Maintenance for the week of June 17:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – June 17, 4:00AM EDT (8:00 UTC) – 8:00AM EDT (12:00 UTC)
• ESO Store and Account System for maintenance – June 17, 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC) – 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)
• Xbox One: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – June 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) – 10:00AM EDT (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®4: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – June 19, 6:00AM EDT (10:00 UTC) – 12:00PM EDT (16:00 UTC)

A Discussion with ZOS on Integrity

  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Thelon wrote: »
    @jedtb16_ESO
    The game was pay to play (subscription required) at launch

    you had to buy the box first... duh!
    pc eu eso+

    paraphrasing soren kierkegaard.... when we look at the forum all we can do is laugh.
  • AzraelKrieg
    AzraelKrieg
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    Recremen wrote: »
    Recremen 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.

    the game was buy to play when it started... you had to buy the box to play it.... i was there buster.

    i did not use the phrase 'logical fallacy' are you early onset or something?

    wall of text = more than 6 lines.

    You could buy the box but that was about it. I was there at launch as well and to play the game you needed to pay monthly
    Gold Dragons Guildmaster PC-NA

    CR1000+
    Kalthar Wolf-Brother – EP Templar - 50
    Maeli Valen - EP NB - 50
    Naps-During-Trials – EP Templar - 50
    Jorleif the Bear-King - EP DK - 50
    Ko'Shariba-do - EP Sorc - 50
    Azrael Krieg - EP NB – 50
    Uvithasa Telvanni – EP DK – 50
    More-Tail - EP Warden - 50
    Narile Galen - EP Sorc - 50
    Az the Bulwark of Skål - EP Warden - 50
    Rilasi Sedas - EP Warden - 50
    Rayna Andalen - EP Templar - 50
  • Recremen
    Recremen
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Recremen wrote: »
    Recremen 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.

    the game was buy to play when it started... you had to buy the box to play it.... i was there buster.

    i did not use the phrase 'logical fallacy' are you early onset or something?

    wall of text = more than 6 lines.

    Wrong on all counts, again. Buy To Play refers to a monetization method where you must buy a,phyaical or digital copy of the game, but not pay a subscription.

    "Fallacy", which is synonymous with "logical fallacy", is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. For example, asking if I'm "early onset" in order to argue against my assertion is the logical fallacy called ad hominem.

    Finally, a wall of text requires poor use of whitespace to break up an argument into related chunks. While this can be subjective, my post meets all the appropriate MLA and APA standards. :smirk:
    Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
    Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster
  • SirAndy
    SirAndy
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.
    agree.gif
    The Sidekick Order:
    The Naked Nords | The Cannon Fodder of Tamriel | The Mercenaries without Skills | The League of formidable Crafters
    The Psijic Order - 0.016% | Elder Moot | Lone Wolf Help | Great House Hlaalu
  • jedtb16_ESO
    jedtb16_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Recremen wrote: »
    Recremen wrote: »
    Recremen 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.

    the game was buy to play when it started... you had to buy the box to play it.... i was there buster.

    i did not use the phrase 'logical fallacy' are you early onset or something?

    wall of text = more than 6 lines.

    Wrong on all counts, again. Buy To Play refers to a monetization method where you must buy a,phyaical or digital copy of the game, but not pay a subscription.

    "Fallacy", which is synonymous with "logical fallacy", is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. For example, asking if I'm "early onset" in order to argue against my assertion is the logical fallacy called ad hominem.

    Finally, a wall of text requires poor use of whitespace to break up an argument into related chunks. While this can be subjective, my post meets all the appropriate MLA and APA standards. :smirk:

    no...you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.

    if you get some agrees or awesomes or whatever fine. but the fact remains you had to buy the box to play....

    your definition of wall of text does not meet eu standards - i'e should be in 24 languages... you lose there too

    geez... i'm going to get some sleep. and tomorrow... sorry ... today i am going on pts to see what all the hysteria is about.

    errr, sorry... what was the question?
    pc eu eso+

    paraphrasing soren kierkegaard.... when we look at the forum all we can do is laugh.
  • silvereyes
    silvereyes
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, ZOS has protected the integrity of ESO
    This was a tough poll for me. On the one hand, I'm pretty upset at ZOS for the whole guild trader bidding debacle, as well as their aforementioned poor communication and of course, the gamble boxes. The ban reversals for Cheat Engine users was also pretty upsetting.

    On the whole, though, I think ZOS has done right by their players. They have kept true to their promise to keep the crown store free of P2W items (so far). The amount of new content they are creating is truly impressive. They are making progress on the Cyrodiil performance problems. The PC addon platform is fairly extensive and allows for a lot of fantastic community contributions.

    And most of all, they continue to make a game that I want to play. At the end of the day, that is what matters.
    Edited by silvereyes on August 31, 2016 11:41PM
  • Recremen
    Recremen
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Recremen wrote: »
    Recremen wrote: »
    Recremen 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.

    the game was buy to play when it started... you had to buy the box to play it.... i was there buster.

    i did not use the phrase 'logical fallacy' are you early onset or something?

    wall of text = more than 6 lines.

    Wrong on all counts, again. Buy To Play refers to a monetization method where you must buy a,phyaical or digital copy of the game, but not pay a subscription.

    "Fallacy", which is synonymous with "logical fallacy", is a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. For example, asking if I'm "early onset" in order to argue against my assertion is the logical fallacy called ad hominem.

    Finally, a wall of text requires poor use of whitespace to break up an argument into related chunks. While this can be subjective, my post meets all the appropriate MLA and APA standards. :smirk:

    no...you are just being argumentative for the sake of it.

    geez... i'm going to get some sleep. and tomorrow... sorry ... today i am going on pts to see what all the hysteria is about.

    You do realize that you literally started the argument by trying to call out my post, right? I'm fine if you want to get into an argument, but it's a tad silly to then complain that I'm participating.

    Anyway, have fun on the PTS!
    Men'Do PC NA AD Khajiit
    Grand High Illustrious Mid-Tier PvP/PvE Bussmunster
  • Daemons_Bane
    Daemons_Bane
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.

    I'm with Joe on this one
    What I say is MY opinion and MY pov
  • jcasini222ub17_ESO
    jcasini222ub17_ESO
    ✭✭✭✭
    After being away from the game for awhile I may have and odd take on this. I loved ESO, I left ESOTU, I'll wait for the reviews of One Tamriel. Yea I hope that makes sense, no idea where that fits in the poll.



  • Graydon
    Graydon
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, ZOS has protected the integrity of ESO
    One of the worse polls created...
  • starkerealm
    starkerealm
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    No, ZOS has not protected the integrity of ESO
    I fail to see the "discussion with Zenimax" part here.

    More "talking at," than, "talking with." :p
    Co-Host of The Tenets: a podcast focused on bringing new players up to speed in ESO.
Sign In or Register to comment.