables for children.

don't believe me google... blind box sale .... and look at the results (other search engines are available.

the only difference is that the crown crated contain virtual items.

I do believe you; no need for google (and no need to be condescending about it). I should reword to say that it is ZOS that put this marketing technique in their game.

Either way, you've entirely missed the point of that post.

i apologize if my response came across as condescending, it was not intended to be. i was pointing out a factual error in what i though was an otherwise sensible post.

Anotherone773

@heaven13

No, vane players dont affect mine or yours, or anyone elses ability to play the game competitively. I dont care if you want to spend $100 on a virtual house, mount, costume, polymorph, pet, etc. However, if you start adding things like upgrade material that takes gear from legendary to say divine and gives a significant advantage over players that cannot afford to spend $100 to take gear from legendary to divine, then i have a problem.

I have a problem because it doesnt just affect the gameplay of the person that owns it, it affects everyone's gameplay and gives them a significant edge in all content over players who didnt spend that money. Vanity items give no edge. catering to competitive players would effectively make the game, p2w and as someone who can afford to pay to win, i dont want to see the game go pay to win.

Also i dont care as much about ZOS making money as i do about the impact it will have on my gaming. cause and effect. If we cause ZOS to have to get rid of one of the best selling items in video games then its going to have a negative effect on game play. All because some very vane people wanted mounts that they cant afford/have.

The impact could be huge. ZOS churning out more content for the store than for the actual game. Welcome to Elder Store Online. Required subs coming back( it doesnt affect me but will affect others), The $30 chapter i just bought being increase to $50 presale, $80 regular price.

Shortcuts to save money, trying to cram more stuff on fewer blades( servers). Lowering their bandwidth package to save a few thousand a month which means bottlenecks at the server because they hit their bandwidth cap. Lack of upgrades to servers as number of players increase making performance even worse.

People dont understand the impact of demanding a company get rid of the best selling item in its industry. It is literally like demanding Mc Donalds to stop selling big macs. All for what because someone didnt get a pretty cat mount in a crown crate? Boo hoo.

Im not willing to trade a few peoples vanity, lack of self control, and sense of entitlement for the very negative impact it would have on the game by catering to them especially when they are a tiny portion of the player base.