Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
We are currently investigating connection issues some players are having on the European megaservers. We will update as new information becomes available.
FOMO Marketing and EU Laws
-
Idinuse✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭PeacefulAnarchy wrote: »
"Only" be available for a certain time frame means it is removed from sale after that time. It does not prevent it from returning from sale after that date. There might be discussion about false advertising if it returned the following week, but nothing returns on sale for at least several months.To claim that something will "only" be available during a certain time frame, when in fact a company has made that claim about many of their other products and it has later turned out to have been false claims, surely you can see how that's false advertisement.
Also, their promotions don't use the word only.
Stop.
Indeed. In fact the "only" is redundant here [snip]. Limited time would be sufficient since it isn't available outside the limited time offer. I can see that ZOS argues that the item is only offered during limited times, but as you showed in your examples, the EU law does not necessarily share that interpretation.
[edited for bashing]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:21PMSed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium dolorem que laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?3 -
belial5221_ESO✭✭✭✭✭Seeing you can't get the exact items from other companies or sellers to bring into ESO,the rule does not apply,since no means to compare with other sales.It does not state anything about sale may happen again or not,seeing sales happen all the time with items if they get more stock later. It might be different if the items were time limited, but you can get them for gold,or in random drops from playing the game,and they put limited time for an hour or day,then they should state it is availiable other ways. Otherwise the law would not affect the way ESO is doing it for now.1 -
Bouldercleave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭PeacefulAnarchy wrote: »
"Only" be available for a certain time frame means it is removed from sale after that time. It does not prevent it from returning from sale after that date. There might be discussion about false advertising if it returned the following week, but nothing returns on sale for at least several months.To claim that something will "only" be available during a certain time frame, when in fact a company has made that claim about many of their other products and it has later turned out to have been false claims, surely you can see how that's false advertisement.
Also, their promotions don't use the word only.
Stop.
And their statement is 100% true. It is available for a limited time only and then will not be available for quite some time if at all.
It never states that it will never return for sale, just that your time to purchase it this time around is limited before it goes away for a while.
It is in no way false advertising - either here in the U.S nor in the EU.8 -
kargen27✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The second paragraph of that linked page is the cornerstone of the issue they are discussing. I have provided it below.When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision.
It would seem that Zenimax is providing enough accurate information as they are providing a price and how long it will be available for purchase. We also have the ability to preview most items. I do not see anything misleading of actual items for sale nor is Zenimax demonstrating aggressive behavior or any of the other items presented in that link.
Since I expect Zenimax has a number of attorneys on retainer for consultations on such matters rather than getting their legal advice from the gaming forums.
[snip]
Marketers continually suggesting specific items will be exclusively available during a limited time, only to repeatedly prove themselves wrong on the claims by offering the same items again at later points in time, is a FOMO marketing ploy to its very core. I as a consumer of ZOS's products would like to voice my opinion that I'd rather see they didn't do that, because I find it to be rather distasteful - it's literally designed to be manipulative, and it inadvertently affects people of a certain psychological inclination negatively. I'd much rather they didn't make such claims only to prove themselves wrong on them over and over.
Advertising language can be tricky. For instance "best" means as good as and "better" means best. Limited time does not imply only time. For that you would need "one time offer" or something similar. Disney right before DVDs became popular ran an advertising campaign telling people to hurry and get the VHS of many Disney classic animations. They stated in the ads this is the last time (title of movie) will be available in this format don't miss out. Underhanded probably as at that time most people didn't know DVDs were right around the corner.
Much like politics in advertising words really matter. Limited time means just that. Doesn't mean the item will not be made available later. If they throw in limited time offer that could mean limited in the time it is available, the price it is available or any number of other things.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:22PMand then the parrot said, "must be the water mines green too."1 -
Idinuse✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭The second paragraph of that linked page is the cornerstone of the issue they are discussing. I have provided it below.When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision.
It would seem that Zenimax is providing enough accurate information as they are providing a price and how long it will be available for purchase. We also have the ability to preview most items. I do not see anything misleading of actual items for sale nor is Zenimax demonstrating aggressive behavior or any of the other items presented in that link.
Since I expect Zenimax has a number of attorneys on retainer for consultations on such matters rather than getting their legal advice from the gaming forums.
I, on the other hand, would argue that the wording in using the redundant only in the way ZOS advertises the offer in the example like this, is meant to invoke a sense that the offer is only available now and only now. By dropping the word only, the offer would be more in line with truth, even though as I mentioned earlier, it could be argued that the sentence is meant to mean "only available during a limited time". [snip]
[edited for bashing]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:23PMSed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium dolorem que laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?0 -
khyrkat✭✭✭✭[snip] Quote:
"If you don’t own Elsweyr or Dragonhold, you can acquire both from the in-game Crown Store during the event period, with 50% off the Elsweyr DLC (and 50% off the Elsweyr Collector’s Pack!) as well as the new addition of the Season of the Dragon mega-pack, which includes the Dragonhold, Wrathstone, and Scalebreaker DLCs. "
They forgot to INFORM customers that they can also access that content by subscribing to ESO+ - and this should obviously be further explained that content will be available only for the time ESO+ is active. Honestly, this is what I call aggressive policy towards customers[snip]. As long as naiive people vote "yes" to such techniques by giving money to such companies, these techniques will be present.
Regarding "limited time offer" bs (and in fact any other bs when anyone says "buy now, you have to have it" etc) - I am lucky to be resistant to any form of marketing, I like to decide what I buy and when I buy it, thank you very much. The more the company is trying to convince me to buy their stuff, the more I am likely not to do it. [snip]
I agree also with what has been already said - people would likely spend more if these shiny pixels ZOS sells were available all the time. [snip]
[edited for bashing]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:26PM1 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The second paragraph of that linked page is the cornerstone of the issue they are discussing. I have provided it below.When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision.
It would seem that Zenimax is providing enough accurate information as they are providing a price and how long it will be available for purchase. We also have the ability to preview most items. I do not see anything misleading of actual items for sale nor is Zenimax demonstrating aggressive behavior or any of the other items presented in that link.
Since I expect Zenimax has a number of attorneys on retainer for consultations on such matters rather than getting their legal advice from the gaming forums.
I, on the other hand, would argue that the wording in using the redundant only in the way ZOS advertises the offer in the example like this, is meant to invoke a sense that the offer is only available now and only now. By dropping the word only, the offer would be more in line with truth, even though as I mentioned earlier, it could be argued that the sentence is meant to mean "only available during a limited time". [snip]
I respect that we all developed our own opinions. However, I expect Zenimax will likely continue to rely on their attorneys educated in jurisprudence to guide them through such matters. My disagreement with the interpretation of that law does not matter as there are appropriate avenues to deal with such discrepancies.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:27PM0 -
what_the✭✭✭
Well, depending on which crown pack you buy, you are getting a better deal at just buying the expansion at the sale price (and having it permanently), than just subscribing to ESO+ for the month if you wanted to partake in the event.[snip] Quote:
"If you don’t own Elsweyr or Dragonhold, you can acquire both from the in-game Crown Store during the event period, with 50% off the Elsweyr DLC (and 50% off the Elsweyr Collector’s Pack!) as well as the new addition of the Season of the Dragon mega-pack, which includes the Dragonhold, Wrathstone, and Scalebreaker DLCs. "
They forgot to INFORM customers that they can also access that content by subscribing to ESO+ - and this should obviously be further explained that content will be available only for the time ESO+ is active. Honestly, this is what I call aggressive policy towards customers[snip]. As long as naiive people vote "yes" to such techniques by giving money to such companies, these techniques will be present.
So what they advertise is actually the best deal.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:28PM1 -
khyrkat✭✭✭✭
Well, depending on which crown pack you buy, you are getting a better deal at just buying the expansion at the sale price (and having it permanently), than just subscribing to ESO+ for the month if you wanted to partake in the event.[snip] Quote:
"If you don’t own Elsweyr or Dragonhold, you can acquire both from the in-game Crown Store during the event period, with 50% off the Elsweyr DLC (and 50% off the Elsweyr Collector’s Pack!) as well as the new addition of the Season of the Dragon mega-pack, which includes the Dragonhold, Wrathstone, and Scalebreaker DLCs. "
They forgot to INFORM customers that they can also access that content by subscribing to ESO+ - and this should obviously be further explained that content will be available only for the time ESO+ is active. Honestly, this is what I call aggressive policy towards customers[snip]. As long as naiive people vote "yes" to such techniques by giving money to such companies, these techniques will be present.
So what they advertise is actually the best deal.
Still, there is missing information so customer can make their own decision.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:30PM0 -
starkerealm✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Well, depending on which crown pack you buy, you are getting a better deal at just buying the expansion at the sale price (and having it permanently), than just subscribing to ESO+ for the month if you wanted to partake in the event.[snip] Quote:
"If you don’t own Elsweyr or Dragonhold, you can acquire both from the in-game Crown Store during the event period, with 50% off the Elsweyr DLC (and 50% off the Elsweyr Collector’s Pack!) as well as the new addition of the Season of the Dragon mega-pack, which includes the Dragonhold, Wrathstone, and Scalebreaker DLCs. "
They forgot to INFORM customers that they can also access that content by subscribing to ESO+ - and this should obviously be further explained that content will be available only for the time ESO+ is active. Honestly, this is what I call aggressive policy towards customers[snip]. As long as naiive people vote "yes" to such techniques by giving money to such companies, these techniques will be present.
So what they advertise is actually the best deal.
Still, there is missing information so customer can make their own decision.
Immediately after the paragraph you linked, there is a screenshot and below that it reads:Don’t forget, you can get access to all of the above DLCs with an active ESO Plus™ membership, too!
It's below the fold, but it's still there.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:30PM3 -
Idinuse✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭The second paragraph of that linked page is the cornerstone of the issue they are discussing. I have provided it below.When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision.
It would seem that Zenimax is providing enough accurate information as they are providing a price and how long it will be available for purchase. We also have the ability to preview most items. I do not see anything misleading of actual items for sale nor is Zenimax demonstrating aggressive behavior or any of the other items presented in that link.
Since I expect Zenimax has a number of attorneys on retainer for consultations on such matters rather than getting their legal advice from the gaming forums.
I, on the other hand, would argue that the wording in using the redundant only in the way ZOS advertises the offer in the example like this, is meant to invoke a sense that the offer is only available now and only now. By dropping the word only, the offer would be more in line with truth, even though as I mentioned earlier, it could be argued that the sentence is meant to mean "only available during a limited time". [snip]
I respect that we all developed our own opinions. However, I expect Zenimax will likely continue to rely on their attorneys educated in jurisprudence to guide them through such matters. My disagreement with the interpretation of that law does not matter as there are appropriate avenues to deal with such discrepancies.
I agree with that. However there's no need to theorize about Zenimax's attorneys, which is just speculative. It just feels like reflection, because you yourself have no idea about it, it's just a fair, but still, assumption. You know EU has pretty good attorneys too.
(Basically what I mean, is that no matter how big a wig US Corporations wear in US, it doesn't really matter in EU. Just ask Microsoft and Google for example.)
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 1:31PMSed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium dolorem que laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?0 -
Ippokrates✭✭✭✭✭No, with really unique offers or year/two cycle (like housing), ZOS doesn't breake the law. If ZOS would said: "Only this week limited offer is for housing x" and then repeat it week later, that would be breaking rules of fomo.
However, many practices in mmo looks... well, like taken from some marketing conference in Las Vegas XD
And manipulative & gambling-alike behaviors is something I hate with all my hearth. So whenever I see lootboxes or such limited offer for "old" content - i am talking mainly about housing, my blood is boiling. Well, was boiling... Now I don't care anymore.Edited by Ippokrates on July 19, 2021 1:28PM0 -
Bat✭✭✭✭✭
✭Not going to ever post anything again in this forum[snip]
[edited for discussing disciplinary actions]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 3:05PM1 -
Ippokrates✭✭✭✭✭Not going to ever post anything again in this forum[snip]
Welcome to 2021 in social media, where everything is sanitize, deprive of any emotional context &... utterly boring.
Which in this thread, surrounding legal issues is extremely funny ^^
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on July 19, 2021 3:05PM1 -
rpa✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭If I were to make limited time offers in a game store, I'd list the item for the price I want for a limited time. After that, it gets moved to Out of Season section of store for like +30% price (or +50% or whatever marketing thinks is hefty enough to be effective deterrant for not missing out the offer). So people who miss it or can't afford it at the time can still get it later but have to play the slowpoke tax.
But then I'm not at all expert in monopoly economics and consumer psychology.Edited by rpa on July 20, 2021 6:24AM0 -
Iluvrien✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I tend to feel that these discussions come at this from the wrong perspective.
As players, why is our basis for argument “is the developer doing the minimum legally required” and working up from there?
Surely we should be starting at the top, from “what would make the player happiest?”, and working down.
In the first case people can say “ESO isn’t the worst”. In the second case people could say “ESO could be doing much better”. Please don’t give ZOS a pass on negative practices just because they aren’t the worst that is technically possible.2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭The second paragraph of that linked page is the cornerstone of the issue they are discussing. I have provided it below.When promoting, selling or supplying products, companies must give you enough accurate information to enable you to make an informed buying decision.
It would seem that Zenimax is providing enough accurate information as they are providing a price and how long it will be available for purchase. We also have the ability to preview most items. I do not see anything misleading of actual items for sale nor is Zenimax demonstrating aggressive behavior or any of the other items presented in that link.
Since I expect Zenimax has a number of attorneys on retainer for consultations on such matters rather than getting their legal advice from the gaming forums.
I, on the other hand, would argue that the wording in using the redundant only in the way ZOS advertises the offer in the example like this, is meant to invoke a sense that the offer is only available now and only now. By dropping the word only, the offer would be more in line with truth, even though as I mentioned earlier, it could be argued that the sentence is meant to mean "only available during a limited time". [snip]
I respect that we all developed our own opinions. However, I expect Zenimax will likely continue to rely on their attorneys educated in jurisprudence to guide them through such matters. My disagreement with the interpretation of that law does not matter as there are appropriate avenues to deal with such discrepancies.
I agree with that. However there's no need to theorize about Zenimax's attorneys, which is just speculative. It just feels like reflection, because you yourself have no idea about it, it's just a fair, but still, assumption. You know EU has pretty good attorneys too.
(Basically what I mean, is that no matter how big a wig US Corporations wear in US, it doesn't really matter in EU. Just ask Microsoft and Google for example.)
[edited to remove quote]
Since Zenimax has excluded players in some nations from participating in the sweepstake type giveaways and crates are not sold in some nations such as Belgium because they are banned there is a solid basis for me speculating Zenimax wisely uses experts educated in jurisprudence.
One must wonder why the EU has not taken up this issue with Zenimax. Regardless, all we are doing in this thread is speculating if Zenimax is running afoul of that law or if they are continuing to operate well within the EU's expectations.0 -
tripp✭✭✭Just don't buy it. I don't see the issue. This is literal childlike behavior, "gotta have thing because thing new and shiny and I want shiny NOW". Also, 99% of the limited-time stuff looks just... bad. If the only enticing aspect of these items is their limited availability, then you're immediately going to be hit with buyer's remorse. Like a truck.big, green, buff, but surprisingly not the Hulk2 -
Jaimeh✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Now their system is obvious, at least for their older players, but I'd still appreciate a more transparent advertisizing. I stopped being tempted to buy their limited time items just because they are limited, years ago, when housing prices skyrocketted and it became obvious they forewent with the gold counterpart option. It means I had to wait for some stuff to reappear when I was able to buy them, and that sucks since some house literally take more than 2 years to come back, but I don't want to feel pressured to buy an overpriced digital cosmetic at any moment just because it's limited. It's a bad practice from the point of view of the consumer, and the playerbase has been asking for a permanent collection, or at least, a faster roration of items, for a long time now. At least more transparency on the fake limitation would be a step in the right direction, especially for newer players who haven't realized yet items usually return.Edited by Jaimeh on July 21, 2021 9:33AM0 -
Ippokrates✭✭✭✭✭Just don't buy it. I don't see the issue. This is literal childlike behavior, "gotta have thing because thing new and shiny and I want shiny NOW". Also, 99% of the limited-time stuff looks just... bad. If the only enticing aspect of these items is their limited availability, then you're immediately going to be hit with buyer's remorse. Like a truck.
Stop ignoring threat, cause this is the real childlike behavior. Manipulation is manipulation, and things like fomo or lootboxes were recognize in some legal systems as gambling and therefore illegal, especially for the sake of many vulnerable people in the Internet. We all paid for game, most of active users have ESO+, there is no reason to be manipulated into spending few more bucks. Which many players would do anyway, if they would have opportunity to buy housing they want or zos offers more... refined items.1 -
alberichtano✭✭✭✭✭
✭zelaminator wrote: »zelaminator wrote: »One would think they have enough law people hired, to make sure they are within the lines.. Personally I don't even see why it's an issue
Yes, I'm sure they make certain to operate at the very least in a grey area, and I also never claimed to believe they are directly breaking any laws, so this point you've made doesn't really relate to the topic.
Maybe to you it does not relate.. Personally I see no need for a thread like this.. we are all different.. I feel pretty sure that they know these laws better than 99% of us, and that almost all the players don't really care in the end..
Eh, you do realise that that is the exact problem, right? That they know the laws better than we do, and can therefor exploit them often without us even realising. Not saying that they are, I don't know if they do or do not, but it sure gives them a vast advantage against us consumers.2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Ippokrates wrote: »Just don't buy it. I don't see the issue. This is literal childlike behavior, "gotta have thing because thing new and shiny and I want shiny NOW". Also, 99% of the limited-time stuff looks just... bad. If the only enticing aspect of these items is their limited availability, then you're immediately going to be hit with buyer's remorse. Like a truck.
Stop ignoring threat, cause this is the real childlike behavior. Manipulation is manipulation, and things like fomo or lootboxes were recognize in some legal systems as gambling and therefore illegal, especially for the sake of many vulnerable people in the Internet. We all paid for game, most of active users have ESO+, there is no reason to be manipulated into spending few more bucks. Which many players would do anyway, if they would have opportunity to buy housing they want or zos offers more... refined items.
Yep. ESO doesn’t sell crates in Beldium as I understand. They are banned there. However, I find it hard to believe that any nation would consider a limited time offer where the price and the digital merchandise are known to be akin to gambling. There is no chance involved as the results are guaranteed.
1 -
zelaminator✭✭✭✭✭
✭alberichtano wrote: »zelaminator wrote: »zelaminator wrote: »One would think they have enough law people hired, to make sure they are within the lines.. Personally I don't even see why it's an issue
Yes, I'm sure they make certain to operate at the very least in a grey area, and I also never claimed to believe they are directly breaking any laws, so this point you've made doesn't really relate to the topic.
Maybe to you it does not relate.. Personally I see no need for a thread like this.. we are all different.. I feel pretty sure that they know these laws better than 99% of us, and that almost all the players don't really care in the end..
Eh, you do realise that that is the exact problem, right? That they know the laws better than we do, and can therefor exploit them often without us even realising. Not saying that they are, I don't know if they do or do not, but it sure gives them a vast advantage against us consumers.
And when you or I know and accept that, we can make the decision best for us, like normal people1 -
Dark_Lord_Kuro✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Araneae6537 wrote: »That’s a stretch, IMHO. It’s very common for things to be available or on sale for a limited time, seasonally, and so forth. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, I don’t think anyone thinks the item in question won’t be offered again, although there’s no guarantee that it will or when.
Yes, FOMO will push you toward a purchase if you’re on the fence. And? Lot’s things entice one to purchase, included being on sale. Should we disallow things ever going on sale? Being to sparkly? Forgive me, but it seems absurd.
Sorry, but it seems like you're deliberately missing the points in order to be able to attack straw men and argue slippery slopes.
To claim that something will "only" be available during a certain time frame, when in fact a company has made that claim about many of their other products and it has later turned out to have been false claims, surely you can see how that's false advertisement.
They have an unlimited amout of those item therefore its impossible the declare an inventory
Also limited time only doesnt mean it wont ever come back it only say it wont stay for ever
So it can come back as much as they want it to come back and as long as its still a limited time offer, its still only avaiavle as limited offer0 -
Kaelthorn_Nightbloom✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Most people ignore "limited time only" marketing in the US. It's so commonplace and everyone knows what businesses are trying to do. So nobody really cares.
I would also add that "limited time only" is frequently associated with low quality products found on late night informercials.
I'd prefer if ZOS didn't market their products that way but again, nobody really cares.
If some people get trapped by this marketing then that's their own fault. It's not a public health issue. Adults need to take responsibility for their spending habits.PC NA1 -
Kaelthorn_Nightbloom✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I know you don't have strong consumer laws in the US, but you sell your products on the EU market, too.
We do have strong consumer laws in the United States but we also don't like government overreach. Preventing companies from marketing limited time offers is a very heavy hand and I disagree with laws that prevent it.
If there's a legal issue with limited time offers in EU that ZOS is breaking, then their legal team can deal with it. We don't need to discuss it on the General Forums.PC NA3