JamilaRaj wrote: »

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

I draw the line at personal responsibility and individual freedom. Are you free to make your own choice? Yes. And pathetic excuses about personal behavioral self-regulation dysfunctions ("gambling", "addiction", "exploitation", "predatory", etc) do NOT qualify as being unfree. Those excuses indicate that someone is not a real adult, mentally.

And your point is exactly...what? See, if they are not real adults, mentally, then their "pathetic excuses" would be somewhat substantiated, would not they?

SidewalkChalk5 wrote: »

Put away the childish things and stop pining for nanny state authority figures to make rules that control and restrict other people's ability to engage in voluntary exchanges just because you don't like them. Grow up.

But gambling is legal, assuming rules (which are not entirely stupid btw) are followed. People who do not like pachinko parlours mostly do not go there, and if you want to go there, you are free to do so, because like or not like, they simply do not give a !@#$% about you. Pople do _push back_ against gambling if they are not interested, do not go to pachinko parlours, but end up in one anyway, because it was intentionally built around them without them having any say in it.

If they aren't "real" adults mentally, then why is their care taker not monitoring their online activities, or financial purchases? Why would that responsibility fall on ZOS, who has nothing to do with that person outside of them being a customer, and has no control over what said person buys and doesn't buy?

JamilaRaj wrote: »

A strange discrepancy, is not it? I am afraid only SidewalkChalk5 can clarify, as it is his idea.

As for responsibility, though, if it is gambling, then as I read it, it falls on ZOS simply because the law says so. For example, that it can not allow minors (17-) to partake. Neither can it allow those whose age can not be verified to partake. It must enable players to set limits (that can not be unset instantly) for themselves. And so on. Videogambling companies are not circumventing gambling laws just for the lulz.

"If it is gambling...." yes... IF it is gambling. So we must first proof that this is gambling, THEN we can apply any rules about gambling to this. So let's see if it meets the qualifications of "gambling".

1.) The house can win OR the person gambling can win.

2.) You risk something with monetary value to potentially win something of equal or greater monetary value.

3.) Monetary value could be paper currency, or something with a real world value, but CAN'T be things you do not yet have such as life insurance, or future earnings or a planned purchase of something - basically if I win, I can immediately go and pay my rent with my winnings, and if the house wins they can immediately take what I bet and do the same.

So let's see how loot boxes stack up here:

1.) Hm well....the player pays XX amount for a crate, and gets an item. So they are guaranteed to get an item per crate, actually it's usually 4 items sometimes 5. So the house can't really "clean" the player out where they open a crate and they might get ZERO items, and the player can't really clean the house where they open a crate and the player gets 20 items....so this does not fit.

2.) Buzzwords here "risk" and "monetary value". So the money you use to buy a crate has monetary value...but the crate itself does not. Nor do the items your account is granted access to when you open the crate do not. I can't pay my rent with a gem mount. I am also not "risking" anything, because the house can't take my money and give me nothing, and I can't take the house for $300 worth of stuff with only one crate opened. Hmm...so this doesn't quite fit either.

3.) You can gamble with money, bitcoin, a rolex watch, a vehicle's pink slip, a boat or house, a BBQ grill, etc. Those are things with inherit real world value. I can go pawn any of those things, sell any of those things, trade any of those things and get money in return, or pay something off with them. You can't sell your ESO account full of GEM items according to ZOS's TOS, and I doubt any landlord is going to take your ESO account as form of payment for your rent. I know banks won't take it as a valid form of currency if you were to try and pay a mortgage with you. So it fails here too, hm.

So essentially you can't "gamble" in the eyes of the law unless it is something that holds a monetary value in the real world, and gambling in itself requires the house to be able to win everything, or the player to win everything. Loot crates, cases, loot boxes, ESO do not fit that requirement.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

A strange discrepancy, is not it? I am afraid only SidewalkChalk5 can clarify, as it is his idea.

As for responsibility, though, if it is gambling, then as I read it, it falls on ZOS simply because the law says so. For example, that it can not allow minors (17-) to partake. Neither can it allow those whose age can not be verified to partake. It must enable players to set limits (that can not be unset instantly) for themselves. And so on. Videogambling companies are not circumventing gambling laws just for the lulz.

"If it is gambling...." yes... IF it is gambling. So we must first proof that this is gambling, THEN we can apply any rules about gambling to this. So let's see if it meets the qualifications of "gambling".

1.) The house can win OR the person gambling can win.

2.) You risk something with monetary value to potentially win something of equal or greater monetary value.

3.) Monetary value could be paper currency, or something with a real world value, but CAN'T be things you do not yet have such as life insurance, or future earnings or a planned purchase of something - basically if I win, I can immediately go and pay my rent with my winnings, and if the house wins they can immediately take what I bet and do the same.

So let's see how loot boxes stack up here:

1.) Hm well....the player pays XX amount for a crate, and gets an item. So they are guaranteed to get an item per crate, actually it's usually 4 items sometimes 5. So the house can't really "clean" the player out where they open a crate and they might get ZERO items, and the player can't really clean the house where they open a crate and the player gets 20 items....so this does not fit.

2.) Buzzwords here "risk" and "monetary value". So the money you use to buy a crate has monetary value...but the crate itself does not. Nor do the items your account is granted access to when you open the crate do not. I can't pay my rent with a gem mount. I am also not "risking" anything, because the house can't take my money and give me nothing, and I can't take the house for $300 worth of stuff with only one crate opened. Hmm...so this doesn't quite fit either.

3.) You can gamble with money, bitcoin, a rolex watch, a vehicle's pink slip, a boat or house, a BBQ grill, etc. Those are things with inherit real world value. I can go pawn any of those things, sell any of those things, trade any of those things and get money in return, or pay something off with them. You can't sell your ESO account full of GEM items according to ZOS's TOS, and I doubt any landlord is going to take your ESO account as form of payment for your rent. I know banks won't take it as a valid form of currency if you were to try and pay a mortgage with you. So it fails here too, hm.

So essentially you can't "gamble" in the eyes of the law unless it is something that holds a monetary value in the real world, and gambling in itself requires the house to be able to win everything, or the player to win everything. Loot crates, cases, loot boxes, ESO do not fit that requirement.

Technically, under most current laws, most loot boxes arent gambling. This is precisely why there's a substantial push to change laws and expand the legal terminology to allow for better regulation of loot boxes...


Its pretty simple. Loot boxes aren't technically gambling, yet. With public pressure mounting, the writing was on the wall for gaming companies: self-regulate, or wait and watch the legislatures do it for you.

Its working too. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are all starting to bow to the pressure and soon start self-regulating loot boxes, requiring games on their platforms to release their odds, just like actual lotteries are required to do. If consumers keep up the pressure, there will probably be more protections to come, especially in games that focus on minors.

I'm not sure how much of an impact that will have on ESO and Crown Crates, since ESO isn't marketed to minors, but I'll be delighted to finally get some official odds on these Crown Crates!

Yep, it's not gambling. I also don't really focus on the odds, I just assume I will need AT LEAST X amount of crates to get X amount of gems. Like last night, bought a bunch of crowns thinking I would need 60 crates for the new crate mounts, ended up getting 2 mount drops, and like 500 gems, so I got more than I estimated. But I planned on spending that when I started.

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

A strange discrepancy, is not it? I am afraid only SidewalkChalk5 can clarify, as it is his idea.

As for responsibility, though, if it is gambling, then as I read it, it falls on ZOS simply because the law says so. For example, that it can not allow minors (17-) to partake. Neither can it allow those whose age can not be verified to partake. It must enable players to set limits (that can not be unset instantly) for themselves. And so on. Videogambling companies are not circumventing gambling laws just for the lulz.

"If it is gambling...." yes... IF it is gambling. So we must first proof that this is gambling, THEN we can apply any rules about gambling to this. So let's see if it meets the qualifications of "gambling".

1.) The house can win OR the person gambling can win.

2.) You risk something with monetary value to potentially win something of equal or greater monetary value.

3.) Monetary value could be paper currency, or something with a real world value, but CAN'T be things you do not yet have such as life insurance, or future earnings or a planned purchase of something - basically if I win, I can immediately go and pay my rent with my winnings, and if the house wins they can immediately take what I bet and do the same.

So let's see how loot boxes stack up here:

1.) Hm well....the player pays XX amount for a crate, and gets an item. So they are guaranteed to get an item per crate, actually it's usually 4 items sometimes 5. So the house can't really "clean" the player out where they open a crate and they might get ZERO items, and the player can't really clean the house where they open a crate and the player gets 20 items....so this does not fit.

2.) Buzzwords here "risk" and "monetary value". So the money you use to buy a crate has monetary value...but the crate itself does not. Nor do the items your account is granted access to when you open the crate do not. I can't pay my rent with a gem mount. I am also not "risking" anything, because the house can't take my money and give me nothing, and I can't take the house for $300 worth of stuff with only one crate opened. Hmm...so this doesn't quite fit either.

3.) You can gamble with money, bitcoin, a rolex watch, a vehicle's pink slip, a boat or house, a BBQ grill, etc. Those are things with inherit real world value. I can go pawn any of those things, sell any of those things, trade any of those things and get money in return, or pay something off with them. You can't sell your ESO account full of GEM items according to ZOS's TOS, and I doubt any landlord is going to take your ESO account as form of payment for your rent. I know banks won't take it as a valid form of currency if you were to try and pay a mortgage with you. So it fails here too, hm.

So essentially you can't "gamble" in the eyes of the law unless it is something that holds a monetary value in the real world, and gambling in itself requires the house to be able to win everything, or the player to win everything. Loot crates, cases, loot boxes, ESO do not fit that requirement.

That depends. For example, the law in effect where I am from seems to avoid "monetary value" and makes no such povisions. The closest it gets to it is that it forbids non-monetary bets (forbids, not that making such bets render it not gambling).
Generally speaking, there are multiple different laws, because players are from multiple countries/states, and the Monetary Value Defense will not fly everywhere. It is cute though and worth playing everywhere regardless, to mud waters.

But what matters isn't whether people think something is, or isn't gambling in their eyes. It is whether the Law defines something as gambling, or not.

I think it went far deeper then just crown crates. Throughout the years ZoS is putting more and more things into the crown store that could easily be also added into the game as a features rewarding people for playing the game. Lot of those features requires dozens of hours of in-game time.

For example people were asking for a long time for ability to unlock certain skill lines like mages guild or undaunted guild for new characters after You'll max it out on certain amount of already created characters. ZoS did that but only with option to pay real money for that. And I like how sneaky their explanation was. "You still need to unlock it on 1 character so there is no reason for people who already unlocked it to complain. It's not free unlock You still need to spend some ingame time on that" they said. Well the thing is if Zos would add option to buy it right away in crown store without even unlocking it in the game or to unlock it on all future characters just by maxing it out on 1-2 characters in the game through normal methods nobody would complain either. But I think we all know why they've choosen the way it currently works. It simply gives them more money and they dont care that much about time and fun of people who choose to use regular methods to unlock stuff. They care about the whales and they design certain aspects of the game game around them.

Craft bag is something that could be added as an in-game feature but no they've decided it'll be obtainable only through ESO+and funnily enough now fallout 1st subscription will offer something very close to craft bag and excatly the same amount of ingame currency. It almost looks like we have so many materials that stacks only up to 200 because ZoS wanted for craft bag to be solution to that issue. Leveling up a mount is another example where 1 large spending will save You lot of trouble.

From the perspective of years it starts to look like ZoS is making certain aspects of the game grindy , boring and time consuming only to later on monetize on easy ways to bypass that. So we're actually getting boring and grindy elements of gameplay that take dozes or hundereds of hours to accomplish only because ZoS wants to monetize bypassing them. I wouldnt be suprised if they would develop ESO with having in mind they'll later on monetize certain activities so they developed them to be obstacles rather then adventures since day 1.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

But what matters isn't whether people think something is, or isn't gambling in their eyes. It is whether the Law defines something as gambling, or not.

When it's proven science that gamble crates in video games work the same on human psychology as any other form of gambling... it's gambling. Predatory video game companies are taking advantage of limited wording of the law to exploit people, full stop. They are ignoring the spirit of the law and hanging themselves on a technicality for profit and it's disgusting. It won't continue for much longer as regulation is already stepping in on this around the world. As well it should. Because gamble crates are gambling.

It doesn't matter if they "work the same". It's not ZOS job to baby sit grown adults, and only what the law says matters.

Actually, it does matter, because that's why there's a substantial push to have those laws changed and updated to better reflect the ways that loot box monetization is basically using the same practices and techniques as gambling, which got gambling heavily regulated in the first place.

Sure, you can say "Loot boxes legally aren't gambling" and be correct.
In most countries.
For now.
That debate is far from over as long as video game companies continue to aggressively monetize their games using loot boxes.

Its not all morality or "babysitting" either.

The fact that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo soon are expecting their game companies to release loot boxes odds is pretty much the opposite of babysitting. Its driven by demands that businesses should be transparent and customers should have the data they need to make informed decisions. This is one aspect that will impact ZOS and Crown Crates on PS4 and Xbox. The reason for that? Bad PR over loot boxes and their similarity to gambling drew lawmaker attention, and the major console providers decided to start some level of self-regulation in defense.

Current laws are only one part of this debate. They definitely are not the final word.

So call me WHEN those laws change...in the mean time, it does not matter. If you can't police yourself to manage your own personal budget, that's your problem, no one else's.

The gaming industry is already changing in response, as I've pointed out, regardless of what the laws say right now.

And I specifically pointed out several ways its not about "managing one's personal budget."

Releasing loot box odds, the first step the major console providers are taking to self-regulate is about transparency and business ethics. Its about making sure businesses aren't fudging the odds in their favor or misleading customers. Its about making sure customers have accurate info so they can make informed decisions about how to "manage one's personal budget." ESO's Crown Crates have been pretty bad in that department, relying on player-recorded odds instead of official ones.

That's not changing because game companies had a crisis of conscience. It's happening because players are pushing back and generating legal cases and legislative interest in changing laws, and the game companies want to try to get in ahead and do the minimum self-regulation necessary. Those are the players for whom "manage my personal budget" also includes "tell companies and lawmakers I don't appreciate being screwed by unethical, misleading, or customer-unfriendly business practices."

I didn't say "call me when it's in the process of change..." I said "call me when it is signed into US Law".

JamilaRaj wrote: »

A strange discrepancy, is not it? I am afraid only SidewalkChalk5 can clarify, as it is his idea.

As for responsibility, though, if it is gambling, then as I read it, it falls on ZOS simply because the law says so. For example, that it can not allow minors (17-) to partake. Neither can it allow those whose age can not be verified to partake. It must enable players to set limits (that can not be unset instantly) for themselves. And so on. Videogambling companies are not circumventing gambling laws just for the lulz.

And it is not gambling as the laws in most countries define it. That knocks the if part right out of the park and destroys the entire premise. It was a weak argument to begin with since multiple legislators have looked at the crates and if it was in violation of the laws official action would have been taken.

This is why arm chair attorneys are not real attorneys.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

But what matters isn't whether people think something is, or isn't gambling in their eyes. It is whether the Law defines something as gambling, or not.

When it's proven science that gamble crates in video games work the same on human psychology as any other form of gambling... it's gambling. Predatory video game companies are taking advantage of limited wording of the law to exploit people, full stop. They are ignoring the spirit of the law and hanging themselves on a technicality for profit and it's disgusting. It won't continue for much longer as regulation is already stepping in on this around the world. As well it should. Because gamble crates are gambling.

It doesn't matter if they "work the same". It's not ZOS job to baby sit grown adults, and only what the law says matters.

Actually, it does matter, because that's why there's a substantial push to have those laws changed and updated to betpolicies.t the ways that loot box monetization is basically using the same practices and techniques as gambling, which got gambling heavily regulated in the first place.

Sure, you can say "Loot boxes legally aren't gambling" and be correct.
In most countries.
For now.
That debate is far from over as long as video game companies continue to aggressively monetize their games using loot boxes.

Its not all morality or "babysitting" either.

The fact that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo soon are expecting their game companies to release loot boxes odds is pretty much the opposite of babysitting. Its driven by demands that businesses should be transparent and customers should have the data they need to make informed decisions. This is one aspect that will impact ZOS and Crown Crates on PS4 and Xbox. The reason for that? Bad PR over loot boxes and their similarity to gambling drew lawmaker attention, and the major console providers decided to start some level of self-regulation in defense.

Current laws are only one part of this debate. They definitely are not the final word.

So call me WHEN those laws change...in the mean time, it does not matter. If you can't police yourself to manage your own personal budget, that's your problem, no one else's.

The gaming industry is already changing in response, as I've pointed out, regardless of what the laws say right now.

And I specifically pointed out several ways its not about "managing one's personal budget."

Releasing loot box odds, the first step the major console providers are taking to self-regulate is about transparency and business ethics. Its about making sure businesses aren't fudging the odds in their favor or misleading customers. Its about making sure customers have accurate info so they can make informed decisions about how to "manage one's personal budget." ESO's Crown Crates have been pretty bad in that department, relying on player-recorded odds instead of official ones.

That's not changing because game companies had a crisis of conscience. It's happening because players are pushing back and generating legal cases and legislative interest in changing laws, and the game companies want to try to get in ahead and do the minimum self-regulation necessary. Those are the players for whom "manage my personal budget" also includes "tell companies and lawmakers I don't appreciate being screwed by unethical, misleading, or customer-unfriendly business practices."

I didn't say "call me when it's in the process of change..." I said "call me when it is signed into US Law".

Yeah, I get that you want the current legal discussion to be the end of this debate. Its a very cut and dried, technically correct point to rest on.

The point I've been making is that it's more complicated than that. In fact, if we're lucky, the laws won't have to change because the gaming companies will have self-regulated in response to public pressure first.

Laws are the final say on what's legal right now. The current laws aren't the final say in the debate over loot boxes, and gaming companies know it.

If you don't want to debate further, that's totally fine. I just don't find "its currently legal" to be a very strong point when major gaming companies are making it clear they know they can't shelter their current loot box practices forever under the auspices of "its currently legal." Even gaming companies know that's a losing proposition and they are changing accordingly.

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

But what matters isn't whether people think something is, or isn't gambling in their eyes. It is whether the Law defines something as gambling, or not.

When it's proven science that gamble crates in video games work the same on human psychology as any other form of gambling... it's gambling. Predatory video game companies are taking advantage of limited wording of the law to exploit people, full stop. They are ignoring the spirit of the law and hanging themselves on a technicality for profit and it's disgusting. It won't continue for much longer as regulation is already stepping in on this around the world. As well it should. Because gamble crates are gambling.

It doesn't matter if they "work the same". It's not ZOS job to baby sit grown adults, and only what the law says matters.

Actually, it does matter, because that's why there's a substantial push to have those laws changed and updated to better reflect the ways that loot box monetization is basically using the same practices and techniques as gambling, which got gambling heavily regulated in the first place.

Sure, you can say "Loot boxes legally aren't gambling" and be correct.
In most countries.
For now.
That debate is far from over as long as video game companies continue to aggressively monetize their games using loot boxes.

Its not all morality or "babysitting" either.

The fact that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo soon are expecting their game companies to release loot boxes odds is pretty much the opposite of babysitting. Its driven by demands that businesses should be transparent and customers should have the data they need to make informed decisions. This is one aspect that will impact ZOS and Crown Crates on PS4 and Xbox. The reason for that? Bad PR over loot boxes and their similarity to gambling drew lawmaker attention, and the major console providers decided to start some level of self-regulation in defense.

Current laws are only one part of this debate. They definitely are not the final word.

So call me WHEN those laws change...in the mean time, it does not matter. If you can't police yourself to manage your own personal budget, that's your problem, no one else's.

The gaming industry is already changing in response, as I've pointed out, regardless of what the laws say right now.

And I specifically pointed out several ways its not about "managing one's personal budget."

Releasing loot box odds, the first step the major console providers are taking to self-regulate is about transparency and business ethics. Its about making sure businesses aren't fudging the odds in their favor or misleading customers. Its about making sure customers have accurate info so they can make informed decisions about how to "manage one's personal budget." ESO's Crown Crates have been pretty bad in that department, relying on player-recorded odds instead of official ones.

That's not changing because game companies had a crisis of conscience. It's happening because players are pushing back and generating legal cases and legislative interest in changing laws, and the game companies want to try to get in ahead and do the minimum self-regulation necessary. Those are the players for whom "manage my personal budget" also includes "tell companies and lawmakers I don't appreciate being screwed by unethical, misleading, or customer-unfriendly business practices."

I didn't say "call me when it's in the process of change..." I said "call me when it is signed into US Law".

I get that you want to rely on the legal definitions to say whether loot boxes are okay or not.

Personally, I think that's a weak reed, when the major gaming companies know full well that they can't shelter their current loot box practices behind the auspices of "its not technically legally gambling yet" forever, and are changing accordingly.

Laws are the final say on what's legal right now. Current legal definitions aren't the final say in the loot box debate, and gaming companies know it.

Yeah because I don't live my life based on other people's personal definitions on something, only what the law of the land defines it to be. And you can feel how you want about it, that's up to you, and you don't have to like something or like when someone else feels differently about it.

But again, I don't live my life based on the constructs you put before me, how you "feel" about something is your business, and absolutely none of mine.

Heh, sorry in rereading your response, I realized I completely messed up my drafting on my previous post! The second response was the actual draft I intended to post and I thought I'd deleted the first part. My bad!

In any case, I feel like we're partially arguing the same thing. We both agree that by current legal definitions, loot boxes arent gambling and aren't subject to regulation.

Where we disagree, as far as I can tell, is that current legal definitions are the end of the discussion.

They aren't, and the point I'm making is that that's not just how I personally feel. One person either way doesnt matter. What does matter is that its also the gaming companies who have serious money at stake who "feel" that way. They know the current "law of the land" is not the end of the matter if loot boxes continue down their current course and are self-regulating accordingly.

I don't really expect that to change your life or spending habits. You do what you want there. You've got the right to buy as many loot boxes as you deem responsible for your budget (or irresponsible for that matter, no one is stopping you ) And hey, at least you and I will be able to calculate our odds for console Crown Crates using the official odds in 2020 if we want, thanks to the gaming industry taking action to self-regulate in response to pressure from players, legislators, and regulatory bodies like the FTC. That's a step in the right direction!

It's not irresponsible when I only spend less than 2% of what I make. And even if I dumped 98% of what I made into them, it's not your job to babysit me or watch over my finances for me...that's my job.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

But what matters isn't whether people think something is, or isn't gambling in their eyes. It is whether the Law defines something as gambling, or not.

When it's proven science that gamble crates in video games work the same on human psychology as any other form of gambling... it's gambling. Predatory video game companies are taking advantage of limited wording of the law to exploit people, full stop. They are ignoring the spirit of the law and hanging themselves on a technicality for profit and it's disgusting. It won't continue for much longer as regulation is already stepping in on this around the world. As well it should. Because gamble crates are gambling.

It doesn't matter if they "work the same". It's not ZOS job to baby sit grown adults, and only what the law says matters.

Actually, it does matter, because that's why there's a substantial push to have those laws changed and updated to betpolicies.t the ways that loot box monetization is basically using the same practices and techniques as gambling, which got gambling heavily regulated in the first place.

Sure, you can say "Loot boxes legally aren't gambling" and be correct.
In most countries.
For now.
That debate is far from over as long as video game companies continue to aggressively monetize their games using loot boxes.

Its not all morality or "babysitting" either.

The fact that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo soon are expecting their game companies to release loot boxes odds is pretty much the opposite of babysitting. Its driven by demands that businesses should be transparent and customers should have the data they need to make informed decisions. This is one aspect that will impact ZOS and Crown Crates on PS4 and Xbox. The reason for that? Bad PR over loot boxes and their similarity to gambling drew lawmaker attention, and the major console providers decided to start some level of self-regulation in defense.

Current laws are only one part of this debate. They definitely are not the final word.

So call me WHEN those laws change...in the mean time, it does not matter. If you can't police yourself to manage your own personal budget, that's your problem, no one else's.

The gaming industry is already changing in response, as I've pointed out, regardless of what the laws say right now.

And I specifically pointed out several ways its not about "managing one's personal budget."

Releasing loot box odds, the first step the major console providers are taking to self-regulate is about transparency and business ethics. Its about making sure businesses aren't fudging the odds in their favor or misleading customers. Its about making sure customers have accurate info so they can make informed decisions about how to "manage one's personal budget." ESO's Crown Crates have been pretty bad in that department, relying on player-recorded odds instead of official ones.

That's not changing because game companies had a crisis of conscience. It's happening because players are pushing back and generating legal cases and legislative interest in changing laws, and the game companies want to try to get in ahead and do the minimum self-regulation necessary. Those are the players for whom "manage my personal budget" also includes "tell companies and lawmakers I don't appreciate being screwed by unethical, misleading, or customer-unfriendly business practices."

I didn't say "call me when it's in the process of change..." I said "call me when it is signed into US Law".

Yeah, I get that you want the current legal discussion to be the end of this debate. Its a very cut and dried, technically correct point to rest on.

The point I've been making is that it's more complicated than that. In fact, if we're lucky, the laws won't have to change because the gaming companies will have self-regulated in response to public pressure first.

Laws are the final say on what's legal right now. The current laws aren't the final say in the debate over loot boxes, and gaming companies know it.

If you don't want to debate further, that's totally fine. I just don't find "its currently legal" to be a very strong point when major gaming companies are making it clear they know they can't shelter their current loot box practices forever under the auspices of "its currently legal." Even gaming companies know that's a losing proposition and they are changing accordingly.

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

Goregrinder wrote: »

But what matters isn't whether people think something is, or isn't gambling in their eyes. It is whether the Law defines something as gambling, or not.

When it's proven science that gamble crates in video games work the same on human psychology as any other form of gambling... it's gambling. Predatory video game companies are taking advantage of limited wording of the law to exploit people, full stop. They are ignoring the spirit of the law and hanging themselves on a technicality for profit and it's disgusting. It won't continue for much longer as regulation is already stepping in on this around the world. As well it should. Because gamble crates are gambling.

It doesn't matter if they "work the same". It's not ZOS job to baby sit grown adults, and only what the law says matters.

Actually, it does matter, because that's why there's a substantial push to have those laws changed and updated to better reflect the ways that loot box monetization is basically using the same practices and techniques as gambling, which got gambling heavily regulated in the first place.

Sure, you can say "Loot boxes legally aren't gambling" and be correct.
In most countries.
For now.
That debate is far from over as long as video game companies continue to aggressively monetize their games using loot boxes.

Its not all morality or "babysitting" either.

The fact that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo soon are expecting their game companies to release loot boxes odds is pretty much the opposite of babysitting. Its driven by demands that businesses should be transparent and customers should have the data they need to make informed decisions. This is one aspect that will impact ZOS and Crown Crates on PS4 and Xbox. The reason for that? Bad PR over loot boxes and their similarity to gambling drew lawmaker attention, and the major console providers decided to start some level of self-regulation in defense.

Current laws are only one part of this debate. They definitely are not the final word.

So call me WHEN those laws change...in the mean time, it does not matter. If you can't police yourself to manage your own personal budget, that's your problem, no one else's.

The gaming industry is already changing in response, as I've pointed out, regardless of what the laws say right now.

And I specifically pointed out several ways its not about "managing one's personal budget."

Releasing loot box odds, the first step the major console providers are taking to self-regulate is about transparency and business ethics. Its about making sure businesses aren't fudging the odds in their favor or misleading customers. Its about making sure customers have accurate info so they can make informed decisions about how to "manage one's personal budget." ESO's Crown Crates have been pretty bad in that department, relying on player-recorded odds instead of official ones.

That's not changing because game companies had a crisis of conscience. It's happening because players are pushing back and generating legal cases and legislative interest in changing laws, and the game companies want to try to get in ahead and do the minimum self-regulation necessary. Those are the players for whom "manage my personal budget" also includes "tell companies and lawmakers I don't appreciate being screwed by unethical, misleading, or customer-unfriendly business practices."

I didn't say "call me when it's in the process of change..." I said "call me when it is signed into US Law".

I get that you want to rely on the legal definitions to say whether loot boxes are okay or not.

Personally, I think that's a weak reed, when the major gaming companies know full well that they can't shelter their current loot box practices behind the auspices of "its not technically legally gambling yet" forever, and are changing accordingly.

Laws are the final say on what's legal right now. Current legal definitions aren't the final say in the loot box debate, and gaming companies know it.

Yeah because I don't live my life based on other people's personal definitions on something, only what the law of the land defines it to be. And you can feel how you want about it, that's up to you, and you don't have to like something or like when someone else feels differently about it.

But again, I don't live my life based on the constructs you put before me, how you "feel" about something is your business, and absolutely none of mine.

Heh, sorry in rereading your response, I realized I completely messed up my drafting on my previous post! The second response was the actual draft I intended to post and I thought I'd deleted the first part. My bad!

In any case, I feel like we're partially arguing the same thing. We both agree that by current legal definitions, loot boxes arent gambling and aren't subject to regulation.

Where we disagree, as far as I can tell, is that current legal definitions are the end of the discussion.

They aren't, and the point I'm making is that that's not just how I personally feel. One person either way doesnt matter. What does matter is that its also the gaming companies who have serious money at stake who "feel" that way. They know the current "law of the land" is not the end of the matter if loot boxes continue down their current course and are self-regulating accordingly.

I don't really expect that to change your life or spending habits. You do what you want there. You've got the right to buy as many loot boxes as you deem responsible for your budget (or irresponsible for that matter, no one is stopping you ) And hey, at least you and I will be able to calculate our odds for console Crown Crates using the official odds in 2020 if we want, thanks to the gaming industry taking action to self-regulate in response to pressure from players, legislators, and regulatory bodies like the FTC. That's a step in the right direction!

It's not irresponsible when I only spend less than 2% of what I make. And even if I dumped 98% of what I made into them, it's not your job to babysit me or watch over my finances for me...that's my job.

Apparently, I wasnt clear enough. Unless you pay me to be your accountant, I don't care what you spend on anything, much less Crown Crates. Your fiscal responsibility or irresponsibility is on you.

But hey, at least we all get to be better informed customers about the official odds of Crown Crates soon! That benefits everyone, whether knowing the odds influences your decisions or not.

Yes, we agree that no one else including ZOS should be responsible for you, or my financial successes or failures.