"GEM EXCLUSIVE" items...BS game monetization

Snipes007

Gambling in games needs to be banned!

mavfin

BRCOURTN wrote: »

So here's the problem with "if you don't want it, just don't buy it!"...

There are people in the world who suffer from gambling addiction. These people can't be near casinos or card games or even casual bets the way that serious alcoholics need to stay away from bars or other people that drink.

Its not hard to stay away from race tracks or casinos or bookies when you know you have a problem, but it might be hard to get away from things as simple as... playing their favorite video games.

There are so many games now that have loot crate transactions, and I'm not asking to take them away just like I wouldnt ask for every casino to shut down. But there needs to be more regulation to help protect the people who need it.

I disagree.

It's the responsibility of the gambler to get help if they can't control themselves. Or get friends and family to help them. It's not my problem if they have an issue with control.

I don't want the government in the middle of this. That'll be a huge mess, and will have consequences we don't want.

Starlock

mavfin wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

So here's the problem with "if you don't want it, just don't buy it!"...

There are people in the world who suffer from gambling addiction. These people can't be near casinos or card games or even casual bets the way that serious alcoholics need to stay away from bars or other people that drink.

Its not hard to stay away from race tracks or casinos or bookies when you know you have a problem, but it might be hard to get away from things as simple as... playing their favorite video games.

There are so many games now that have loot crate transactions, and I'm not asking to take them away just like I wouldnt ask for every casino to shut down. But there needs to be more regulation to help protect the people who need it.

I disagree.

It's the responsibility of the gambler to get help if they can't control themselves. Or get friends and family to help them. It's not my problem if they have an issue with control.

I don't want the government in the middle of this. That'll be a huge mess, and will have consequences we don't want.

Did you know that "surprise mechanics" (aka, real world gambling) are in games marketed/rated for children? Did you also know that the inclusion of virtual gambling that doesn't even involve the spending of real world money automatically kicks video game out of the "E" for "Everyone" rating but the inclusion of actual real world gambling doesn't? Explain to us how this is okay or makes any sense, please.

BRCOURTN

mavfin wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

So here's the problem with "if you don't want it, just don't buy it!"...

There are people in the world who suffer from gambling addiction. These people can't be near casinos or card games or even casual bets the way that serious alcoholics need to stay away from bars or other people that drink.

Its not hard to stay away from race tracks or casinos or bookies when you know you have a problem, but it might be hard to get away from things as simple as... playing their favorite video games.

There are so many games now that have loot crate transactions, and I'm not asking to take them away just like I wouldnt ask for every casino to shut down. But there needs to be more regulation to help protect the people who need it.

I disagree.

It's the responsibility of the gambler to get help if they can't control themselves. Or get friends and family to help them. It's not my problem if they have an issue with control.

I don't want the government in the middle of this. That'll be a huge mess, and will have consequences we don't want.

If a gambler has sought help and is in rehabilitation, should he not be able to play video games with loot crate systems because of his condition? I feel saying "its not my problem..." is a selfish way of dealing with a situation involving someone else's disease.

The government shouldn't have to be in the middle of this, and they wouldn't be if more developers took the ethical responsibilities upon themselves.

kargen27

BRCOURTN wrote: »

mavfin wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

So here's the problem with "if you don't want it, just don't buy it!"...

There are people in the world who suffer from gambling addiction. These people can't be near casinos or card games or even casual bets the way that serious alcoholics need to stay away from bars or other people that drink.

Its not hard to stay away from race tracks or casinos or bookies when you know you have a problem, but it might be hard to get away from things as simple as... playing their favorite video games.

There are so many games now that have loot crate transactions, and I'm not asking to take them away just like I wouldnt ask for every casino to shut down. But there needs to be more regulation to help protect the people who need it.

I disagree.

It's the responsibility of the gambler to get help if they can't control themselves. Or get friends and family to help them. It's not my problem if they have an issue with control.

I don't want the government in the middle of this. That'll be a huge mess, and will have consequences we don't want.

If a gambler has sought help and is in rehabilitation, should he not be able to play video games with loot crate systems because of his condition? I feel saying "its not my problem..." is a selfish way of dealing with a situation involving someone else's disease.

The government shouldn't have to be in the middle of this, and they wouldn't be if more developers took the ethical responsibilities upon themselves.

This is where they either need to put spending limits on their card or see if the game company will work with them to lock their card from certain purchases. It is not my problem may seem selfish but it isn't any more selfish than saying I have a problem so you must pay the consequences.

Hanokihs

Starlock wrote: »

mavfin wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

So here's the problem with "if you don't want it, just don't buy it!"...

There are people in the world who suffer from gambling addiction. These people can't be near casinos or card games or even casual bets the way that serious alcoholics need to stay away from bars or other people that drink.

Its not hard to stay away from race tracks or casinos or bookies when you know you have a problem, but it might be hard to get away from things as simple as... playing their favorite video games.

There are so many games now that have loot crate transactions, and I'm not asking to take them away just like I wouldnt ask for every casino to shut down. But there needs to be more regulation to help protect the people who need it.

I disagree.

It's the responsibility of the gambler to get help if they can't control themselves. Or get friends and family to help them. It's not my problem if they have an issue with control.

I don't want the government in the middle of this. That'll be a huge mess, and will have consequences we don't want.

Did you know that "surprise mechanics" (aka, real world gambling) are in games marketed/rated for children? Did you also know that the inclusion of virtual gambling that doesn't even involve the spending of real world money automatically kicks video game out of the "E" for "Everyone" rating but the inclusion of actual real world gambling doesn't? Explain to us how this is okay or makes any sense, please.

Well for one, this game isn't for children. And for the games that are, children tend to not have access to personal bank accounts and credit cards. If parents can't be sussed to care and/or control what their kids are up to on their magic babysitting boxes, that's on them - not the devs and not the government.

BRCOURTN

kargen27 wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

mavfin wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

So here's the problem with "if you don't want it, just don't buy it!"...

There are people in the world who suffer from gambling addiction. These people can't be near casinos or card games or even casual bets the way that serious alcoholics need to stay away from bars or other people that drink.

Its not hard to stay away from race tracks or casinos or bookies when you know you have a problem, but it might be hard to get away from things as simple as... playing their favorite video games.

There are so many games now that have loot crate transactions, and I'm not asking to take them away just like I wouldnt ask for every casino to shut down. But there needs to be more regulation to help protect the people who need it.

I disagree.

It's the responsibility of the gambler to get help if they can't control themselves. Or get friends and family to help them. It's not my problem if they have an issue with control.

I don't want the government in the middle of this. That'll be a huge mess, and will have consequences we don't want.

If a gambler has sought help and is in rehabilitation, should he not be able to play video games with loot crate systems because of his condition? I feel saying "its not my problem..." is a selfish way of dealing with a situation involving someone else's disease.

The government shouldn't have to be in the middle of this, and they wouldn't be if more developers took the ethical responsibilities upon themselves.

This is where they either need to put spending limits on their card or see if the game company will work with them to lock their card from certain purchases. It is not my problem may seem selfish but it isn't any more selfish than saying I have a problem so you must pay the consequences.

Well it is more selfish though. Addiction is a disease. Saying, "its your disease, it doesnt affect me, so why would I care," is more selfish than, "I have a disease, but I'd like to participate too." We could just say, "everyone with this disease just shouldn't participate." And that's absolutely fine for some of the things I've mentioned. But we're discussing a video game.

I don't have a gambling addiction myself, but I know people that do. It would really hurt to know they might fall victim to certain practices because they wanted to play games with friends and didn't realize what they were getting into with loot crates.

Statistics say that its like a 1 in 1000 chance to get a radiant apex mount. People with gambling addictions might buy crates until they get both... with money that their family needs.

EmEm_Oh

what_the wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

When legislation catches up with gambling in video games, the gamble crates will go away. When the gamble crates go away, so will the gems.

Well, is it gambling when you are guaranteed to get an item from a crate when you open it? imo no.
It may not be an item you want or need, but you will always get a return with every single crate you open.
Vegas guarantees you absolutely nothing when you go there to play, that's gambling.

And thus, gems are here to stay. Only demand will dictate how long.

eso_lags

At the end of the day just remember what they do when they release another title. People can say "oh its just cosmetics" all they want but that literally means nothing to me. In fact those people have less credibility after saying that imo. Cosmetics are a huge part of mmos. Locking the best cosmetics, mounts, costumes, etc. behind a pay wall is awful. Locking them behind rng loot boxes is unforgivable, imo.

Especially having all the best looking mounts locked behind a pay wall or, even worse, locked behind crown crates. And the best ones being ones that you need to endlessly buy crates for until you get one. Could be 20 bucks, could be 2,000, could be 100,000. Who knows, its rng. People will literally defend anything, ive seen it before on the forums of other mmos. The same names popping up over and over to defend anything a company does.

I get it, you like the game, but you should be able to critisize and praise equally when deserved. Rng loot boxes are bad. Locking the coolest looking stuff behind rng loot boxes in a genre where people REALLY care about how there things look is bad.

And ill spend whatever on this game if i want something, I dont care. I just know when a spade is a spade. This company makes a huge amount of money from the the game, eso plus, DLCs, chapters, and the black whole that is the crown store. Crown crates, they way they are done, is just way to over the top.

Just imagine a newer player joining the game, and seeing someone riding a mount around, and thinking "wow, I wonder what I have to do to get that awesome mount. Earn a special achievement? Farm it? Play a certain amount of time"? No. Sink money into crates and pretend you dont want it in the hopes rng will give you it.

Crown crates are gross, but the raident apex mounts are the worst because there is no end if you want one of them. Thankfully I find almost all of them garbage, except the scalecaller crates. I have 1/3 of those radient apex mounts. I buy some whenever they come back around, and if I had to guess I would say my chances of ever getting the other 2 are about the same as me getting struck by lightning.

FlopsyPrince

Crowns work on both NA and EU. Gems only work on whatever server you "returned" crates on.

Annoying as well.

I went for 3 sets of the largest set of boxes. I do have a fair number of gems, but I am a hoarder because something may come out later I really want. (Took me forever to get that crystalish-tiger mount (or whatever it was) a while back. Now I have most scrap things so I can really get gems, but the boxes dropped very little of interest. I got the gloom horse. Looks kind of nice. I would have preferred the cat or the wolf mount version, but none dropped.

Do make sure you open crates on the same character. I think I got 10 of some emotes, definitely useless to me since I never use emotes.

Non-combat pets seemed cool at first, but they don't do anything and just get distracting so I don't use them in almost any case.

Hanokihs

BRCOURTN wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

mavfin wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

So here's the problem with "if you don't want it, just don't buy it!"...

There are people in the world who suffer from gambling addiction. These people can't be near casinos or card games or even casual bets the way that serious alcoholics need to stay away from bars or other people that drink.

Its not hard to stay away from race tracks or casinos or bookies when you know you have a problem, but it might be hard to get away from things as simple as... playing their favorite video games.

There are so many games now that have loot crate transactions, and I'm not asking to take them away just like I wouldnt ask for every casino to shut down. But there needs to be more regulation to help protect the people who need it.

I disagree.

It's the responsibility of the gambler to get help if they can't control themselves. Or get friends and family to help them. It's not my problem if they have an issue with control.

I don't want the government in the middle of this. That'll be a huge mess, and will have consequences we don't want.

If a gambler has sought help and is in rehabilitation, should he not be able to play video games with loot crate systems because of his condition? I feel saying "its not my problem..." is a selfish way of dealing with a situation involving someone else's disease.

The government shouldn't have to be in the middle of this, and they wouldn't be if more developers took the ethical responsibilities upon themselves.

This is where they either need to put spending limits on their card or see if the game company will work with them to lock their card from certain purchases. It is not my problem may seem selfish but it isn't any more selfish than saying I have a problem so you must pay the consequences.

Well it is more selfish though. Addiction is a disease. Saying, "its your disease, it doesnt affect me, so why would I care," is more selfish than, "I have a disease, but I'd like to participate too." We could just say, "everyone with this disease just shouldn't participate." And that's absolutely fine for some of the things I've mentioned. But we're discussing a video game.

I don't have a gambling addiction myself, but I know people that do. It would really hurt to know they might fall victim to certain practices because they wanted to play games with friends and didn't realize what they were getting into with loot crates.

Statistics say that its like a 1 in 1000 chance to get a radiant apex mount. People with gambling addictions might buy crates until they get both... with money that their family needs.

This is the "diabetic at a birthday party" of arguments. Is everyone at the party supposed to not have cake around because one person can't eat a pile of literal sugar? Or is the diabetic not responsible for their own dietary impulses? Similarly, it's up to any given person with gambling addiction to not put their credit card info into the game, isn't it? Or to use prepaid methods and not surpass their given allotment in whatever set period they can afford.

Like, if anyone in your hypothetical scenario is selfish, it's the person who's unwilling to control themselves and/or anyone who wants others to do without because a relative few people can't/won't rein in their problem.

And this subject really squeaks my wheels, because I've dealt with both addiction and bipolar disorder. I know exactly what it feels like to have to control impulses that would otherwise destroy you, and I hate it to pieces when folks try to use the mere existence of that as a general excuse to inconvenience other people, take things from others, or have strangers jump through hoops. That would be like me ludicrously campaigning to have Amazon taken offline because I may be up at 2am one night and suddenly decide I need to buy a new bedframe, a dozen modular bookshelves, a new graphics card, seven boxes of Snickers bars, a cell phone, two FNAF plushes, and a tennis ball. The fact that I even know it's possible makes it my responsibility to control, and if that means setting little traps for myself like only spending what I have transferred to PayPal and letting someone I trust hold my debit/credit cards for me unless I'm shopping for groceries and essentials with them, so be it.

SRTtoZ

I don't mind the gem exclusive stuff since you can horde gems but what I hate is the loot box exclusive mounts. The ones you can't buy with gems and need to just be lucky to get.

mavfin

Starlock wrote: »

Did you know that "surprise mechanics" (aka, real world gambling) are in games marketed/rated for children? Did you also know that the inclusion of virtual gambling that doesn't even involve the spending of real world money automatically kicks video game out of the "E" for "Everyone" rating but the inclusion of actual real world gambling doesn't? Explain to us how this is okay or makes any sense, please.

Of course, you play the 'what about the children card'...

That's up to the parents to watch for this.

My choices shouldn't be limited because a few can't watch their kids or watch their own spending habits. This isn't like drunk driving, for example, either, because no one's going to go out and kill someone on the road with their video game.

With personal freedom comes responsibility.

Starlock

Hanokihs wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

mavfin wrote: »

BRCOURTN wrote: »

So here's the problem with "if you don't want it, just don't buy it!"...

There are people in the world who suffer from gambling addiction. These people can't be near casinos or card games or even casual bets the way that serious alcoholics need to stay away from bars or other people that drink.

Its not hard to stay away from race tracks or casinos or bookies when you know you have a problem, but it might be hard to get away from things as simple as... playing their favorite video games.

There are so many games now that have loot crate transactions, and I'm not asking to take them away just like I wouldnt ask for every casino to shut down. But there needs to be more regulation to help protect the people who need it.

I disagree.

It's the responsibility of the gambler to get help if they can't control themselves. Or get friends and family to help them. It's not my problem if they have an issue with control.

I don't want the government in the middle of this. That'll be a huge mess, and will have consequences we don't want.

Did you know that "surprise mechanics" (aka, real world gambling) are in games marketed/rated for children? Did you also know that the inclusion of virtual gambling that doesn't even involve the spending of real world money automatically kicks video game out of the "E" for "Everyone" rating but the inclusion of actual real world gambling doesn't? Explain to us how this is okay or makes any sense, please.

Well for one, this game isn't for children. And for the games that are, children tend to not have access to personal bank accounts and credit cards. If parents can't be sussed to care and/or control what their kids are up to on their magic babysitting boxes, that's on them - not the devs and not the government.

Congratulations for missing the point, I guess?

mavfin wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Did you know that "surprise mechanics" (aka, real world gambling) are in games marketed/rated for children? Did you also know that the inclusion of virtual gambling that doesn't even involve the spending of real world money automatically kicks video game out of the "E" for "Everyone" rating but the inclusion of actual real world gambling doesn't? Explain to us how this is okay or makes any sense, please.

Of course, you play the 'what about the children card'...

Which isn’t actually my point. I couldn’t care less about kids. But if pointing out inconsistencies the industry doesn’t raise red flags in your head, you aren’t paying attention.

thorwyn

If a gambler has sought help and is in rehabilitation, should he not be able to play video games with loot crate systems because of his condition? I feel saying "its not my problem..." is a selfish way of dealing with a situation involving someone else's disease.

The government shouldn't have to be in the middle of this, and they wouldn't be if more developers took the ethical responsibilities upon themselves.

There are also people who are suffering from video game addiction. Yes, that's an official addiction these days. Now what should ZOS do to protect those fellas? Add a play-time timer?
It is not a companies job to take care of people with addiction problems and there is certainly no ethical responsibility attached to creating a game or generally designing a product. It is a companies job to generate money, pay their employees and invest into future products. ZOS does not (and CAN NOT) care about the individual problems of each customer, they just care about selling their product. And the individual customer does not (and CAN NOT) care about the problems of a company beyond the point where said company stops offering their product.
Staying away from triggers is the responsibility of the person who is getting triggered. There are lots of games out there that are not using this sales mechanic, so picking one that does trigger your addiction is a bad idea.

Starlock

thorwyn wrote: »

.Staying away from triggers is the responsibility of the person who is getting triggered. There are lots of games out there that are not using this sales mechanic, so picking one that does trigger your addiction is a bad idea.

Did you know that the industry can’t be bothered to regulate itself well enough to help customers make informed decisions so they CAN stay away from games that would cause problems for them? Did you also know that some publishers insert these predatory monetization models after a game’s launch and that they also do this on purpose to both avoid bad reviews and hook people on their game?

Stuff like this is why consumers protections laws exist, and need to exist. The industry will not self-regulate adequately when they can exploit and profit off people instead. Which is why they put gambling mechanics in games that use real world money in the first place. Customers being responsible for their own decisions absolutely does not absolve corporations of responsibility as well. It is not an either or.

thorwyn

Stuff like this is why consumers protections laws exist, and need to exist. The industry will not self-regulate adequately when they can exploit and profit off people instead. Which is why they put gambling mechanics in games that use real world money in the first place. Customers being responsible for their own decisions absolutely does not absolve corporations of responsibility as well. It is not an either or.

The industry does not NEED to regulate itself. Zero. Deal with it.

If a company does something that violates existing law, those customer's protection laws will kick in and sort out the problem. And as long as noone is crossing the borders, nothing is going to happen. That's how the law works. If the court decides that crown store boxes are considered gambling, ZOS will have to cancel this mechanic. Fine by me.

But apart from the law, there is absolutely NO requirement for a company, let alone industry to take responsibility to protect their potential customers. It's a business, not a boy scout convention. We are all customers and we are all consuming a product, nothing more and nothing less. You may not like that, but that's how the world works out there.
Noone expects the alcohol or cigarette industry to regulate themselves and protect their customers. Noone expects the gambling industry to take responsibility to protect addicts. Noone expects the "adult"-industry to protect their customers. All regulations and limitations need to come from an outside source aka the law.

Edit:
And one more point: exactly this request for a company to be responsible is the source of all those missing-safetly-label-lawsuit crap that's happening in the US. People are blaming the company for their inability to take care of their own life and make their own decisions.

PTTE

mavfin wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Did you know that "surprise mechanics" (aka, real world gambling) are in games marketed/rated for children? Did you also know that the inclusion of virtual gambling that doesn't even involve the spending of real world money automatically kicks video game out of the "E" for "Everyone" rating but the inclusion of actual real world gambling doesn't? Explain to us how this is okay or makes any sense, please.

Of course, you play the 'what about the children card'...

That's up to the parents to watch for this.

My choices shouldn't be limited because a few can't watch their kids or watch their own spending habits. This isn't like drunk driving, for example, either, because no one's going to go out and kill someone on the road with their video game.

With personal freedom comes responsibility.

Honestly!! When I turned 16 is when my mom allowed for me to be able to do Internet banking (meaning I could order off the Internet) and before that I could use my card to pay in shops and use the atm. Had I wanted to buy crowns or eso+ before that time I would have had to ask my mom (because she would have to pay through Internet banking). It made me be responsible with my money, even after I was able to use PayPal etc, the reason perhaps being that I had learned to save up for such a long time.

TLDR: in what universe do parents not monitor their child's spending habit?

Eifleber

I hate crates too.

Apparently tough there's A LOT of people buying them so ZOS continues selling them.

Can't blame ZOS for making millions of easy extra profit.

Goregrinder

The problem is people think everything they see in life is for them. Gems are there for people who want to spend money on crates, not for people who don't want to spend money on crates. Not everything in the game should be afforded to everyone who wants, things should be affordable to those who meet the requirements to get them.

Exclusive items have been apart of MMO's for a long time, and this is just one of ESO's forms of exclusivity. having that rare item or rare mount is an attractive part of MMO's for some of us, and attaching them to micro transactions are a way to kill two birds with one stone: Provide a form of exclusivity for those who care about it, and provide another way to pay the bills every month.

I get that you want that Lambo, but saying the price of a Lambo should drop from $200k to $10k just so you can have one too doesn't make any sense to me. That is the same argument being made here " It's not fair that people who can afford to buy tons of crates get Gem mounts, why can't I also get the same mount?" Well because...they can afford to buy that many crates. That's pretty cut and dry.

Most of everything you can get with gems is cosmetic and doesn't boost your character in game in any way other than with clout. The potions and scrolls are useful, but there are in game versions of those items anyways that don't require gems or crowns. Your character isn't going to do any faster because you don't have that "exclusive" rare Gem mount.

Algorax

[snip]

Some things are simply not allowed to be sold, it doesn't matter if someone wants them or not.
Thereal question is not if someone wants crates or not: the real question is if they are morally tolerable.

[edited for baiting]

thorwyn

Some things are simply not allowed to be sold, it doesn't matter if someone wants them or not.
Thereal question is not if someone wants crates or not: the real question is if they are morally tolerable.

Moral has nothing to do with it. Different people find different things morally tolerable, based on personal beliefs, background or education. I personally think that selling Justin Bieber CD's is morally unacceptable but that doesn't mean anything.
It all boils down to whether or not selling a product is LEGAL or ILLEGAL according to the law.

Elsonso

I dislike Crown Crates, but this whole "gambling addiction" thing has no traction. Even if Crown Crates were declared to be legally considered Gambling, in the end, it probably would not matter. ZOS might be required to post "there be gambling here" signs at every entrance, have links to gambling addiction resources, and maybe even implement a self-exclusion program. That would not stop anyone with a gambling addiction from buying Crown Crates.

Ultimately, ZOS is not going to have a duty to care about gambling addicted people who play their game.

Waseem

buy gem exclusive items = there will always be gem exclusive items

dont buy gem exclusive items = there wont be any gem exclusive items

cry on forums about gem exclusive items = cry on forums about gem exclusive items

MEBengalsFan2001

volkeswagon wrote: »

i think when crates go away you may be able to convert gems back into crowns. I don't agree with crown crates or gems as I'm stated before it is gambling and the gem prices for certain items are way too much. Some mounts people would need to spends hundreds of dollars to get the gems for them. I think all gem items should also have a crown price.

What I find interesting is that most of the items in the crate, specifically the costumes tend to come from prior crown items that were not selling. Instead of letting that dry up and not be used ZoS placed them in crates so newer players coming into the game would be like oh I want that and buy crates to try to get it. If you got lucky it isn't a problem but if you are unlucky you can spend more to get the crown to buy the item you want with Gems. It is a winning situation for ZoS because it results in more revenue.

If they simply rotated the items in and out people would still complain because they missed it because they were not around or they didn't have the crowns, etc etc etc....

One thing I learned is that no matter how a company goes about creating things for people there will always be someone complaining that the item in question they don't like how the company handled its release or simply hate on that item.

ESO items are all cosmetic and you don't need anything from the crown store or from a crate to play and enjoy this game.

Starlock

Elsonso wrote: »

I dislike Crown Crates, but this whole "gambling addiction" thing has no traction. Even if Crown Crates were declared to be legally considered Gambling, in the end, it probably would not matter. ZOS might be required to post "there be gambling here" signs at every entrance, have links to gambling addiction resources, and maybe even implement a self-exclusion program. That would not stop anyone with a gambling addiction from buying Crown Crates.

Ultimately, ZOS is not going to have a duty to care about gambling addicted people who play their game.

Except they will. When the loophole gets closed and gambling in video games gets treated like any other form of gambling, they will need to follow the regulations of any other gambling establishment. I suppose technically you're right that they don't have to care about the actual human beings who may be harmed by their business practices, but they will have to comply with the law. For one, game developers will no longer be able to get away with rating games "E" for "Everyone" if it has any sort of real world gambling in it. They'll also be forced to disclose odds, which will be extremely important considering digital odds can be manipulated behind the scenes to manipulate human behavior in ways that conventional gambling cannot. Alternatively, since there is some talk about banning online gambling entirely in part because it is too prone to fraud and other such problems, that could also cover things like gamble crates in video games and eliminate them entirely (and that would be a wonderful thing).

Elsonso

Starlock wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

I dislike Crown Crates, but this whole "gambling addiction" thing has no traction. Even if Crown Crates were declared to be legally considered Gambling, in the end, it probably would not matter. ZOS might be required to post "there be gambling here" signs at every entrance, have links to gambling addiction resources, and maybe even implement a self-exclusion program. That would not stop anyone with a gambling addiction from buying Crown Crates.

Ultimately, ZOS is not going to have a duty to care about gambling addicted people who play their game.

Except they will. When the loophole gets closed and gambling in video games gets treated like any other form of gambling, they will need to follow the regulations of any other gambling establishment.

That is just it. What I say above is pretty much what "any other form of gambling" has to do, as near as I can tell. I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly looks like someone with a gambling addiction can walk into most casinos and gamble all day long. It would be the same for Crown Crates. It certainly looks to me like the only time that a casino, or a game studio, would have a duty to care is if the gambler invoked self-exclusion, and then all the game company would have to do is ban the account, and any future account that the gambler used.

That certainly is not going to hinder the use of loot boxes in the gaming industry. It might even remove any moral or legal ambiguity that exists and encourage more game studios to adopt them.

The biggest thing about loot boxes as legal gambling isn't about addiction, it is about bureaucracy.

DracoSaggitaExSole

Gems, Crates = $$$
ESO needs to pay the bills for the servers, and needs to make profit for the blue collar suits behind the desk.

Since players in a role-playing game want to look unique and have cool aesthetics and look better than the player next to them the will pay for these items and there you have the blue collar suits behind the desk happy.

For you this might be a game, but the ones who decides about the micro transactions this is a business. So they capitalize heavy on the players desire, and on the players will to gamble for it.

In a capitalist world profit comes first, and than content, and than fixing whats really broken. That is my opinion on it.

They are providing an entertainment service for the player base. Paying artists, developers, and so many other roles, also server costs and blue collar suits behind the desk on the top of that is what required to sustain this service. So they need to sell you "shinnies".

The thing is the are a bit shady in this aspect and greedy in my personal opinion. You can calculate the cost of staff salary, and the cost of server maintenance, If they where working on improving the game they could retain players and have a steady flow of income from subscriptions and everyone would be happy. But what I see is, not that model, I see that they are keep the store filled with "shinnies", make new content behind a pay wall despite that you pay a subscription to keep them afloat.

The game has not improved significantly since 6 years ago when I started to play with it. Yes there where tweaks and minor improvements, but it is the same game. But they added new zones, housing, some skill lines which is good i think, and a bunch of different sets and they keep filling the crown store with a bunch of junk. As long as people value the looks in the game more than playing a fun and well functioning game they will keep doing it.

I refuse to buy anything from a Crown Store. I play a game to achieve things in it and earn the reward for it. I want the challenge accomplished to appreciate what ever item I got.

I remember in World Of Warcraft when ever I would get on my cool dragon mount I remembered the heroic fight that I needed to accomplish to get it. And it meant something. On the other hand the in game store mounts is just a representation of your valet size, not your game accomplishments.

I would like to see deeper game mechanics, a functioning Cyrodill even in peak hours, challenging content, and for that ZOS can count on my monthly contribution through a subscription.

Starlock

Elsonso wrote: »

That is just it. What I say above is pretty much what "any other form of gambling" has to do, as near as I can tell. I'm not a lawyer, but it certainly looks like someone with a gambling addiction can walk into most casinos and gamble all day long. It would be the same for Crown Crates.

Yes - the distinction is that transparency and certain protections would be introduced. I'll still call that an improvement over what we have now.

Elsonso wrote: »

That certainly is not going to hinder the use of loot boxes in the gaming industry.

It will.

As I mentioned earlier - although my point was misunderstood and in fairness I could have articulated it better - game ratings would have to change. How a game is rated can and does impact sales and who it can be marketed to. This wouldn't impact a game like ESO, but it would impact several well-known sports games that are hugely profitable because of the in-game gambling that is included in them.

Right now, you can rate a game "E" for "Everyone" and have real money gambling in it. Meanwhile, a game that includes virtual gambling that doesn't involve any real world money instantly kicks a game out of the "Everyone" rating. This is inconsistent, illogical, and makes no sense. If you dig around on the internet, you'll come across stories of minors emptying their parents bank accounts because a so-called "E" for "Everyone" game includes an adult activity - real gambling with real money. This would stop with the regulation of gambling in video games as actual gambling. And while I'm a jerk who really doesn't care about children, I also see merits to the research about how exposing children to gambling at a young age like these gaming companies are doing can turn them into gambling addicts as adults (which then lets gaming companies profit off them as adults). That's kind of not cool, yeah?

Kiralyn2000

MEBengalsFan2001 wrote: »

What I find interesting is that most of the items in the crate, specifically the costumes tend to come from prior crown items that were not selling. Instead of letting that dry up and not be used ZoS placed them in crates so newer players coming into the game would be like oh I want that and buy crates to try to get it.

As far as I recall, most of the 16-40-100 gem "retread" cosmetics were removed from the Crown Store long before crates existed - they've always had a pattern of "making space in the store for new things" by removing older stuff. (Like, if they put out a particular costume in 500/700/1k simple-to-fancy versions, eventually two of them would go away.)

Those retread costumes are the main thing I spend my (free crate) gems on, because they're costumes that I missed back in the day, and the fact they reappeared in the crates gave me a second chance to get them.