Give Ring of Mara OPTION to co-own homes.

SaRuZ · March 2017

This still burns me so bad. I spent two months farming most of the gold I would need for a manor. Four days leading up to homestead, my wife and I farmed mats every time we played and the last 12 hours we buckled down and made a million to reach our goal.

We both had Daggerfall Hero but Overlook is so ugly and bland that we agreed on Serenity Falls, We finally completed AD questline together today, three weeks after homestead released and my only house is the inn at the rosy lion.

I'd do it all over again for her of course but the fact that ZoS did not have an option to co-own a home(Option, not mandatory) with your spouse via the ring of mara, is absolutely absurd and neglectful. But alas, now all rhe furniture I buy and craft will have to be sent to her like we are some guild hall, instead of getting to do it together.

Good job ZoS, good job.

andreasranasen · March 2017

I'd say no to this. ZOS can get into legal issues if you co own. What if you bought the house with Crowns while your friend you have the Rings with bought furniture packs. One day you two break up or simply not friends anymore. Who gets what?

So no, it's a no for me since Housing is also about real life money spent.

mewcatus · March 2017

What happens when the divorce sets in then ?

Acrolas · March 2017

ZOS does not need to waste time mediating or resolving issues arising from ownership disputes, because they own all game assets.

You don't own the house.
She doesn't own the house.

You're both borrowing assets individually by the terms you each agreed to when you individually installed the game. The ring's just a bonus XP roleplay item. There's no legal binding to it.

Nerouyn · March 2017

Acrolas wrote: »

ZOS does not need to waste time mediating or resolving issues arising from ownership disputes, because they own all game assets.

You don't own the house.
She doesn't own the house.

You're both borrowing assets individually by the terms you each agreed to when you individually installed the game. The ring's just a bonus XP roleplay item. There's no legal binding to it.

Incorrect.

A Dutch court has ruled that virtual items are the property of the player and are protected by laws governing real world items.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dutch-court-convicts-teens-of-virtual-theft

jircris11 · March 2017

Nerouyn wrote: »

Acrolas wrote: »

ZOS does not need to waste time mediating or resolving issues arising from ownership disputes, because they own all game assets.

You don't own the house.
She doesn't own the house.

You're both borrowing assets individually by the terms you each agreed to when you individually installed the game. The ring's just a bonus XP roleplay item. There's no legal binding to it.

Incorrect.

A Dutch court has ruled that virtual items are the property of the player and are protected by laws governing real world items.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dutch-court-convicts-teens-of-virtual-theft

may be so in EU but in US it is not. though isnt setting someone to decorator the same thing? iirc they can give you furniture and such as well. And in all technicalities we don't even own our ESO accounts seeing how the ToS can be changed at any time and our accounts suspended or the game shut down.

Molydeus · March 2017

So the house is in her name, you live in a hotel, and you already gave her all your money and furnishings... tell me again why she'd want to share custody of this manor with you? Sounds like she already worked you over buddy.

Syntse · March 2017

I also hope the co-owning or similar setup is implemented so my wife can also place items in our house not just move them around.

However I do understand that really co-owning is kinda database nightmare as the house item is related to the person buying it then items in there is related to the house item. Would need to be changed in minimum that items in house are related to the house and owned by someone and then related to possibly rules if the person can take the item to inventory or just move the items etc. Easy way would be that one could place items in someones house if given rights to do so but the item ownership would then change to the owner of the house. However that could then later result in lawsuits etc if crowns were used to puchase the item or the couple co-owning would split and somehow need to split the mutual ownings.

Rex-Umbra · March 2017

Please

SaRuZ · March 2017

I don't see how in-game "divorce." Is even viable as a dispute. All furnishings would still be owned by the individual player. The house itself would be accessible as a primary residence in the same instance for both players and show as owned by both players. The main difference would be the ability for both players to place owned furniture through their own inventory.

All I ask for is the OPTION to do so. Meaning you can set your Ring of Mara Partner as a Co-owner during the purchase of a home, they can not be removed afterwards for that particular home.

Merlin13KAGL · March 2017

Nerouyn wrote: »

Acrolas wrote: »

ZOS does not need to waste time mediating or resolving issues arising from ownership disputes, because they own all game assets.

You don't own the house.
She doesn't own the house.

You're both borrowing assets individually by the terms you each agreed to when you individually installed the game. The ring's just a bonus XP roleplay item. There's no legal binding to it.

Incorrect.

A Dutch court has ruled that virtual items are the property of the player and are protected by laws governing real world items.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dutch-court-convicts-teens-of-virtual-theft

Incorrect on your incorrect, as "property of the player" isn't property of the player, but owned by ZoS...

The items are non-transferable and non salable, holding exactly zero real world value.

I'd love to see someone try to push the paperwork through on this..."The Dutch court would like to call Molag Bal to the stand."

F'ing please.

SaRuZ wrote: »

I don't see how in-game "divorce." Is even viable as a dispute. All furnishings would still be owned by the individual player. The house itself would be accessible as a primary residence in the same instance for both players and show as owned by both players. The main difference would be the ability for both players to place owned furniture through their own inventory.

All I ask for is the OPTION to do so. Meaning you can set your Ring of Mara Partner as a Co-owner during the purchase of a home, they can not be removed afterwards for that particular home.

You can already set permissions. The whole premise behind the 'need' for this is asinine & the reason why I'm in-game *single* and plan to stay that way.

NordSwordnBoard · March 2017

SaRuZ wrote: »

I don't see how in-game "divorce." Is even viable as a dispute. All furnishings would still be owned by the individual player. The house itself would be accessible as a primary residence in the same instance for both players and show as owned by both players. The main difference would be the ability for both players to place owned furniture through their own inventory.

All I ask for is the OPTION to do so. Meaning you can set your Ring of Mara Partner as a Co-owner during the purchase of a home, they can not be removed afterwards for that particular home.

"I even destroyed the stupid ring of Mara, but this loser still won't leave the couch... No contribution to the household whatsoever, encourages the visitors to constantly turn off all the lights as a prank, takes all the purple furnishings and sells them for skooma. I don't even get my own visitors because its already at the limit by the time I get home from work.

Even though I paid for all of it out of my own pocket, my former partner has the same rights of ownership as me."

We don't need to add more complication & regrets to this game.

KingYogi415 · March 2017

The woman gets the house while your exiled to an apartment.

Sounds about right to me!

Minalan · March 2017

I can see it now, some poor GM trying to moderate a divorce between two players.

She's mad because she caught him 'role playing' with another girl, and won't stop screaming at the GM in all caps.

He's upset that she threw him out of the house, and claims that he's totally innocent. He and the other girl were just friends.

No. This is exactly why they won't implement co-ownership.

idk · March 2017

There are titles and achievements involved with home ownership and there is no reason that two people together can each do half the effort as one and obtain the same things. Both with the achievements and ownership itself.

Further, if they permittedshared home ownership there is a big and very real issue people to their own way. Divorce in game. Zos would have no reason to want to deal with such things and the headaches and forum rage that can occur with things to sour. This is by no means suggesting any issues with OP and spouse, but is a very real aspect that Zos would have to weigh in on when considering shared homeownership.

Molydeus · March 2017

KingYogi415 wrote: »

The woman gets the house while your exiled to an apartment.

Sounds about right to me!

Yep, marriage is a racket. No point in it these days

Tasear · March 2017

andreasranasen wrote: »

I'd say no to this. ZOS can get into legal issues if you co own. What if you bought the house with Crowns while your friend you have the Rings with bought furniture packs. One day you two break up or simply not friends anymore. Who gets what?

So no, it's a no for me since Housing is also about real life money spent.

It's not even that hard. You will still be assigned permission of your said property (furinature) and one of you get the lease. Through in a disclaimer and call it done?

Or in a divorce you just have eso sell function where you guys get gold return and nobody has a house. Of course you lose some cause... it's used house.

SaRuZ · March 2017

Realistically, ZoS doesn't even take care of problems with the game here & now so 'divorce' being a developer burden as an excuse to not implement it is a joke. You could always get a new house and start all over or have a house on the side had a fall out happened. As for forum rage, ZoS antagonizes a lot of people on a regular bases(nerf's, breaking the game with each update, Morrowind not being DLC) 1% of the population co-owning homes doesn't seem like a huge distraction imo. As for achievements, plenty of players help eachother get them. ZoS even encourages it. Group fishing earns master angler in 1/4 of the time, people buy their way through vMoL for skin. To me, the possible problems don't outweigh the benefits, it is a virtual world rated Mature.

As for crown store purchases, furniture packs are account bound and Homes purchased can be refunded.

idk · March 2017

Tasear wrote: »

andreasranasen wrote: »

I'd say no to this. ZOS can get into legal issues if you co own. What if you bought the house with Crowns while your friend you have the Rings with bought furniture packs. One day you two break up or simply not friends anymore. Who gets what?

So no, it's a no for me since Housing is also about real life money spent.

It's not even that hard. You will still be assigned permission of your said property (furinature) and one of you get the lease. Through in a disclaimer and call it done?

Or in a divorce you just have eso sell function where you guys get gold return and nobody has a house. Of course you lose some cause... it's used house.

The follow is quoted from a post @ZOS_RichLambert made a week ago.

There isn't a magic button to fix issues and most of the time things aren't as simple as they may seem.

My point is, besides other factors such as Zos thinking it is a good idea or not, what we may think is easy does not always match reality.

Myrrah · March 2017

i haven't read this whole thread but i think that to avoid the possible headaches over "break ups"-the option should just be to give someone ACTUAL decorating/management privileges as is the case in other games-apparently with no hassle.

as per my usual-edit to extend thought-haha: if someone owns a home and you use crowns, craft stuff, buy achievement furnishings to put in it-you tend to understand that if you "break up" with that person-you are losing what you put in there. The problem would be with thinking you "co-own" it. Or it wouldn't be that hard i would think, for bound items get returned to who they are bound to in that event (say-when decorating privileges are removed)