jedtb16_ESO wrote: »eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....
hint..... its a game not a person.
jedtb16_ESO wrote: »eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....
hint..... its a game not a person.
CJohnson81 wrote: »Would you repeat the question?
jedtb16_ESO wrote: »eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....
hint..... its a game not a person.
Besides, a company is not a human being either.
I also disagree with the notion of integrity as "being honest and having strong moral principles". One may very well be completely amoral, but honest about it. In fact, a villain acting selflessly for greater good would be dishonest and lack integrity.
EDIT: perhaps the only acceptable acting selfessly would be, for a villain, to sacrifice himself for greater wrong.
jedtb16_ESO wrote: »eso is an object and, as such, can have no integrity. integrity is a facet of human beings.....
hint..... its a game not a person.
Ya, that's really intellectual and all, but this is a game policed by people. Do u think ZOS has done a good job protecting the integrity of their game I.e. keeping it free from cheaters, enforcing policies in a clear and consistent manner, etc.?
@jedtb16_ESO
UltimaJoe777 wrote: »I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
UltimaJoe777 wrote: »I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
@UltimaJoe777
Perhaps I can shed some light on how discussions with ZOS operate.
I've been a part of the "Guild Summits" with ZOS since their conception in August 2014. At the start, we were allowed (and encouraged) to ask questions, criticise, and openly discuss issues we had with the game.
Nowadays, since these meetings do not help to sell boxes, ( they did help maintain subscribers) we are forbidden from asking questions. Controversy is abhorrent. But fear not, GMs can always post their concerns on the forums to solicit feedback from ZOS and from the community at large.
Now that you (hopefully) understand how discussions with ZOS work, perhaps you'd like to contribute something more substantial?
UltimaJoe777 wrote: »UltimaJoe777 wrote: »I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
@UltimaJoe777
Perhaps I can shed some light on how discussions with ZOS operate.
I've been a part of the "Guild Summits" with ZOS since their conception in August 2014. At the start, we were allowed (and encouraged) to ask questions, criticise, and openly discuss issues we had with the game.
Nowadays, since these meetings do not help to sell boxes, ( they did help maintain subscribers) we are forbidden from asking questions. Controversy is abhorrent. But fear not, GMs can always post their concerns on the forums to solicit feedback from ZOS and from the community at large.
Now that you (hopefully) understand how discussions with ZOS work, perhaps you'd like to contribute something more substantial?
Of course.
I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
UltimaJoe777 wrote: »UltimaJoe777 wrote: »I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
@UltimaJoe777
Perhaps I can shed some light on how discussions with ZOS operate.
I've been a part of the "Guild Summits" with ZOS since their conception in August 2014. At the start, we were allowed (and encouraged) to ask questions, criticise, and openly discuss issues we had with the game.
Nowadays, since these meetings do not help to sell boxes, ( they did help maintain subscribers) we are forbidden from asking questions. Controversy is abhorrent. But fear not, GMs can always post their concerns on the forums to solicit feedback from ZOS and from the community at large.
Now that you (hopefully) understand how discussions with ZOS work, perhaps you'd like to contribute something more substantial?
Of course.
I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
That's on ZOS, thank you for your comment
AzraelKrieg wrote: »To quote Rich Lambert; you know you don't have to be here, right?
AzraelKrieg wrote: »To quote Rich Lambert; you know you don't have to be here, right?
Most of the time, absolutely. They gave CP (not much, but literally anything) to people with vet-ranked characters when the CP system came out, they gave CP to us when vet ranks went away, they did what they could on PC to handle the botters, goldspammers, and bugged quests, and now we've been having a stellar DLC schedule that has been consistent, enjoyable, and I believe fairly priced.
That said, they have dropped the ball on a few occasions. Going Buy To Play was fine, but implementing a nonrefundable fiat currency system for the Crown Store is by default an immoral, exploitative move. It's not The Worst, since you can still gauge the price of a good, see your Crown balance, notice how much overflow you'll have if you need to buy new Crowns, and then determine if the purchase is worth it based on that new price, but it's still shady as heck and essentially guarantees that your players will be sinking a cost somewhere. The correct thing to do is have a straight-up cash shop, where you purchase items for real-world currency instead of purchase Crowns in exchange for goods. I hope that they move towards this direction someday.
Similarly, they have completely dropped the ball on these gambling boxes. They should all be destroyed, and their contents scattered to the wind. The argument follows the same pattern as the nonrefundable fiat currency. Offering a gambling service is by default an immoral, exploitative move. In this case, however, it actually IS The Worst, because you cannot determine for yourself the price you are willing to pay for a good. Gambling is predicated on uncertainty and risk. This is why you are not considered to be buying the potential payout of your gamble. You are instead buying the opportunity to gamble, for all the "entertainment" value that's worth.
As I have shown in my post about RNG, it is entirely possible for someone to purchase an arbitrarily-high number of gambling attempts and still receive nothing. While ZOS has put guaranteed consumables (of uncertain number and type) in the boxes, it would be extremely dishonest to say that people desire them. By and large, people are going to be desiring the exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes contained in the gambling boxes. Since those are not guaranteed, no matter how much you spend, ZOS is necessarily complicit in taking people's money and giving them nothing of value in the way off physical goods, digital goods, or services. The exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes are nothing but enticement to gamble, the entire gem system is simply Second Enticement, and the lot of it is a reprehensible business practice that is a complete betrayal of the normal customer/service-provider relationship.
jedtb16_ESO wrote: »Most of the time, absolutely. They gave CP (not much, but literally anything) to people with vet-ranked characters when the CP system came out, they gave CP to us when vet ranks went away, they did what they could on PC to handle the botters, goldspammers, and bugged quests, and now we've been having a stellar DLC schedule that has been consistent, enjoyable, and I believe fairly priced.
That said, they have dropped the ball on a few occasions. Going Buy To Play was fine, but implementing a nonrefundable fiat currency system for the Crown Store is by default an immoral, exploitative move. It's not The Worst, since you can still gauge the price of a good, see your Crown balance, notice how much overflow you'll have if you need to buy new Crowns, and then determine if the purchase is worth it based on that new price, but it's still shady as heck and essentially guarantees that your players will be sinking a cost somewhere. The correct thing to do is have a straight-up cash shop, where you purchase items for real-world currency instead of purchase Crowns in exchange for goods. I hope that they move towards this direction someday.
Similarly, they have completely dropped the ball on these gambling boxes. They should all be destroyed, and their contents scattered to the wind. The argument follows the same pattern as the nonrefundable fiat currency. Offering a gambling service is by default an immoral, exploitative move. In this case, however, it actually IS The Worst, because you cannot determine for yourself the price you are willing to pay for a good. Gambling is predicated on uncertainty and risk. This is why you are not considered to be buying the potential payout of your gamble. You are instead buying the opportunity to gamble, for all the "entertainment" value that's worth.
As I have shown in my post about RNG, it is entirely possible for someone to purchase an arbitrarily-high number of gambling attempts and still receive nothing. While ZOS has put guaranteed consumables (of uncertain number and type) in the boxes, it would be extremely dishonest to say that people desire them. By and large, people are going to be desiring the exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes contained in the gambling boxes. Since those are not guaranteed, no matter how much you spend, ZOS is necessarily complicit in taking people's money and giving them nothing of value in the way off physical goods, digital goods, or services. The exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes are nothing but enticement to gamble, the entire gem system is simply Second Enticement, and the lot of it is a reprehensible business practice that is a complete betrayal of the normal customer/service-provider relationship.
going buy to play????
i may be old and cantankerous but it was buy to play from the off....
didn't read the rest... one fallacy is enough to put me off a wall of text.
jedtb16_ESO wrote: »Most of the time, absolutely. They gave CP (not much, but literally anything) to people with vet-ranked characters when the CP system came out, they gave CP to us when vet ranks went away, they did what they could on PC to handle the botters, goldspammers, and bugged quests, and now we've been having a stellar DLC schedule that has been consistent, enjoyable, and I believe fairly priced.
That said, they have dropped the ball on a few occasions. Going Buy To Play was fine, but implementing a nonrefundable fiat currency system for the Crown Store is by default an immoral, exploitative move. It's not The Worst, since you can still gauge the price of a good, see your Crown balance, notice how much overflow you'll have if you need to buy new Crowns, and then determine if the purchase is worth it based on that new price, but it's still shady as heck and essentially guarantees that your players will be sinking a cost somewhere. The correct thing to do is have a straight-up cash shop, where you purchase items for real-world currency instead of purchase Crowns in exchange for goods. I hope that they move towards this direction someday.
Similarly, they have completely dropped the ball on these gambling boxes. They should all be destroyed, and their contents scattered to the wind. The argument follows the same pattern as the nonrefundable fiat currency. Offering a gambling service is by default an immoral, exploitative move. In this case, however, it actually IS The Worst, because you cannot determine for yourself the price you are willing to pay for a good. Gambling is predicated on uncertainty and risk. This is why you are not considered to be buying the potential payout of your gamble. You are instead buying the opportunity to gamble, for all the "entertainment" value that's worth.
As I have shown in my post about RNG, it is entirely possible for someone to purchase an arbitrarily-high number of gambling attempts and still receive nothing. While ZOS has put guaranteed consumables (of uncertain number and type) in the boxes, it would be extremely dishonest to say that people desire them. By and large, people are going to be desiring the exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes contained in the gambling boxes. Since those are not guaranteed, no matter how much you spend, ZOS is necessarily complicit in taking people's money and giving them nothing of value in the way off physical goods, digital goods, or services. The exclusive mounts, pets, and costumes are nothing but enticement to gamble, the entire gem system is simply Second Enticement, and the lot of it is a reprehensible business practice that is a complete betrayal of the normal customer/service-provider relationship.
going buy to play????
i may be old and cantankerous but it was buy to play from the off....
didn't read the rest... one fallacy is enough to put me off a wall of text.
@jedtb16_ESO You are incorrect, the game was subscription when it first launched. Additionally, you are using both "logical fallacy" and "wall of text" incorrectly.