See ya later crown crates!

therift

Ertosi wrote: »

therift wrote: »

Florida does not use the dictionary.com definition. It defines gambling as a game of chance, with consideration, to win 'something of value.'

Contrary to what you think, that actually supports my statements. The legal definition for gambling has always traditionally being paying money for chance to win money. While many dictionary definitions has alternative definitions that include games of change, that has never been the traditional definition for legally-defined gambling. Gambling Commissions have always been trying to move the legal line to include games of chance to broaden their domain, and their cut of others' money.

And don't knock Google. Its literally a link to everything you could ever want to find. Don't just stop at the first article you see that supports your view point (that's called Confirmation Bias); take the time to look at all view points so you can see the whole issue.

Look at other games of chance:
Baseball Cards
Collectible Card Games
Claw Grab Games

Like Loot Boxes, all of these have been targeted by Gambling Commissions as well recently, yet none of these involve a chance to win money. Seriously, Google "Collectible Card Game Gambling" and you'll see numerous articles indicating they're the next target after Loot Boxes. None of these are gambling, but they are all indicators that those with an agenda have been trying to move the line of where the legal definition lies.

You stick to Google.

I'll stick to statutes.

It's apparent I have considerably more knowledge about the subject than you. This is not meant to demean you nor attack your opinion. I merely pointed out you are referring to the wrong sources. 'Confirmation Bias', indeed.

Good luck to you.

Ertosi

therift wrote: »

It's apparent I have considerably more knowledge about the subject than you. This is not meant to demean you nor attack your opinion. I merely pointed out you are referring to the wrong sources. 'Confirmation Bias', indeed.

That feeling you have is known as Dunning–Kruger effect.

therift

Ertosi wrote: »

therift wrote: »

It's apparent I have considerably more knowledge about the subject than you. This is not meant to demean you nor attack your opinion. I merely pointed out you are referring to the wrong sources. 'Confirmation Bias', indeed.

That feeling you have is known as Dunning–Kruger effect.

And now you resort to insulting me.

Good luck to you.

Jayman1000

Ertosi wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Ertosi wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Don't know where you got that definition

(large image of generic dictionary)

which one? There's not just one holy dictionary to rule them all... many dictionaries does not confine the price to be money but add the word "other stakes" too. This applies to either what you pay and or what you could win. Not necessarily both.

One? No, try all. Merriam-Webster, MacMillan Dictionary, Oxford English, take your pick. (And kindly stop asking others to look stuff up for you... LTG: learn to Google)

You were quoting some unnamed dictionary and now you get annoyed that I ask you which dictionary you got the quote from? As I said, (you even quoted me for it): "many dictionaries does not confine the price to be money but add the word "other stakes" too.". Clearly not all dictionaries have the exact same definition or description as you claim them too have.

Unit117

Thank god. Let us just buy what we want. The crown store was so much better then. I’m tired of the gambling crap

lagrue

Yep same thread every month, another politician talking about it made the news = another year of nothing that will be done.

Clown Crates aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

Glurin

Unit117 wrote: »

Thank god. Let us just buy what we want. The crown store was so much better then. I’m tired of the gambling crap

Uh, the crown store is exactly the same now as it was then, just with crown crates as additional items for purchase. You can still just buy what you want, and if what you want is only available in a crate, well that's what the gems are for.

Cpt_Teemo

Glurin wrote: »

Unit117 wrote: »

Thank god. Let us just buy what we want. The crown store was so much better then. I’m tired of the gambling crap

Uh, the crown store is exactly the same now as it was then, just with crown crates as additional items for purchase. You can still just buy what you want, and if what you want is only available in a crate, well that's what the gems are for.

Radiant mounts, you cannot get at all unless you get lucky in crates

Parrot1986

SirAndy wrote: »

tactx wrote: »

Crown crates aren't gambling.

Tell that to someone who has a gambling addiction and spends thousands of real world dollars on crown crates to get something they believe they can't live without.

You are clearly not looking at this from the perspective of an addict ...

Whilst I agree with you on this point I do think it’s a dangerous path to go down when games companies become mainly responsible for another’s actions.

A lot of posts here suggest wanting to get rid of crown crates to help either people addicted or under age.
For underage then you’d need to go one step further and stop anyone playing under the required age as well to keep this consistent, anyone who is 14 is also not using their own funds so the parents ave full control in this situation. There’s obviously a gap in countries where gambling is higher than the required age for playing the game and that’s a headache for ZoS I’d these are deemed as gambling.

For the addiction argument and as someone with far too much experience in dealing with direct family who have addiction problems, the solution for that persons problem has to come from an internal solution/desire.
No third party can stop that person from doing what they’re addiction is telling them to do. Yes ZoS can remove Crown Crates but if that person is addicted to gambling they will still have that urge and you only displace that to another area and you’re not helping that person ultimately and neither should you have to/be able to, like I said a lot of this has to come from them as a person and an willingness to get help and that help being available to them.

For me I think a lot of people on here use any of these reasons to back up their own dislike for crates based on the fact they haven’t got what they wanted and not a desire to help people.

hexnotic

Katahdin wrote: »

... Just put the stuff in the crown store directly ZoS ...

Why would they do that? ZoS has discovered a huge money making opportunity for themselves. They will not give up exclusive crown crate drops up so easily.

Parrot1986 wrote: »

Whilst I agree with you on this point I do think it’s a dangerous path to go down when games companies become mainly responsible for another’s actions.

You are correct. Everyone needs to be held responsible for their own actions. The problem with crown crate sales tactics is that it's exploiting human behavior for personal gain, and that's how life works. Still, it's insulting when you look at the way it's being handled... Customers do not want radiant drops from expensive virtual crates. They could be more reasonable about the crate drops, but they won't.

kargen27

Jayman1000 wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

tactx wrote: »

Crown crates aren't gambling. You're always getting something for your money. Costumes, gems, exp scrolls, etc. It's only gambling if you're trying to win the lottery with a radiant mount instead of treating it as a bonus chance.

I often use crown crates to get what I'm after cheaper than buying the item directly from the store so I really like having them.... Oh and bring back storm atronach crates. Thanks!

It is gambling when you pay a set amount of cash don't know what you get. Gambling is not just defined by the possibly of not winning, but you seem to think that this is the case. It is not.

Gambling is usually legally defined as staking something of value upon the outcome of a competition, contest or chance that is not under his or her influence (it does NOT need to be like a lottery where you have a risk of winning nothing). Crown crates sure as hell seems like it falls under this definition. You are staking crowns bought for real money to get an chance controlled random outcome and you have no control or influence over said outcome. That is gambling. The way companies like Zenimax Online get around this is by claiming that virtual currencies, like crowns, does not hold real lfe value (thus players are technically not "staking something of (real life/actual) value") as it is a virtual currency as opposed to real life cash. So legally they seem to have found a loophole to circumvent gambling laws, but there is no doubt that crown crates is indeed gambling. They just found a loophole that seemingly makes them circumvent the gambling laws.

Gotta disagree. You can get gum packs with baseball cards in them. You know you will get a certain number of cards but not what cards. Same with crown crates. You are purchasing four (sometimes five) items when you purchase a crown crate. Stores (retail and online) have mystery boxes you can buy. Again you know you are getting something just don't know exactly what. Auctions that have you bidding on lots work the same way. You can see some containers but don't know what is inside. None of those examples are considered gambling under current laws and if you change the laws for one you gotta change it across the board.

I'm not a fan of crown crates because I do believe they take advantage of human nature but they are not gambling. Maybe addictive though. There was a study done a few years back that showed people preferred playing slot machines that had lots of blinking lights, bells and whistles rather than slot machines with no commotion and larger more frequent payouts. Games especially ones like Candy Crush are designed around this behavior. If different colored fireworks shot off behind Pacrooti each time you click on a card they would probably sell a lot more crates.

I didn't quite get what you are disagreeing with me on? Those gumpacks sounds, from your description, that they are indeed also gambling. Especially if the baseball cards are what purchasers are really going after. Kinda like those pokemon cards where you buy a bunch and you don't know what they contain. That's gambling too. Some kids get obsessed to the point of actual addiction and spend a lot of cash on it.... I don't like that. And I do agree with you, such types of gambling should also be regulated under gambling laws but for some reason they are not (or at least not in my country which is a shame because at one point it became a problem in the school. but that is several years ago we saw that). Imo that's just another example on how screwd businessmen see ways to circumvent laws for easy profit (gambling exploitation of children for example).

Now I don't know how popular these gum-baseball packs are anymore anyway. Maybe they are not popular now so no one really cares?

I still don't understand what you disagreeing with me on? sounds to me like you actually agree with my argument and sentiment.

I am saying it is not gambling because you know you will be getting at least four cards. You don't know what those four cards represent but that doesn't make it gambling. You want to call it gambling but legally it is not. And yes I fully agree those types of things can be addictive. Opening the card packs or the crown crates can cause a release of dopamine and people get addicted to that release. Facebook takes advantage of dopamine releases by allowing users to like each others posts. These forums take advantage by offering us awesomes and badges. Apps/games on cellphones are all pretty much dopamine driven. Gambling can also cause a release in dopamine and the more excitement they can introduce the bigger chance ofdopamine release and addiction. That is why slot machines have bells and flashing lights. All that commotion releases dopamine and it is the dopamine release that gets us addicted. That is the same reason the most popular pin-ball machines made lots of noise and had lots of flashing lights.

AbysmalGhul

It's not gambling when you win something every time you open a box. The house wins and you win regardless of the prizes you win.

On the other hand, you can argue that it does play on the impulsive who have a specific item they want to win/chase. The house only wins because in this situation because of the customer's tunnel vision on a certain prize...aka a radiant mount (example)

But at the end of the day, impulsive minds and hopefuls will fuel the bank account of ZOS and keep this game going.

Parrot1986

Orange_Islands31 wrote: »

Katahdin wrote: »

... Just put the stuff in the crown store directly ZoS ...

Why would they do that? ZoS has discovered a huge money making opportunity for themselves. They will not give up exclusive crown crate drops up so easily.

Parrot1986 wrote: »

Whilst I agree with you on this point I do think it’s a dangerous path to go down when games companies become mainly responsible for another’s actions.

You are correct. Everyone needs to be held responsible for their own actions. The problem with crown crate sales tactics is that it's exploiting human behavior for personal gain, and that's how life works. Still, it's insulting when you look at the way it's being handled... Customers do not want radiant drops from expensive virtual crates. They could be more reasonable about the crate drops, but they won't.

I’m not sure I agree that it’s exploiting human behaviour as you go into purchasing and using crown crates knowing the odds are stacked against you.

I do agree Zos’ approach isn’t good for customers and is based more on greed than fair play. I’d like to see you be able to set how many crowns you can buy per week/month/year and also opt out of using crown crates and not even see them/receive them. I think this at least shows a willingness to help people control any addiction urges they might have but still allows them to make money from this.
This also helps bring it in line with what some betting companies do although I do think it’s very grey area to say crates are gambling or not since you get a guaranteed return on your purchase, just unlikely to be the item you wanted.

I do like the fact you can scrap your items for gems to purchase items you want is a step forward but maybe increase the values of gems or even get gems for purchasing crown crates as standard. To get 400 gems stills costs a lot of crowns.

Honestly for me I’d rather they go back to a paid for subscription model and have more mounts as rewards in game and an option to purchase more for cash in the shop. the missing piece of the puzzle for me is how dependant is the money ZoS receive from this and how much of a hole would they end up having which would lead to a negative impact to the game. Only ZoS know this and are unlikely to share it with us.

agegarton

I have no issue with Crown Crates, but I think it should be mandatory for game houses to publish their drop rates and players should be able to buy the contents of the crates in other ways. That way, if players want to gamble on the basis of potential greater returns, they do so knowingly. In balance, ZoS retains it's micro-transaction system which helps to fund what they do.

Loot box exclusives and entirely random drops must go.

Perwulf

I think loot crates in ESO is okay, It's the most successful one I've seen yet. However, it can use some adjustments; make crown gem prices more digestible and do not put exclusive contents like radiant apex but instead make it purchasable via crown gems.

To give you an insight,

Strong key points of ESO's loot crates:

• Crown Gems
  Like an online currency but allows you to purchase the gambled content. This is equivalent to Crowns which is a good move to survive the loot crate ban.
• Purchasable via Gold
  Golds to crown conversion unless they take it away. Better if the system is improved to avoid scamming.
• Bonus Card
  Clown crates might be gambling but it is a healthy gambling that has benefits. Unhealthy & very addictive in the wrong demographic.
• Free Crates
  You can get them via log in reward, leveling up, events (which they took away for ESO+.)
  

What makes it bad:

• Crown Price
  Not just the loot crate's price but the crown store itself too.
• Gem Price
  For average people, just to get 400 gems which is equivalent to one apex mount, you need to purchase at least 30-45 pcs.
• RNG RNG RNG
  For average people, just to get an apex mount you must purchase at least 30-45 pcs. Also luck? No such thing when it comes to online gambling, the reason; RNG is not random because the system can be made bias and have favoritism. Lastly, we all know how bad the coding in this game is and to code an RNG that is closest to pure is nigh impossible if coded by their coders.
  
• Limited time
  Although it takes months, people whom are prone to impulse buys falls victim on this specially when the crate is about to go off.

To conclude it, I think ESO's loot crates can survive the ban because of its strong key points but also it being rated as M for mature which means in theory, we shouldn't have any under aged kids doing gambling.

Jameliel

Acrolas wrote: »

ESO's version of the crate absolutely meets the outline of the Entertainment Software Association statement:

“Loot boxes are one way that players can enhance the experience that video games offer. Contrary to assertions, loot boxes are not gambling. They have no real-world value, players always receive something that enhances their experience, and they are entirely optional to purchase. They can enhance the experience for those who choose to use them, but have no impact on those who do not.”

That said, there are certainly loot box models in other games that fall outside that outline, and they need to be brought into compliance.

The end.

That's rich coming from a company which defines words as it sees fit haha. So if it's not a "gamble" buying loot boxes, is it a certainty you will get what you want? Would enjoy reading their definition of "baiting", "bashing", etc. They make up definitions
as they go along to suit their needs lol. Calling gambling something other than what it is simply exemplifies what they are all about.

Parrot1986

Jameliel wrote: »

Acrolas wrote: »

ESO's version of the crate absolutely meets the outline of the Entertainment Software Association statement:

“Loot boxes are one way that players can enhance the experience that video games offer. Contrary to assertions, loot boxes are not gambling. They have no real-world value, players always receive something that enhances their experience, and they are entirely optional to purchase. They can enhance the experience for those who choose to use them, but have no impact on those who do not.”

That said, there are certainly loot box models in other games that fall outside that outline, and they need to be brought into compliance.

The end.

That's rich coming from a company which defines words as it sees fit haha. So if it's not a "gamble" buying loot boxes, is it a certainty you will get what you want? Would enjoy reading their definition of "baiting", "bashing", etc. They make up definitions
as they go along to suit their needs lol. Calling gambling something other than what it is simply exemplifies what they are all about.

Of course that is what they do, companies interpret laws and rules all the time to make sure they stay on what they believe is the right side of right/wrong. Obviously people can debate this but a lot of the time it’s more based on their own interpretation/feelings than actual fact.

Gambling in the traditional sense involves staking money on something to receive something of similar/higher value but risk receiving nothing at all.

ZoS isn’t doing this, they guarantee you recieve items and can probably justify the items people received were for a fair price in a high level level but obviously there’s a chance you don’t receive the item you wanted. For me this isn’t gambling and is more a risk of loot boxes that people are well aware of. It might sound like semantics but for me there’s a clear difference between gambling in casinos/bookies and loot boxes in ESO.

I do think if loot boxes are here to stay (I’d rather they didn’t) they need more governance and rules around how much companies can charge, opting out, controlling spend and sharing/defining high value prizes. This should hopefully create a fairer experience for the consumer.

Skwor

LMAO another "crown crates are doomed thread" let me not go out on a limb and catagorically state, nothing will change nor should it state side. As far as the EU, if crown crates go away, I for one will chuckle when there is not an eso server in the EU due to lack of financing. Have fun playing on a US server through a proxy with all the lag it brings.

Cpt_Teemo

Skwor wrote: »

LMAO another "crown crates are doomed thread" let me not go out on a limb and catagorically state, nothing will change nor should it state side. As far as the EU, if crown crates go away, I for one will chuckle when there is not an eso server in the EU due to lack of financing. Have fun playing on a US server through a proxy with all the lag it brings.

Tell that to EA, they're quitting selling packs on Swtor and other games now, even though they still have them for sale they also offer every single item nearly for direct purchase as well

Reistr_the_Unbroken

Is everyone seriously forgetting that you can still buy items you want from the crown crates section of the crown store, using gems? I’m not defending them, but at least you can still buy items you want by saving up gems, unlike Overwatches literal Lootboxes.

RinaldoGandolphi

I think many of you are missing the point here completely. It doesn't matter if loot crates are considered gambling or not. thats neither here nor there. Thats a whole different topic entirely.

what is completely baffling to me is how so many of you in supporting loot crates, loot boxes, etc simply don't realize what you have lost. The gaming Community in the last decade has become very much like the Republican Party of the modern era. Up until 2001 The Republican Party had ALWAYS been the party of:

Small government
Limited Federal Authority
Humble Foreign Policy
Anti-war
Anti-Nation Building

George Bush Jr was elected in 2001 on a platform of a humble foreign policy, no nation building, no policing of the world. Its how he won the Presidency.

There was a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican Party. The Republican Party was elected to end the Korean War, The Republican Party was elected to end the Vietnam War. Now however, the Republican Party has morphed into the Neo-conservative party, and they are nothing conservative at all. People are just now in the last 2-3 years finally starting to wake up and realize what they have lost. Realizing that conservative ideals of the Republican Party are dead.

this mirror the current state of affairs with gaming, in particular Zenimax/Bethesda. ESO was the beginning of the end of Bethesda as we knew them. Bethesda/Zenimax has lost their way. They have lost sight of what made them one of the greatest gaming companies in the world. They have morphed into what they for years always fought against, which is becoming like EA. they made 750 million dollars in the 1st 72 hours of Fallout 4 launch, yet that wasn't enough despite it probably only costing them 5-7 mill to make, market, and pay voice actors for the game.

They have gotten greedy. They have lost sight of what made them great(just like the Republican Party), and Fallout 76 is a prime example of how the cancerous loot box nonsense from ESO has seeped its way into Bethesda. This is NOT the Bethesda I grew up supporting.

Fallout 4 is the last of the traditional Bethesda games(despite them putting that Creation Club nonsense in it) This new era of Bethesda/Zenimax will be one where every game they release from here on(Starfield, TES6, etc) will have some sort of crappy cash shop front and center and thats where most of the dev attention will be, and they will not use a consumer friendly platform like Steam(Because Steam offers returns as long as you have under 2 hours played or owned less than two weeks) Bethesda is using Bethesda.net to deny consumers refunds on a game which in many ways is flatout broken. Thats why they didn't want to use steam, because they knew the would have vast numbers of refunds on a product that for all intents and puposes is defective and broken(glad i didn't buy it)

In many ways, this is the death of the Bethesda we used to know and love, They have become too large. Its great to become large as long as you don't lose sight of what got you to the big dance. Todd Howard's name wasn't even on the credits of FO76 until recently, thats speaks volumes and was probably done on purpose. Bethesda/Zenimax has become cocky, they have taken their loyal fan base for granted and treated them like trash, and pushing a scummy loot box driven agenda in pusuit of profits. They have lost the company ethics they used to have that made them one of the greatest gaming companies in the world.

simply put, Bethesda/Zenimax doesn't want me and the 12 million others that bought Fallout 4 at launch to be their customers anymore. They no longer offer the immersive experiences they used to without using some sort of cash shop/paid mod system of fleecing their customers.

Its not apparent right now, but Bethesda is going to lose most of their loyal fanbase to other studios like CD Projeckt Red, (Witcher & Cyberpunk), War Horse Studios(Kingdom Come: Deliverence), THQ Nordic(Darksiders 1, 2, and now 3), and other such companies.

Just like the Republican Party, by the time Bethesda/Zenimax corp realizes that they have taken their loyal fanbase for granted and lost them it will be too late. They will end up just like THQ, and in many ways are following in THQ footsteps...THQ was racking in over 1 billion dollars per year, which made them one of the largest video game companies in the world, only Activision being larger, and guess what happened to them? Bankrupt...because they, just like Bethesda/Zenimax is doing now, turned their back on their loyal fanbase...by the time THQ seen the error of their ways and changed course, it was too late...they released two games that were true to their roots..Darksiders 1 & 2 both of which were very successful, but it was too late to step the tide.

Bethesda/Zenimax is going down a road I simply can't follow. It makes me sad but if things are going to stay as they are now, there is simply no way i can buy either Starfield or TES6 moving forward...they have lost their way...they don't need all this lootbox nonsense to make money, DLC will sell hand over fist for either of those games, they won't be able to sell them fast enough, they don't need a cash shop, but that simply won't stop them.

Its a sad day....they no longer want their traditional customer base that made them what they are today their customers anymore. they are already starting to kill of the modding community with paid mods and Creation Club, the writing is on the wall....its a sad day indeed.

Cpt_Teemo

Reistr_the_Unbroken wrote: »

Is everyone seriously forgetting that you can still buy items you want from the crown crates section of the crown store, using gems? I’m not defending them, but at least you can still buy items you want by saving up gems, unlike Overwatches literal Lootboxes.

And the only way to get gems is through the crates

Curtdogg47

Honestly I think removing the crate system and just selling the items at a reasonable price individually and outright would be a much better route.

But I think the current system with crates is working so there is no reason to change.

Artheiron

I hope they will put the hammer down on the lootboxes, but is only about lootboxes not microtransactions right?

so probably companies will increase their cash store prices, cut more content out of their games, sell the quest/mission rewards as products in cash store like eso does. I believe companies will find a workaround soon if lootboxes goes out of the business so I wouldn't cheer just yet.

If they really want to save kids and their families then they should regulate all kinds of money transactions until gaming industry becomes as reliable as automotive industry.

You know, no car brand will sell you a car then try to sell its tires and wheels via microtransactions.
We'll talk about it, just wait 10 more years.

SantieClaws

This one sadly does not think we will be saying goodbye to the crates any time soon.

As with other forms of 'chance based entertainment' they are more likely to be mildly regulated than abolished. For example a limit on the permitted spend per day - which will still be high enough to bring in sackfuls of shiny coin.

They now form the very basis of the business model for many and as the weaknesses of humans are so very profitable, all kinds of weaknesses, then they are too golden and shiny for the men in suits to wave goodbye to.

The only effective form of regulation here will be self regulation - which doesn't help if a kitten gets hold of your purse or something like that. Khajiit speaks from the experience of a kitten in her extended family having spent an actual fortune, thousands, on items in a tablet game which the fruit shaped company of evil then refused to refund most of.

Yours with paws
Santie Claws

Skwor

Cpt_Teemo wrote: »

Skwor wrote: »

LMAO another "crown crates are doomed thread" let me not go out on a limb and catagorically state, nothing will change nor should it state side. As far as the EU, if crown crates go away, I for one will chuckle when there is not an eso server in the EU due to lack of financing. Have fun playing on a US server through a proxy with all the lag it brings.

Tell that to EA, they're quitting selling packs on Swtor and other games now, even though they still have them for sale they also offer every single item nearly for direct purchase as well

Odd I do not think Zenimax is spelled as EA.

therift

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Ertosi wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Ertosi wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Don't know where you got that definition

(large image of generic dictionary)

which one? There's not just one holy dictionary to rule them all... many dictionaries does not confine the price to be money but add the word "other stakes" too. This applies to either what you pay and or what you could win. Not necessarily both.

One? No, try all. Merriam-Webster, MacMillan Dictionary, Oxford English, take your pick. (And kindly stop asking others to look stuff up for you... LTG: learn to Google)

You were quoting some unnamed dictionary and now you get annoyed that I ask you which dictionary you got the quote from? As I said, (you even quoted me for it): "many dictionaries does not confine the price to be money but add the word "other stakes" too.". Clearly not all dictionaries have the exact same definition or description as you claim them too have.

The only definition that applies, when debating the legality of a game that appears to be gambling, is the definition codified in statutes and court opinions. That definition, of course, will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Definitions derived from non-statutory sources may or may not be applicable under law. The danger in relying on Google searches for the legal neophyte is that the researcher may not have sufficient knowledge to separate the relevant search results from those that are not... and winds up relying on the wrong answer.

Jayman1000

kargen27 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

tactx wrote: »

Crown crates aren't gambling. You're always getting something for your money. Costumes, gems, exp scrolls, etc. It's only gambling if you're trying to win the lottery with a radiant mount instead of treating it as a bonus chance.

I often use crown crates to get what I'm after cheaper than buying the item directly from the store so I really like having them.... Oh and bring back storm atronach crates. Thanks!

It is gambling when you pay a set amount of cash don't know what you get. Gambling is not just defined by the possibly of not winning, but you seem to think that this is the case. It is not.

Gambling is usually legally defined as staking something of value upon the outcome of a competition, contest or chance that is not under his or her influence (it does NOT need to be like a lottery where you have a risk of winning nothing). Crown crates sure as hell seems like it falls under this definition. You are staking crowns bought for real money to get an chance controlled random outcome and you have no control or influence over said outcome. That is gambling. The way companies like Zenimax Online get around this is by claiming that virtual currencies, like crowns, does not hold real lfe value (thus players are technically not "staking something of (real life/actual) value") as it is a virtual currency as opposed to real life cash. So legally they seem to have found a loophole to circumvent gambling laws, but there is no doubt that crown crates is indeed gambling. They just found a loophole that seemingly makes them circumvent the gambling laws.

Gotta disagree. You can get gum packs with baseball cards in them. You know you will get a certain number of cards but not what cards. Same with crown crates. You are purchasing four (sometimes five) items when you purchase a crown crate. Stores (retail and online) have mystery boxes you can buy. Again you know you are getting something just don't know exactly what. Auctions that have you bidding on lots work the same way. You can see some containers but don't know what is inside. None of those examples are considered gambling under current laws and if you change the laws for one you gotta change it across the board.

I'm not a fan of crown crates because I do believe they take advantage of human nature but they are not gambling. Maybe addictive though. There was a study done a few years back that showed people preferred playing slot machines that had lots of blinking lights, bells and whistles rather than slot machines with no commotion and larger more frequent payouts. Games especially ones like Candy Crush are designed around this behavior. If different colored fireworks shot off behind Pacrooti each time you click on a card they would probably sell a lot more crates.

I didn't quite get what you are disagreeing with me on? Those gumpacks sounds, from your description, that they are indeed also gambling. Especially if the baseball cards are what purchasers are really going after. Kinda like those pokemon cards where you buy a bunch and you don't know what they contain. That's gambling too. Some kids get obsessed to the point of actual addiction and spend a lot of cash on it.... I don't like that. And I do agree with you, such types of gambling should also be regulated under gambling laws but for some reason they are not (or at least not in my country which is a shame because at one point it became a problem in the school. but that is several years ago we saw that). Imo that's just another example on how screwd businessmen see ways to circumvent laws for easy profit (gambling exploitation of children for example).

Now I don't know how popular these gum-baseball packs are anymore anyway. Maybe they are not popular now so no one really cares?

I still don't understand what you disagreeing with me on? sounds to me like you actually agree with my argument and sentiment.

I am saying it is not gambling because you know you will be getting at least four cards. You don't know what those four cards represent but that doesn't make it gambling. You want to call it gambling but legally it is not. And yes I fully agree those types of things can be addictive. Opening the card packs or the crown crates can cause a release of dopamine and people get addicted to that release. Facebook takes advantage of dopamine releases by allowing users to like each others posts. These forums take advantage by offering us awesomes and badges. Apps/games on cellphones are all pretty much dopamine driven. Gambling can also cause a release in dopamine and the more excitement they can introduce the bigger chance ofdopamine release and addiction. That is why slot machines have bells and flashing lights. All that commotion releases dopamine and it is the dopamine release that gets us addicted. That is the same reason the most popular pin-ball machines made lots of noise and had lots of flashing lights.

Purchasing four cards that you do not know the outcome of and you have no influence on said outcome = gambling. And yes some people get addicted and obsessed with collecting them, this includes children, which I simply find deplorable.

Legally, no, it is not. As I have said: developers have found ways to circumvent gambling laws making their gambling mechanics "legally not gambling" through technicalities. That is why, at least with lootboxes in online games, you see regulators now taking increased interest in tightening the laws and definition of gambling so that the law will cover the type of gambling we see with loot boxes. If the industry could figure out to regulate itself, it wouldn't be a problem.

Jayman1000

therift wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Ertosi wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Ertosi wrote: »

Jayman1000 wrote: »

Don't know where you got that definition

(large image of generic dictionary)

which one? There's not just one holy dictionary to rule them all... many dictionaries does not confine the price to be money but add the word "other stakes" too. This applies to either what you pay and or what you could win. Not necessarily both.

One? No, try all. Merriam-Webster, MacMillan Dictionary, Oxford English, take your pick. (And kindly stop asking others to look stuff up for you... LTG: learn to Google)

You were quoting some unnamed dictionary and now you get annoyed that I ask you which dictionary you got the quote from? As I said, (you even quoted me for it): "many dictionaries does not confine the price to be money but add the word "other stakes" too.". Clearly not all dictionaries have the exact same definition or description as you claim them too have.

The only definition that applies, when debating the legality of a game that appears to be gambling, is the definition codified in statutes and court opinions. That definition, of course, will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Definitions derived from non-statutory sources may or may not be applicable under law. The danger in relying on Google searches for the legal neophyte is that the researcher may not have sufficient knowledge to separate the relevant search results from those that are not... and winds up relying on the wrong answer.

yes I agree that's one of the reason I asked that forum user about where he got the definition. Throwing random definitions found on the internet in a fly isn't a very safe path to getting closer to learning and understanding the facts of this subject. Of course it doesn't mean a particular definition or information found in a dictionary or the internet isn't necessarily true, it's just unsafe and difficult to check the sources for reliability.

NordSwordnBoard

Casino: Convert your cash into "chips" to play games of chance; after which you can then convert your "chips" back into currency.

Carnival/Arcade: Convert your cash into "tickets" or "tokens" to be used for an assortment of things, including games of chance and games of skill. You cannot exchange your "tickets" or "tokens" for cash, but you can exchange them for "prizes" or other rewards that are not cash.

For me, the big difference is getting things (that aren't even tangible in our case) instead of getting winning/losing real currency. The respective legislatures will decide what happens. That may be nothing at all. Or it could be flimsy regulation the companies can stay one step ahead of, while the lawmakers can say they tried their "best".

I'm not expecting this issue to effect this game, and if it does, don't expect too much impact. If they do get regulated, they will look to make up that profit loss elsewhere - probably at our expense. Don't expect them to be contrite if they lose.