Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

I actually do.

. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

The free market just means that they can do what they want, and the customers can decide whether it is worth their money or not. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

JimT722 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

We don't think it's a predatory practice. It's a well known one. It has received huge criticism because they are by design. If you don't think Pacrooti was designed to trigger you to keep spending you are fooling yourself. The gems are so you feel invested. They know what they are doing.

This sort of strategy has received so much controversy that South Park had made an episode attacking such a practice.

ZOS has been making PR articles. Even in that they avoid talking about the why of the crown crates when asked by the Interviewer on mmorpg.com. They did that because they know these are exploitive, and they aren't going to help people realize that if they can't figure it out on their own.

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

I actually do.

. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

The free market just means that they can do what they want, and the customers can decide whether it is worth their money or not. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

I don't understand. That's actually the very point i have made in my posts here about the free market. The rest is all your opinion. And your right to hold them to whatever standard you deem you want to hold them. I don't know what right or wrong you, I, or anyone will extract from that.

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

I actually do.

. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

The free market just means that they can do what they want, and the customers can decide whether it is worth their money or not. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

I don't understand. That's actually the very point i have made in my posts here about the free market. The rest is all your opinion. And your right to hold them to whatever standard you deem you want to hold them. I don't know what right or wrong you, I, or anyone will extract from that.

You've become extremely incoherent as of the last few posts, I'll hold off on responding further until you become more coherent and present points to argue.

O yes, the half response. The "you're incoherent so i will respond to tell you that. But I will hold off on making other points".

Here is coherence for you. ZOS can and should do as it pleases with its product. End of story. You can whine about what they do, you can cry if it actually brings you to that point. But I will give you advice. If you or anyone else think what ZOS is doing is bad, predatory, scummy, evil, etc etc etc, do not participate in it. Simple as that. You do not have to buy a single crown crate.

It's insane that you guys have essentially labeled (by your own opinions) ZOS as scammers and those that partake in predatory practices. ZOS can't do what it wants? ZOS has to police whether or not people will or won't buy crown crates?

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

I actually do.

. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

The free market just means that they can do what they want, and the customers can decide whether it is worth their money or not. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

I don't understand. That's actually the very point i have made in my posts here about the free market. The rest is all your opinion. And your right to hold them to whatever standard you deem you want to hold them. I don't know what right or wrong you, I, or anyone will extract from that.

You've become extremely incoherent as of the last few posts, I'll hold off on responding further until you become more coherent and present points to argue.

O yes, the half response. The "you're incoherent so i will respond to tell you that. But I will hold off on making other points".

Here is coherence for you. ZOS can and should do as it pleases with its product. End of story. You can whine about what they do, you can cry if it actually brings you to that point. But I will give you advice. If you or anyone else think what ZOS is doing is bad, predatory, scummy, evil, etc etc etc, do not participate in it. Simple as that. You do not have to buy a single crown crate.

It's insane that you guys have essentially labeled (by your own opinions) ZOS as scammers and those that partake in predatory practices. ZOS can't do what it wants? ZOS has to police whether or not people will or won't buy crown crates?

I was speaking more on your post editing.

I have not bought a single crown crate, and I dont intend to.

Your continued screeching that everything is an opinion is why I no longer wish to continue this, you become less coherent, more enraged and less credable the more you go on. Your blatent insults on people with -differing- opinions speak volumes, and I have no wish to continue this.

ZOS can do what it wants, but much like George Lucus, and many other examples that I could probably sit down and find, some of the best products in history have been made by telling the creators, no. A simple, no. Budget constrants, mandate, a simple no has made better products than free reign has.

And now for my advise to you. If you cannot handle other customers negative feedback in a civil and orderly fashion, do not read threads like this, and do not go into customer service, human resources, or anything involving people. Ever.

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

I actually do.

. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Callous2208 wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

TequilaFire wrote: »

I only bought 4 crates at 400 crowns each. Each crate's contents value on the crown store far exceeded the 400 crowns so I can not call it a rip off or a scam as long as you don't count on getting that one thing you have your heart set on every time. I was lucky and got the mount I wanted in the 4th crate, but was not disappointed in the useful poisons, pets, tattoos, hats and mimic stones I received in the other crates. In other words I more than got my monies worth.

So as long as you don't actually want anything and just feel the need to spend crowns on who-cares-what, they're a great deal, but if you actually want something they're a total scam, got it.

That is the complete and total BS way of understanding what they are. It can't be a scam because YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY what they are. And ZOS explained how they work. They aren't forced upon anyone. You make the decision if you are going to give it a shot. There is no scam.

@Publius_Scipio Wrong, they're inherently a scam because it's a method of taking money without providing value to the customer. It doesn't become not a scam under the dubious pretense that people "know what they are". The whole thing was literally created by a behaviorist to take advantage of common consumer ignorance. You know what wouldn't be a scam? Putting the items up for direct purchase. A scam isn't something forced on people, it's something that people get tricked into engaging with.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud". It is not dishonest because of RNG. You and everyone else know how crown crates work. And you know you there is no guarantee on what you get. How are you or anyone else being scammed? And I am really stretching myself here to understand how there is any "dubious pretense". The whole thing was created for players to try their chance at getting something they want and ZOS to make revenue. The only way I am buying your "common consumer ignorance" argument is if you can prove that ZOS did not do their part in explaining and instructing players exactly how crown crates work.

You can't call the lottery a scam.

Edit: And let me come back to comment on your first line about "providing value to the customer". The customer out of his/her own free will decides there is value in the crown crates when they decide to make the purchase. ZOS didn't force any value upon you, me, or anyone else.

Any sale of tokenized risk is inherently a scam if it can be proven that customers are ignorant regarding the nature of risk. It has been repeatedly shown that they don't. The sale of these items is not, by and large, an honest transaction by educated participants. While some might understand the nature of probability and risk, most do not. This is not to say that all of these people who don't understand will become gambling addicts, we are just talking about whether or not it's a scam. So by the above, we can indeed call the lottery a scam, same as these gambling boxes.

So while you argue along the lines of magical thinking and 'free will", it's just not supported by the facts. The cosmetic items are put there to entice people to gamble, a decision that they cannot make rationally because they don't understand the math behind it, and so we can conclude that it's all a scam. If these were available for purchase on the normal Crown Store it wouldn't be an issue, but ZOS marketing decided that it's reasonable to take people's money and not give them anything of value for it, so now here comes the pushback.

Well it's good to know how you define things. Thankfully we have laws that define things like this, so you don't go around just pointing and saying this is inherently whatever.

As far as magical thinking and free will, not supported by facts. I don't know what else to say to you about this particular topic. I sure as hell know Judge Judy wouldn't rule in your favor.

Moving goalposts around doesn't add credence to your argument. We weren't talking about the legal definition of a scam. Moreover, just because the practice is currently legal and doesn't have any case law surrounding it doesn't mean it won't be found illegal in the future. This can be seen all throughout the history of the US court.

And yes, your belief in magical thinking (the mighty power of Free Will! (TM)) is already documented, so it is supported by facts.

Your basis is so out of whack you don't even realize it i guess. You went off about what you think is a scam, you come off making baseless arguments people not being able to make rational decisions. And whatever else. A total joke.

Unless you prove ZOS didn't do their part legally to explain what crown crates are, how they work, what they cost, what you may OR MAY NOT win, you have zero argument.

You came here you egregiously threw the word scam around. You call ZOS (the people involved with the decision of crown crates at least) scammers. That's bad. And don't paint me with your brush about magical make believes because once again YOU believe it's that way. We don't work like that in this world.

It's a perfectly valid argumentative basis, please feel free to prove otherwise. Just claiming something is false doesn't make it so. You are still using legality as the crux of your argument, which I already showed to be a fallacious pretense. If you really need me to spell it out more plainly for you I'm more than willing, but you seem to lack the basic rhetorical background to actually understand what's going on. Maybe educate yourself a bit, take a deep breath, then come back and try to form a cohesive argument.

I mean seriously, just look at yourself. First you went off about free will, and now you're saying that I went off about free will? You are having trouble just keeping track of who said what.

There is no track here. I see you juggling. And you have again zero basis. You paint this as a scam because THAT's WHAT YOU SAY IT IS. And you think that what you feel then has to be laid over reality.

You and your philosophy BS. ZOS is a company that in good faith can pursue a profit under applicable rules and regulations in place. People at their OWN RISK will spend their own money on crown crates. That's reality. Not your make believe whatever you say is reality hot garbage.

The basis for my argument is the very definition you gave for a scam.

The definition of scam in the dictionary is "a dishonest scheme, a fraud".

I outlined how the gambling boxes are a dishonest scheme. Specifically, it is dishonest for them to sell risk when the customers do not typically understand risk. I cited a bunch of articles and studies evidencing that consumers indeed don't understand risk. It's not a scam because I say it is, I am using the definition of scam that you found. If you can't follow that train of thought then I don't know what to tell you, it's perfectly outlined and uses your own definitions.

Now, however, you've moved the goalposts into the legal definition of fraud, which I cannot argue in good faith since I'm not a lawyer. I did, however, outline how even that basis is under contention, as it is possible for things to be declared illegal even after they have been in practice. For example, we did not use to have food labeling laws, but now it is illegal not to disclose the contents of a food item. Unless you want to argue that we've always had labeling laws, I'd say your position is on shaky ground.

You don't get it because you can't say people don't understand risk. How do you say people here don't understand risk? You talk about "studies" that means nothing. There are laws in place that companies must follow. Further you want to argue that in the future things might be different. What's legal right now doesn't make it illegal because maybe sometime in the future it will be illegal by law.

What I said is not wrong because it absolutely is your personal interpretation of dishonest. I say it is not dishonest, and everyone buys crown crates at their own risk. I say ZOS can pursue whatever business practices it wants under the law.

So you can argue why you saying it's dishonest is correct versus myself and the many others who say it is not dishonest. Because unless a court of law were to rule that ZOS's business practices scammed consumers then by definition you saying it is dishonest is and will stay "your opinion". And that requires no change to the definition of scam in the dictionary.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you called the people at ZOS involved with crown crates scammers. Because you feel that's what it is.

And before you are lost in my response. My point is your calling crown crates a scam and dishonest absolutely and wholly is your own personal interpretation. It is not a fact.

I absolutely can say that people don't understand risk. The studies don't mean "nothing" they are scientifically-backed evidence that consumers have a lack of knowledge. What you are saying is anti-science. Heck just ask yourself if you understand probability. Are you able to calculate the odds of some event occurring after an arbitrary number of trials with some set probability? No? Then you yourself don't understand risk. It is not unreasonable to assume that most people do not understand risk, as it required college-level math just to grasp the basics of it. It is insufficient to only understand that something "might or might not happen" for the same reason that it is insufficient to say that something costs "an amount of money" instead of listing a price.

Yes, there are laws that companies must follow, but arguing that something is or is not a scam based only on what is currently lawful is a poor strategy. If the designation of being a scam is only based on laws, then it's pointless to even argue about it since laws can change. It implies that something can change from being fine to being a scam with just one bout of litigation. But if it wasn't already a scam, why would the law then change? There needs to be some underlying reason and motivation for a legal argument, just saying "it's the law" is insufficient. That is why I brought up the fact that laws can change. It doesn't come down to just a court decision, it comes down to the underlying reasoning behind the decision. You do realize that laws are created over time, right? They aren't universal constants, but the underlying logic behind them is.

So as it stands, my "interpretation" of dishonest is based on the marketing team relying on consumer ignorance, which I have shown exists. The only thing I can't prove is that the marketing team is relying on that particular ignorance, but I can give evidence that they are overall relying on other deceptions. First, they have not outlined what kind of algorithm they are using, even though that's completely reasonable to share. Is it pure RNG from individualized tables? A queue system based on a preconstructed randomized table that everyone dips into? Nobody knows. And if it is pure RNG, we also don't know the drop rates. All of these are common marketing strategies to hide knowledge from the consumer and make them unable to make an informed decision about their purchase. My "interpretation" of the evidence is that this deception is on purpose. If it's not on purpose, surely they'll come forward with both the algorithm and the drop rates soon, right? I think not.

Thus far:

1. I've demonstrated that consumers are indeed ignorant of how probability works
2. I've demonstrated that there is evidence the marketing team is relying on deception to encourage sales
3. I've outlined why "legality" isn't an adequate basis for defining a scam
4. I've used your own definition of a scam to build the argument that the gambling boxes are a scam, for the reasons demonstrated in the first two bullet points.

So digest what I wrote. You came here and you defended what is arguably a scam because you feel that's not what it is, in spite of a solid spat of evidence and reasoning.

And before you are lost in my response: The point is that my accusation the gambling boxes are a scam and dishonestly absolutely and wholly is based on evidence and a logical, reasoned approach to the subject matter. That's a fact.

You refuse to believe it is your own idea that it is a scam because other people disagree, believe it or not. You can't prove ZOS didn't do what they should have. You type up a tsunami of words that are hot garbage.

You came here and you egregiously called the people at ZOS, at least those involved with crown crates scammers. Scammers because YOU say so. What a joke that is.

You demonstrated to me you are some misguided SJW running around with his brush painting everything as he sees fit. Terrible.

And everything is based on the laws. That's why companies only have to pay restitution when the courts rule against them. Not when Men'do on the Elder Scrolls Online says they scammed people. So you come back down to reality and understand that. Legality IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DEFINE A SCAM, because without the legal basis your so called "scam" sits only as high as to be called your personal opinion. And you should open your eyes to that.

You calling the people at ZOS scammers is to me appalling.

And btw, you should realize that with your "studies" that are "scientific", usually there are other "studies" also "scientific" that refute the opposing way of thinking. Just so you know.

You're refusing to engage with the argument, name calling, and making blind assertions, and denying science. You can't even acknowledge that there are underlying reasons for laws, which is probably the most unaware thing I've heard an adult (?) say. I couldn't care less if someone that ignorant thinks my accusations are appalling. See you in PvP.

All you have is your opinion. And the underlying reasons for laws is in fact a reason like this. That some clown with an opinion will call something a scam because he believes it to be a scam. So that in fact ZOS, another company, or an individual doesn't have to actually carry the weight of having been label a "scammer". Completely terrible, completely misguided, completely appalling.

Maybe you should man up and realize that you calling ZOS scammers is totally based on your opinion and in fact a totally disrespectful opinion that I think you should have kept to yourself. Coming here and inflating opinion as some fact based on science and reality. Give me a break. No you know what, why don't you give the men and women that work hard at ZOS to make ESO what it is and their efforts to always improve it a break. And give them your respect instead of coming here and spewing nothingness on something that is totally opinion.

Dude calm your *** they added a scam box that every other f2p mmo has, they didn't cure cancer. They're making a hefty profit off of minimal effort. Meanwhile they can't fix launch day bugs or add anything meaningful for actual gamers. They can have my respect when they start talking content and stfu about a system borrowed from shady korean mmo developers.

And you want me to say what in response? That there is a threshold of effort needed before they can or should make money? Is there someone that will set this threshold? What's the point in relation to what I said and my argument?

You want to buy a crown crate for a stupid mount? Do it. If you don't want to buy a crown crate don't buy it. If you want to play ESO then play it or don't. I don't care what other players do or don't do.

ZOS added crown crates to their product because its what they wanted to do. You guy's against that? How about you give the people of ZOS more respect than using the word "scam" and respectfully tell them how you want crown crates to be. Or how about you all let the free market speak, no one buy the crates, and ZOS will know that no one consumed their product and will make decisions accordingly. Sounds like the sensible thing.

No.

You are under two delusions. One, that these crates are not a predatory practice and that they do not prey on people in order to function. They do, and they are. They are a scam by design.

Two, you are under the delusion that they would ever lisen to us. They wont. They will continue to foster this practice because it makes them money and they are there to make money. In fact, they had the chance at many points due to the overwhelming dislike and discussion thread on the forums that reached 100 pages ofnegative, negative views. They released it even after the steam debaucle where people reviewbombed.

Edit: In addition to this, look at just how *** the game is ballance and performance wise. Clearly they dont lisen to us on anything else, why should this ever be different?

There are people at that company, who had no part in it. I dont blame them. I blame the people who issued the mandate. My hate is directed at those who greenlit the project, and it will not cease due to your screeching that it should be so.

No my friend, it's you that is under delusion. The delusion that ZOS has some obligation not to do WANT IT WANTS in a FREE MARKET because you think it is a predatory practice. That's the first thing.

To your second point. ZOS should do what it wants with ITS product (ESO). Its ZOS's product, not ours. We decide to consume it or not. And as far as ZOS not listening that is just not true, UNLESS your definition of listening is to do exactly everything you tell them they should do. Which they absolutely should not do! The people wanted dueling, we got dueling. People wanted hairstyles and dyes, we got just that. Don't confuse "not listening" with having to do every single last thing the players tell ZOS to do.

You keep screeching about the free market, but you dont seem to know what it actually means.

The free market just means that they can do what they want, and the customers can decide whether it is worth their money or not. And considering the drop in popularity this game has taken with recent updates, from -all- crowds, the customers are not paying. This game is mostly a churn simulator like many MMO's, bringing in fresh players who eventually grow bored, and do not get the full ammount of money ZOS -could- be geting out of them.

As for not lisening, oh please. A handfull of features people had been wanting for upwards of a year is hardly lisening to your customer base. Not nearly enough, too little too -late-.

I will continue to hold them to a higher standard then you do. For good reason. If we all lowered our standards to the level you propose we would be taken advantage of without remorse. Charge double for the space for rent inside your head and never stop.

I don't understand. That's actually the very point i have made in my posts here about the free market. The rest is all your opinion. And your right to hold them to whatever standard you deem you want to hold them. I don't know what right or wrong you, I, or anyone will extract from that.

You've become extremely incoherent as of the last few posts, I'll hold off on responding further until you become more coherent and present points to argue.

O yes, the half response. The "you're incoherent so i will respond to tell you that. But I will hold off on making other points".

Here is coherence for you. ZOS can and should do as it pleases with its product. End of story. You can whine about what they do, you can cry if it actually brings you to that point. But I will give you advice. If you or anyone else think what ZOS is doing is bad, predatory, scummy, evil, etc etc etc, do not participate in it. Simple as that. You do not have to buy a single crown crate.

It's insane that you guys have essentially labeled (by your own opinions) ZOS as scammers and those that partake in predatory practices. ZOS can't do what it wants? ZOS has to police whether or not people will or won't buy crown crates?

It reads like you cry every time someone says scam box. Does it hurt to grow up and call things what they are? Honestly I don't consider zos to be scammers. They're just doing what every other mmo company does prior to f2p transition to make a few bucks. Doesn't change the fact that it's a scam crate, and that a sucker is born every second to eat em up. What we really need to worry about is, what will zos to with all these ill-gotten gains? Hopefully create some kick ass content for the rest of us, at the expense of the scam crate crowd.