Lostar wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

I'm not arguing that crates might not be a problem for people with a personality that lends towards addictions. They certainly can be addictive. They are not gambling.
I don't feel they need be restricted to all because the actions of the few. Again that responsible adult thing.

How about adults who are atypical? You know, they exist right? Like Autistic adults? Adults who do not have the prowess to navigate the world with such ease. And yet, there are other predatory practices like scamming grandma because she doesn't know Microsoft wouldn't have any interest in her Google Play Gift Cards, and no one has an issue shunning those scammers?? Grandpa has been around for years.. he should know better, right??! How about them? You know... you're right.. we shouldn't bubble wrap society.. BUT WE SHOULD ban practices that were CONSTRUCTED from the ground up to be PREDATORY. Watch the video I posted. It is exactly what Zenimax Online Studios has been doing. Watch it.. and THEN tell me what you really think.

You are comparing illegal activities to scam individuals to legal activities. I watched the video. None of that is new nor exclusive to the gaming industry. McDonalds monopoly game where you can earn a medium fry on your next visit by scratching a piece of paper is an example. Farther back (late 1800s) we had S&H Green Stamps. Businesses are built around two things. Serving their customers and making a profit. Different companies vary as to which is the priority and how much a priority.
I believe if the majority of people can see the offer for what it is and have the information needed to make a sound decision for them then the offer is above board. Companies pick fonts and colors of their containers to entice more buying. Fast food places pick a different color scheme inside than other types of restaurants. In the 70s and 80s the colors were designed to make you not to want to linger. Then mid 90s or so they shifted some to more calming colors. McDonalds realized early on that children often pick where to eat when a family is traveling. That is in part why they had bright colors a clown and all that fun stuff. For the adults a burger is a burger. For kids McDonalds is fun.
Slot machines have lots of lights and bells because people would rather play a machine that has a commotion when they win rather than one that pays more but has nothing special happen. Fear of missing out is a real thing and to that end limited time offers have been around basically as long as we have. Fear of missing out might be why the apple was eaten so long ago in the garden. Two for one sales or punch your card eight times get a free sandwich have both been used for decades.

All that is fine so long as the majority of people have information available to reach what would be considered a reasonable decision. I would hope that adults that need the help to navigate the world get it. I know that isn't always true but we can't take things away from all in an attempt to protect them. That protection should come from the people around them.

kargen27 wrote: »

Lostar wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

I'm not arguing that crates might not be a problem for people with a personality that lends towards addictions. They certainly can be addictive. They are not gambling.
I don't feel they need be restricted to all because the actions of the few. Again that responsible adult thing.

How about adults who are atypical? You know, they exist right? Like Autistic adults? Adults who do not have the prowess to navigate the world with such ease. And yet, there are other predatory practices like scamming grandma because she doesn't know Microsoft wouldn't have any interest in her Google Play Gift Cards, and no one has an issue shunning those scammers?? Grandpa has been around for years.. he should know better, right??! How about them? You know... you're right.. we shouldn't bubble wrap society.. BUT WE SHOULD ban practices that were CONSTRUCTED from the ground up to be PREDATORY. Watch the video I posted. It is exactly what Zenimax Online Studios has been doing. Watch it.. and THEN tell me what you really think.

You are comparing illegal activities to scam individuals to legal activities. I watched the video. None of that is new nor exclusive to the gaming industry. McDonalds monopoly game where you can earn a medium fry on your next visit by scratching a piece of paper is an example. Farther back (late 1800s) we had S&H Green Stamps. Businesses are built around two things. Serving their customers and making a profit. Different companies vary as to which is the priority and how much a priority.
I believe if the majority of people can see the offer for what it is and have the information needed to make a sound decision for them then the offer is above board. Companies pick fonts and colors of their containers to entice more buying. Fast food places pick a different color scheme inside than other types of restaurants. In the 70s and 80s the colors were designed to make you not to want to linger. Then mid 90s or so they shifted some to more calming colors. McDonalds realized early on that children often pick where to eat when a family is traveling. That is in part why they had bright colors a clown and all that fun stuff. For the adults a burger is a burger. For kids McDonalds is fun.
Slot machines have lots of lights and bells because people would rather play a machine that has a commotion when they win rather than one that pays more but has nothing special happen. Fear of missing out is a real thing and to that end limited time offers have been around basically as long as we have. Fear of missing out might be why the apple was eaten so long ago in the garden. Two for one sales or punch your card eight times get a free sandwich have both been used for decades.

All that is fine so long as the majority of people have information available to reach what would be considered a reasonable decision. I would hope that adults that need the help to navigate the world get it. I know that isn't always true but we can't take things away from all in an attempt to protect them. That protection should come from the people around them.

Concerning the Mcdonald's monopoly game; that isn't gambling. You are buying a product; the fries. The sticker with it that gives you a tiny chance to win something might be an incentive to some.. but at the end of the day, most people who buy McDonald's fries are just buying McDonald's fries. The chance to win something is just an added bonus.

In short; As an RPer, cosmetics are essential for our playstyle, and our immersion. None of us should be coerced into gambling in the hopes of acquiring a cosmetic that is as useful to us just as the BiS weapon is to a high-end raider.. players have a fit when a game puts a BiS weapon in a cash shop. That cosmetic is OUR P2W... not really but there is a parallel and the gaming industry knows it and they have exploited it for years and will continue to because the RP community is not taken seriously.

I've been watching this for a while. Could you please stop speaking for whole groups ("us roleplayers") of people when uttering your personal opinion? Also it would be appropriate not to make assumptions about people you have never even spoken to before. Oh, and insulting people for their use of grammar doesn't make your arguments any better; there are also people who are not native English speakers in an international forum, you know?

That said, I'm not exactly a fan of loot boxes or even microtransactions in general. I wouldn't mind loot boxes being removed (or replaced by a better model where you get exactly the item you pay for), although I also strongly believe in personal responsibility - people expecting others (e.g. the government) to protect them from everything and basically relieving them of every individual decision can lead to rather problematic developments. But discussing this would lead to far here, I assume.

Just another thing that makes me wonder, though:

Lostar wrote: »

I come to this in not saving us all... I know people who are not invested in cosmetics like us RPers are could care less.. just as I could care less if they added a P2W mechanic in the game.. not anymore. I use to. But RPers have been abandoned and dismissed because our cosmetics are not essential to YOU and YOUR playstyle.
I fight not for YOU. I fight for ME. For MY enjoyment of this game being tarnished everytime I see a really useful cosmetic in a crown crate. One that would blow my next story arch session up to new levels just as much as it would give you all those easy kills if you could only pay to win.

Why are cosmetics essential for roleplay? I mean, I also dress my characters the way I consider it appropriate, but there's literally no cosmetic item I can think of that's a total "must" that I couldn't live without. It's not that my chars would have to walk around naked and bald without loot box items.

Lostar wrote: »

But I also speak up for those role players like myself who for years have been negatively affected because we are forced into GAMBLING if we are going to get that next aesthetic that will immerse us into our RP experiences

I might be old-fashioned, but I just... use my imagination from time to time?!

I dislike the usage of predatory in this context. I will say that I find buying crates to be wasteful and foolish, but if others wish to make the informed decision to do so, then so be it. (Same as I feel about lottery,, lotto, etc)

If you don't like a product, don't buy it. If you want a product then examine your budget and decide if you will purchase it. This is basic adulting.

Syldras wrote: »

I've been watching this for a while. Could you please stop speaking for whole groups ("us roleplayers") of people when uttering your personal opinion? Also it would be appropriate not to make assumptions about people you have never even spoken to before. Oh, and insulting people for their use of grammar doesn't make your arguments any better; there are also people who are not native English speakers in an international forum, you know?

That said, I'm not exactly a fan of loot boxes or even microtransactions in general. I wouldn't mind loot boxes being removed (or replaced by a better model where you get exactly the item you pay for), although I also strongly believe in personal responsibility - people expecting others (e.g. the government) to protect them from everything and basically relieving them of every individual decision can lead to rather problematic developments. But discussing this would lead to far here, I assume.

Just another thing that makes me wonder, though:

Lostar wrote: »

I come to this in not saving us all... I know people who are not invested in cosmetics like us RPers are could care less.. just as I could care less if they added a P2W mechanic in the game.. not anymore. I use to. But RPers have been abandoned and dismissed because our cosmetics are not essential to YOU and YOUR playstyle.
I fight not for YOU. I fight for ME. For MY enjoyment of this game being tarnished everytime I see a really useful cosmetic in a crown crate. One that would blow my next story arch session up to new levels just as much as it would give you all those easy kills if you could only pay to win.

Why are cosmetics essential for roleplay? I mean, I also dress my characters the way I consider it appropriate, but there's literally no cosmetic item I can think of that's a total "must" that I couldn't live without. It's not that my chars would have to walk around naked and bald without loot box items.

Lostar wrote: »

But I also speak up for those role players like myself who for years have been negatively affected because we are forced into GAMBLING if we are going to get that next aesthetic that will immerse us into our RP experiences

I might be old-fashioned, but I just... use my imagination from time to time?!

You're right about the 'us'.. I should basically be clear and mean my friends.. the ones who are upset because if they're going to get that new hairstyle, they need to gamble for it now since there is no way to get enough seals before the rotation. If you want it.. You have to gamble. It is gambling. Gambling should have no part in any MMO. Can we agree on that much? No one should feel coerced into gambling in order to have a chance of acquiring anything that they find useful or enjoyable to them no matter if I or you or anyone thinks that item/cosmetic is useless.

About the grammar thing. I edited that out hours ago. I admit, I got heated but a minute later I cooled down and deleted it cause it was wrong of me to say and I regretted it the moment I posted it.

So.. Who else wants to defend the ABSO-HECKING-LOOTLY PREDATORIAL PRACTICE of loot boxes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S-DGTBZU14&ab_channel=JimSterling

JavaRen wrote: »

I dislike the usage of predatory in this context. I will say that I find buying crates to be wasteful and foolish, but if others wish to make the informed decision to do so, then so be it. (Same as I feel about lottery,, lotto, etc)

If you don't like a product, don't buy it. If you want a product then examine your budget and decide if you will purchase it. This is basic adulting.

Loot boxes foster addiction and are designed to target vulnerable consumers. Predatory seems to be the appropriate adjective here.

The loot crates are not any issue at all. All you have to do is control yourself enough to not buy them.

How the game company monetizes the game is not for us, the players, to dictate.

If you don't like the practices of the game company, that's fine. No one's forcing you to play the game.

You don't own the game, the game company does, and there's lots of other games out there that may or may not fix what is bothering you about this one.

As far as the government...I'd rather not involve them. I trust them a LOT less than I do the game company. At least if I don't like how ZOS does things, I can just walk away.

In the end, you only get one real choice. Play the game...or not. The rest is just noise.

kargen27 wrote: »

Lostar wrote: »

Merriam-Webster definition of gambling
: the practice or activity of betting : the practice of risking money or other stakes in a game or bet. <check>

Exactly. So crates are not gambling as you are not risking real money to purchase the crates.

It literally says "or other stakes" right there. Poker isn't gambling guys, you use poker chips not real cash! Crown crates are absolutely gambling. Getting something each time doesn't make it not gambling. This is why casinos can't just give you a cheap piece of candy to escape gambling regulations. Gambling is games of chance and Crown Crates are obviously a game of chance.

bmnoble wrote: »

I am sorry but if someone has that little self control they should not be playing an online game with a cash shop. That goes for anyone young or old if you cannot prioritize your household bills over some shiny thing in a video game you should not be playing a game with in game purchases at all or at the very least have a guardian controlling their ability to make purchases.

In any civilised society, people *should* be discouraged from preying on the vulnerable, and predatory practices are specifically designed to manipulate those with a weakness. I know people on the spectrum who really do have issues with impulse control and it can be a nightmare for them and those around them. And it goes without saying that these are people with just as many rights as any other person, including rights to gaming entertainment. To be honest, I'm embarrassed I even have to mention all this.

It's nothing to us players not to have loot crate gambling. I think Endeavors was a great step in the right direction, and ZOS (and other companies) should continue to look into other ways to entice us with shinies without taking advantage of the more vulnerable amongst us.

Lostar wrote: »

So.. Who else wants to defend the ABSO-HECKING-LOOTLY PREDATORIAL PRACTICE of loot boxes.

I didn't defend them. As I said, I don't like the concept of microtransactions at all, and still remember the "good old days" where you just bought a game or at least had a subscription with a fixed monthly rate, and that was it - no extra costs. But microtransactions seem unavoidable now, as many publishers have made their games free to play and earn their money through "extras" instead. This is nothing consumers can change (except for avoiding games with this financial concept, if they aren't okay with it - if enough people did this, companies would have to reconsider their strategy; but let's be honest: I don't think this will happen anymore).

I just think that it's problematic to expect everything that can be potentially harmful to people to be legally banned. Already now I have the impression that many people tend to rely too much on what other people tell them (whether it's the government, "experts" of all sorts, media, or whatever types of authority figures) and therefore stop thinking for themselves. They blindly assume that other people may decide what's good and correct for them, and they don't even question it anymore. If it's truly an informed and well-meaning person, it does no direct harm - but as soon as it's not, blind trust can be really harmful. Same goes for the problem that some people already rely on official statements so much that they consider everything harmless that's not officially warned about or forbidden.

So, in my opinion, people should be encouraged to think, to question and to be responsible adults who are able to make their own informed decisions. They should be informed about problems - but in the end, they should decide for themselves. That's all I was about.

BretonMage wrote: »

bmnoble wrote: »

I am sorry but if someone has that little self control they should not be playing an online game with a cash shop. That goes for anyone young or old if you cannot prioritize your household bills over some shiny thing in a video game you should not be playing a game with in game purchases at all or at the very least have a guardian controlling their ability to make purchases.

In any civilised society, people *should* be discouraged from preying on the vulnerable, and predatory practices are specifically designed to manipulate those with a weakness. I know people on the spectrum who really do have issues with impulse control and it can be a nightmare for them and those around them. And it goes without saying that these are people with just as many rights as any other person, including rights to gaming entertainment. To be honest, I'm embarrassed I even have to mention all this.

It's nothing to us players not to have loot crate gambling. I think Endeavors was a great step in the right direction, and ZOS (and other companies) should continue to look into other ways to entice us with shinies without taking advantage of the more vulnerable amongst us.

The endeavors were a step.. there certainly needs to be a few more steps. It should not take almost an entire calendar year of doing endeavors every day, the weekly every week, to acquire just one of the top mounts. Along with constantly shifting what is available and taking advantage of people's sense of FOMO.

Also, well said. All of this. Thank you!

Syldras wrote: »

Lostar wrote: »

So.. Who else wants to defend the ABSO-HECKING-LOOTLY PREDATORIAL PRACTICE of loot boxes.

I didn't defend them. As I said, I don't like the concept of microtransactions at all, and still remember the "good old days" where you just bought a game or at least had a subscription with a fixed monthly rate, and that was it - no extra costs. But microtransactions seem unavoidable now, as many publishers have made their games free to play and earn their money through "extras" instead. This is nothing consumers can change (except for avoiding games with this financial concept, if they aren't okay with it - if enough people did this, companies would have to reconsider their strategy; but let's be honest: I don't think this will happen anymore).

I just think that it's problematic to expect everything that can be potentially harmful to people to be legally banned. Already now I have the impression that many people tend to rely too much on what other people tell them (whether it's the government, "experts" of all sorts, media, or whatever types of authority figures) and therefore stop thinking for themselves. They blindly assume that other people may decide what's good and correct for them, and they don't even question it anymore. If it's truly an informed and well-meaning person, it does no direct harm - but as soon as it's not, blind trust can be really harmful. Same goes for the problem that some people already rely on official statements so much that they consider everything harmless that's not officially warned about or forbidden.

So, in my opinion, people should be encouraged to think, to question and to be responsible adults who are able to make their own informed decisions. They should be informed about problems - but in the end, they should decide for themselves. That's all I was about.

Certainly, with such a beloved Ip that I've had a long affair with since the days of Daggerfall, there is no stopping this train so long as we ride its rails. But we are still allowed to insist that this is bad for the game. That this is predatory to the vulnerable. [snip] I hate to mention World of Warcraft; and yes, it was a subscription, but they managed without even a cash shop. As did many others from EverQuest and on up back in the golden years.. the pressure of making money and outperforming each other within the gaming industry not through gaming innovation but instead through monetization has long been an insidious boil that we just tolerate now. Some of us are far better at it than others.

As to your final point, BretonMage really does speak my own thoughts on the manner quite well. They posted just before you. A good read.

[edited for bashing]

Lostar wrote: »

BretonMage wrote: »

bmnoble wrote: »

I am sorry but if someone has that little self control they should not be playing an online game with a cash shop. That goes for anyone young or old if you cannot prioritize your household bills over some shiny thing in a video game you should not be playing a game with in game purchases at all or at the very least have a guardian controlling their ability to make purchases.

In any civilised society, people *should* be discouraged from preying on the vulnerable, and predatory practices are specifically designed to manipulate those with a weakness. I know people on the spectrum who really do have issues with impulse control and it can be a nightmare for them and those around them. And it goes without saying that these are people with just as many rights as any other person, including rights to gaming entertainment. To be honest, I'm embarrassed I even have to mention all this.

It's nothing to us players not to have loot crate gambling. I think Endeavors was a great step in the right direction, and ZOS (and other companies) should continue to look into other ways to entice us with shinies without taking advantage of the more vulnerable amongst us.

The endeavors were a step.. there certainly needs to be a few more steps. It should not take almost an entire calendar year of doing endeavors every day, the weekly every week, to acquire just one of the top mounts. Along with constantly shifting what is available and taking advantage of people's sense of FOMO.

This is still an understatement of how bad this system is. They are adding more items to the endeavor shop faster than you can gain seals. So long as you are interested in at least one apex every season, you can never catch up, you can never do enough to get all the items you want and that is assuming you never miss a single day of endeavors.
And this isn't even taking into account that the crown crates have a massive head start of things you might want to have from previous seasons.

kargen27 wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Crown crates are not gambling. You purchase a crown crate knowing it will give you a minimum number of items. You always get at least that minimum number. Crown crates are no more gambling than trading cards that come with a stick of gum are gambling.
That said I would prefer they got rid of the crown crates and maybe even the crown store altogether and went back to a required subscription to play.

They are gambling. If all it took was to give someone a base reward not worth the money they paid to mean something wasn't gambling, then it would be happening everywhere in the US not just Vegas. There is a reason that loophole doesn't just let people open casinos nationwide and give everyone a nikel for every game they enter and say "look, they always win something, it doesn't count."

The stick of gun/trading card thing is a strawman, which is just a way to get people arguing about a different topic instead of the current one (But I'd be all for banning that sort o crap with cards as well). So back to real topic:

Gambling: "staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance" -- Crowns = something of value (bought with real world cash). Risk and hope of gain? Are people buying the crates to get the smallest reward possible? Would crates still sell if that's all they had? Or are the taking that risk hoping they will win a valuable item and gain something greater? Are crates a certain event? Do you always know what you will get before you get it, or could you get items of varying value? -- So sounds like gambling to me.

Crowns have no real world value. ZoS is very precise and clear on that being the case. Crowns can only be redeemed for in game items. Again I am not saying there is no problem with crown crates. I am saying they are not legally nor by definition gambling. You spend money to get a set number of crowns that are then used to get a set number of crates. US gambling laws do not apply to crowns or crown crates because they do not meet the legal definition of gambling. Addictive maybe, but not gambling. Just like buying a pack of sports cards is not considered gambling. I know you don't like that comparison but it is exactly the same thing other than with the cards you are spending actual real world currency. You know how many cards you will get just not which cards. Same with crates you know how many items you will get just not what items.
This is actually becoming a popular device for selling things across the business spectrum. You can pay a certain amount each month to get a "surprise" box. A company offers sewing kits. You know you will get something to sew but not exactly what. Another offers fishing equipment. You know you will get an assortment of lures but not what lures.
Crates can prey on people with a certain personality but that doesn't make them gambling.

Referring to the text I've bolded. So.. because ZOS says the crowns have no real world value despite only being able to acquire them through cash (like at a casino when you exchange your cash for chips) ... then... ZOS is automatically right because.. ZOS said so. I know you don't like that comparison (because you never bring mention to it) but crowns when used to purchase loot crates utilize the same thing that tokens do in a slot machine.

Lostar wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

xaraan wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Crown crates are not gambling. You purchase a crown crate knowing it will give you a minimum number of items. You always get at least that minimum number. Crown crates are no more gambling than trading cards that come with a stick of gum are gambling.
That said I would prefer they got rid of the crown crates and maybe even the crown store altogether and went back to a required subscription to play.

They are gambling. If all it took was to give someone a base reward not worth the money they paid to mean something wasn't gambling, then it would be happening everywhere in the US not just Vegas. There is a reason that loophole doesn't just let people open casinos nationwide and give everyone a nikel for every game they enter and say "look, they always win something, it doesn't count."

The stick of gun/trading card thing is a strawman, which is just a way to get people arguing about a different topic instead of the current one (But I'd be all for banning that sort o crap with cards as well). So back to real topic:

Gambling: "staking of something of value, with consciousness of risk and hope of gain, on the outcome of a game, a contest, or an uncertain event whose result may be determined by chance" -- Crowns = something of value (bought with real world cash). Risk and hope of gain? Are people buying the crates to get the smallest reward possible? Would crates still sell if that's all they had? Or are the taking that risk hoping they will win a valuable item and gain something greater? Are crates a certain event? Do you always know what you will get before you get it, or could you get items of varying value? -- So sounds like gambling to me.

Crowns have no real world value. ZoS is very precise and clear on that being the case. Crowns can only be redeemed for in game items. Again I am not saying there is no problem with crown crates. I am saying they are not legally nor by definition gambling. You spend money to get a set number of crowns that are then used to get a set number of crates. US gambling laws do not apply to crowns or crown crates because they do not meet the legal definition of gambling. Addictive maybe, but not gambling. Just like buying a pack of sports cards is not considered gambling. I know you don't like that comparison but it is exactly the same thing other than with the cards you are spending actual real world currency. You know how many cards you will get just not which cards. Same with crates you know how many items you will get just not what items.
This is actually becoming a popular device for selling things across the business spectrum. You can pay a certain amount each month to get a "surprise" box. A company offers sewing kits. You know you will get something to sew but not exactly what. Another offers fishing equipment. You know you will get an assortment of lures but not what lures.
Crates can prey on people with a certain personality but that doesn't make them gambling.

Referring to the text I've bolded. So.. because ZOS says the crowns have no real world value despite only being able to acquire them through cash (like at a casino when you exchange your cash for chips) ... then... ZOS is automatically right because.. ZOS said so. I know you don't like that comparison (because you never bring mention to it) but crowns when used to purchase loot crates utilize the same thing that tokens do in a slot machine.

Also: the real world crates are GREAT.. they are usually WAY CHEAPER... like one of them I was subscribed to, a snack box from Turkey, was $26.. and I got like 20 PHYSICAL ITEMS... it is 5000 crowns which is $49.99 USD +tax... for digital goods.. digital goods that you can never claim actual ownership of.. so not only is it predatory and has no place in ESO .. it's overpriced.