Quoted post has been removed.
Also keep in mind M rating means a 17 year old can still buy the game and it is considered appropriate for them.
What the game needs, should there be gambling in it, is a visible ESRB label that includes “real world money gambling” alongside where they would list “graphic violence” (as an example).
The ESRB label for ESO is already M and does not make mention of real world money gambling.
It needs to be Ao (Adult Only).
This is the kiss of death to most games. But loot boxes are the kiss of death to many gamers who are not hypothetical and are just as valued, and yes, entitled to being able to have healthy access to gaming entertainment, games that have no business including real-world money being used for gambling. And I care far more about the well-being of my fellow gamers and the artists that develop our games, far more than the investors who suck the life out of our game with their predatory monetization.
The MMO's available that do not have loot boxes are shrinking and it really hurts when you are as in love with the Elder Scrolls IP as I am.
spartaxoxo wrote: »They could replace loot boxes with battle passes, imo. I like crown crates. But, I also like to game sometimes. I don't it is necessary to have loot boxes though and I won't cry if battlepasses and the like end up replacing them. They are clearly addictive. I find it less compelling in M rated games than ones rated T or E though.
spartaxoxo wrote: »They could replace loot boxes with battle passes, imo.
I enjoyed battle passes in games like to sea of thieves where You can earn some rewards for free but then you can also pay the $9USD to get the battle pass exclusive awards.
However, In this game we already have ESO+ So perhaps they could incentivize more people to try out ESO+ With the removal of loot crates… Gamble boxes… And tying in daily endeavors/daily login awards in some intuitive way into a battle pass that the ESO+ model gets some things exclusive to them while still allowing the free players (does anyone else remember the term fr00bs? fr00bie?) to obtain some things from the battle pass perhaps with the option to using crowns to buy the ESO+ exclusive rewards as you reach that tier in a battle pass season if you are not an ESO+ subscriber. This would curb gambling; punish no one, entice people into the ESO+ model (which I personally find worth it), and allow us to work towards rewards that we want within the season. Good idea. Thank you.
JanTanhide wrote: »Can't gamble if you don't buy the Crown Crates. If you think it's gambling and don't want to gamble then don't buy them. No one is forcing anyone to buy Crown Crates. In all the years Crown Crates have been in this game I have purchased one Crown Crate.
I spend my monthly Crowns from the ESO Subscription on Music Boxes and other items that interest me and they are permanent in game.
I also think the game should be subscription only. It would weed out a lot of people that want everything for free.
alanmatillab16_ESO wrote: »Also Jimquisition said it best: “If you need loot boxes in your game to keep your game afloat then we do not need you in the gaming industry.”
Of course this isn’t me saying that ZOS needs to shut its doors. I already said I love the game I just hate the gambling shoved in the faces of those of us who do pay attention to loot boxes because cosmetics are important to those of us who use them to enrich our own play style. But just how much I despise, vehemently hate the addition of predatory gambling in our game is nicely expressed in that sentiment.
We get it you are against the practise of lootboxes but what is your alternative?
The cash shop without loot boxes and a constant shift of limited time items? Can Zenimax not manage what Square-Enix has with their game? FFXIV is subscription yes, but you can play the base game and Heavensward for free and they manage without loot boxes.. without using FOMO marketing tactics..
So maybe a subscription. You said subscription games are never as profitable and yet… -stares at FFXIV-… maybe they can follow their model; base game + Morrowind is free to all; rest of the content; B2P + subscription… which would not change anything for those of us who have already been financially invested in the game with our ESO+ membership.
alanmatillab16_ESO wrote: »alanmatillab16_ESO wrote: »alanmatillab16_ESO wrote: »Fact: ZOS are required to make a profit by shareholders
Wrong. They have never been a public company so no shareholders. Maybe they are a bit of one now thanks to the Microsoft buyout but I'm not even sure how that works with respect to ZOS operations themselves. They're certainly not listed independent of MS on the stock exchange.
Semantics, the requirement for them to make a profit is still there so my comment stands.
And I would have let you get away with it if you hadn't been so emphatic by preceding it with "Fact:"
Businesses wanting to make a profit is additionally a painfully obvious thing that doesn't need saying, much less emphasized as "Fact:" as if you were talking to a first grade class.
Using "Fact:" refers to other posters in the thread using the same method, did you respond the same way to them.
Still waiting for your alternative method for businesses to replace the income from banned lootboxes or do you not have an alternative and just expect them to lose money?
Well since you bring it up, how about direct sales instead of loot boxes?
maximusrex45 wrote: »The whole loot box thing is kind of ironic to me because it speaks of the insecurity of the developer's belief in their own product. They would make more money with direct sales, but instead decide to use loot boxes to keep their hooks in a more "reliable" segment of the population that will spend what they need to to get what they want. It is safe, but also limiting in a real business sense.
spartaxoxo wrote: »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games_containing_battle_passes
A quick Google search tells me Battlepasses are in 47 different games.
Overwatch will soon count itself in that list and ditch lootboxes in favor of battlepasses. Fortnitee is indeed the biggest game to have them (being one of the biggest games on the planet), that doesn't make their battlepass the only definition of one.
Some are more like subs, and some are replacements for lootboxes.In the video game industry, a battle pass is a type of monetization approach that provides additional content for a game usually through a tiered system, rewarding the player with in-game items for playing the game and completing specific challenges. Inspired by the season pass ticketing system and originating with Dota 2 in 2013, the battle pass model gained more use as an alternative to subscription fees and loot boxes beginning in the late 2010s. Battle passes tend to offer free passes, which are available to all users, and a premium pass that require annual or seasonal charges in exchange for enhanced items and cosmetics.
Obviously the proper context for THIS game would be the ones that work as an alternative to lootboxes, since that would be a 1 to 1 example of how they'd have to be enabled to work here. Instead of an alternative to a sub.
I never argued that they wouldn't replace lootboxes, and in fact proposed a increasingly common alternative to them. What I disagreed with is the assertion that they need lootboxes or outrageous prices on specific items to monetize. They don't. They can also use battlepasses. It's what a lot of companies are doing.
However, if Zenimax, or any of these companies that run these GaaS we like to play found a way to get the same amount of revenue via a means we like more they would already be doing it.
spartaxoxo wrote: »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games_containing_battle_passes
A quick Google search tells me Battlepasses are in 47 different games.
Overwatch will soon count itself in that list and ditch lootboxes in favor of battlepasses. Fortnitee is indeed the biggest game to have them (being one of the biggest games on the planet), that doesn't make their battlepass the only definition of one.
Some are more like subs, and some are replacements for lootboxes.In the video game industry, a battle pass is a type of monetization approach that provides additional content for a game usually through a tiered system, rewarding the player with in-game items for playing the game and completing specific challenges. Inspired by the season pass ticketing system and originating with Dota 2 in 2013, the battle pass model gained more use as an alternative to subscription fees and loot boxes beginning in the late 2010s. Battle passes tend to offer free passes, which are available to all users, and a premium pass that require annual or seasonal charges in exchange for enhanced items and cosmetics.
Obviously the proper context for THIS game would be the ones that work as an alternative to lootboxes, since that would be a 1 to 1 example of how they'd have to be enabled to work here. Instead of an alternative to a sub.
I never argued that they wouldn't replace lootboxes, and in fact proposed a increasingly common alternative to them. What I disagreed with is the assertion that they need lootboxes or outrageous prices on specific items to monetize. They don't. They can also use battlepasses. It's what a lot of companies are doing.
And with a quick glimpse of that list I see a lot MOBAs and similar types of GaaS which are notably cheaper to developed and maintain compared to MMORPGs such as ESO. Just as what works for monetizing ESO does not work as well for that those types of games the same can be said of the reverse. This is not to suggest one cannot benefit from ideas the other has or has tried.
This is still very irrelevant to my point based on facts. Zenimax, and every game developer that uses loot boxes, will find another way to replace the lost revenue of loot crates if they are banned. The cost players pay for loot crates will b paid another way to cover the costs of maintaining the game one way or another or the game will reduce quality and/or quality and some might even shut their doors.
This is a fact of business survival.
In fact, I have no idea why we are arguing about a battle pass as all it does is prove my original point but makes an assumption we will like it in the manner Zenimax introduces it.
Regards and have a good day,
spartaxoxo wrote: »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games_containing_battle_passes
A quick Google search tells me Battlepasses are in 47 different games.
Overwatch will soon count itself in that list and ditch lootboxes in favor of battlepasses. Fortnitee is indeed the biggest game to have them (being one of the biggest games on the planet), that doesn't make their battlepass the only definition of one.
Some are more like subs, and some are replacements for lootboxes.In the video game industry, a battle pass is a type of monetization approach that provides additional content for a game usually through a tiered system, rewarding the player with in-game items for playing the game and completing specific challenges. Inspired by the season pass ticketing system and originating with Dota 2 in 2013, the battle pass model gained more use as an alternative to subscription fees and loot boxes beginning in the late 2010s. Battle passes tend to offer free passes, which are available to all users, and a premium pass that require annual or seasonal charges in exchange for enhanced items and cosmetics.
Obviously the proper context for THIS game would be the ones that work as an alternative to lootboxes, since that would be a 1 to 1 example of how they'd have to be enabled to work here. Instead of an alternative to a sub.
I never argued that they wouldn't replace lootboxes, and in fact proposed a increasingly common alternative to them. What I disagreed with is the assertion that they need lootboxes or outrageous prices on specific items to monetize. They don't. They can also use battlepasses. It's what a lot of companies are doing.
And with a quick glimpse of that list I see a lot MOBAs and similar types of GaaS which are notably cheaper to developed and maintain compared to MMORPGs such as ESO. Just as what works for monetizing ESO does not work as well for that those types of games the same can be said of the reverse. This is not to suggest one cannot benefit from ideas the other has or has tried.
This is still very irrelevant to my point based on facts. Zenimax, and every game developer that uses loot boxes, will find another way to replace the lost revenue of loot crates if they are banned. The cost players pay for loot crates will b paid another way to cover the costs of maintaining the game one way or another or the game will reduce quality and/or quality and some might even shut their doors.
This is a fact of business survival.
In fact, I have no idea why we are arguing about a battle pass as all it does is prove my original point but makes an assumption we will like it in the manner Zenimax introduces it.
Regards and have a good day,
That is exactly what we want them to do. Replace gambling revenue with non-gambling revenue.
Whether it be
- Battle passes
- Mandatory Paid Subscription (with a free version that gives base + Morrowind)
- Direct Sales in the Crown Store
spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games_containing_battle_passes
A quick Google search tells me Battlepasses are in 47 different games.
Overwatch will soon count itself in that list and ditch lootboxes in favor of battlepasses. Fortnitee is indeed the biggest game to have them (being one of the biggest games on the planet), that doesn't make their battlepass the only definition of one.
Some are more like subs, and some are replacements for lootboxes.In the video game industry, a battle pass is a type of monetization approach that provides additional content for a game usually through a tiered system, rewarding the player with in-game items for playing the game and completing specific challenges. Inspired by the season pass ticketing system and originating with Dota 2 in 2013, the battle pass model gained more use as an alternative to subscription fees and loot boxes beginning in the late 2010s. Battle passes tend to offer free passes, which are available to all users, and a premium pass that require annual or seasonal charges in exchange for enhanced items and cosmetics.
Obviously the proper context for THIS game would be the ones that work as an alternative to lootboxes, since that would be a 1 to 1 example of how they'd have to be enabled to work here. Instead of an alternative to a sub.
I never argued that they wouldn't replace lootboxes, and in fact proposed a increasingly common alternative to them. What I disagreed with is the assertion that they need lootboxes or outrageous prices on specific items to monetize. They don't. They can also use battlepasses. It's what a lot of companies are doing.
And with a quick glimpse of that list I see a lot MOBAs and similar types of GaaS which are notably cheaper to developed and maintain compared to MMORPGs such as ESO. Just as what works for monetizing ESO does not work as well for that those types of games the same can be said of the reverse. This is not to suggest one cannot benefit from ideas the other has or has tried.
This is still very irrelevant to my point based on facts. Zenimax, and every game developer that uses loot boxes, will find another way to replace the lost revenue of loot crates if they are banned. The cost players pay for loot crates will b paid another way to cover the costs of maintaining the game one way or another or the game will reduce quality and/or quality and some might even shut their doors.
This is a fact of business survival.
In fact, I have no idea why we are arguing about a battle pass as all it does is prove my original point but makes an assumption we will like it in the manner Zenimax introduces it.
Regards and have a good day,
That is exactly what we want them to do. Replace gambling revenue with non-gambling revenue.
Whether it be
- Battle passes
- Mandatory Paid Subscription (with a free version that gives base + Morrowind)
- Direct Sales in the Crown Store
I'm very much against a mandatory sub.
spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games_containing_battle_passes
A quick Google search tells me Battlepasses are in 47 different games.
Overwatch will soon count itself in that list and ditch lootboxes in favor of battlepasses. Fortnitee is indeed the biggest game to have them (being one of the biggest games on the planet), that doesn't make their battlepass the only definition of one.
Some are more like subs, and some are replacements for lootboxes.In the video game industry, a battle pass is a type of monetization approach that provides additional content for a game usually through a tiered system, rewarding the player with in-game items for playing the game and completing specific challenges. Inspired by the season pass ticketing system and originating with Dota 2 in 2013, the battle pass model gained more use as an alternative to subscription fees and loot boxes beginning in the late 2010s. Battle passes tend to offer free passes, which are available to all users, and a premium pass that require annual or seasonal charges in exchange for enhanced items and cosmetics.
Obviously the proper context for THIS game would be the ones that work as an alternative to lootboxes, since that would be a 1 to 1 example of how they'd have to be enabled to work here. Instead of an alternative to a sub.
I never argued that they wouldn't replace lootboxes, and in fact proposed a increasingly common alternative to them. What I disagreed with is the assertion that they need lootboxes or outrageous prices on specific items to monetize. They don't. They can also use battlepasses. It's what a lot of companies are doing.
And with a quick glimpse of that list I see a lot MOBAs and similar types of GaaS which are notably cheaper to developed and maintain compared to MMORPGs such as ESO. Just as what works for monetizing ESO does not work as well for that those types of games the same can be said of the reverse. This is not to suggest one cannot benefit from ideas the other has or has tried.
This is still very irrelevant to my point based on facts. Zenimax, and every game developer that uses loot boxes, will find another way to replace the lost revenue of loot crates if they are banned. The cost players pay for loot crates will b paid another way to cover the costs of maintaining the game one way or another or the game will reduce quality and/or quality and some might even shut their doors.
This is a fact of business survival.
In fact, I have no idea why we are arguing about a battle pass as all it does is prove my original point but makes an assumption we will like it in the manner Zenimax introduces it.
Regards and have a good day,
That is exactly what we want them to do. Replace gambling revenue with non-gambling revenue.
Whether it be
- Battle passes
- Mandatory Paid Subscription (with a free version that gives base + Morrowind)
- Direct Sales in the Crown Store
I'm very much against a mandatory sub.
It's probably the least popular since we have definitely moved away from that as a gaming community since the OG days
My personal favorite is a tiered battle pass.
Free Tier
ESO+Tier
Apex Tier ($X amount for that season)
FlopsyPrince wrote: »RisenEclipse wrote: »I'm just going to add my two cents here. But legally loot boxes are not gambling. It's why many games implement them. They don't require a license to implement them, and they're a cash cow.
However I disagree with having them in the game. Personally I'd rather go to the crown store and buy a 5000 crown mount then pay for a 12 pack of crown crates and MAYBE get something good... and with my current rng luck, me getting anything good is unlikely LOL I find them irritating and annoying tbh. I'd be much happier just buying those same items in the store. So really I could do without them all together.
Your legal assertion is questionable. They may not have been ruled as such yet, but you most certainly do "gamble" to get the better prizes!
No the legal assertion is spot on. They are not illegal. Could they be in the future? Maybe. As of right now though they do not fall under the legal definition of gambling and are not considered gambling. It isn't even a gray area legally. Gambling is heavily regulated and controlled in the United States. The penalties for breaking gambling laws can be severe.
You can't judge things by possible future rulings. You judge things by the laws we have now and how those laws are applied. Again they might be problematic to people with personality traits that lead towards addiction and they might be predatory (I don't believe so) but they are not gambling. Others are correct that the laws are still playing catch-up on a lot of this so we will have to wait and see where the law comes down. Personally I don't think you create a law that denies rights of the many or punishes the many to protect the few. In other words my way of thinking is we need to be responsible for ourselves those around us and as much as possible government should stay out of the way.
maximusrex45 wrote: »The whole loot box thing is kind of ironic to me because it speaks of the insecurity of the developer's belief in their own product. They would make more money with direct sales, but instead decide to use loot boxes to keep their hooks in a more "reliable" segment of the population that will spend what they need to to get what they want. It is safe, but also limiting in a real business sense.
I find it very odd that crown to gold trading has not been mentioned at all despite being the fastest possible f2p way of getting any CS item that's giftable and is actually sanctioned by ZOS, is it really that obscure? If only ZOS was decently competent about adding an actual in-game service of gold to crown ratios like in a lot of other MMO's this really wouldn't be a problem.
I find it generally okay to have lootboxes when it's just cosmetics...BUT; Only as long as I can buy what I want directly from the shop instead of trying my luck.
I'll give you an example of a good Loot box system: League of legend's. Why? Here goes:
You can buy every skin that goes into the lootboxes in the normal shop. Sure, they're expensive(Depends on which), but you have the choice to get exactly what you want.
Imagine there's a pack of new lootboxes, and I ONLY want the mount, I don't care about all the other things(This is the case for this roll of lootboxes, I just want the 2 horses). I would pay something like 7k crowns to buy the mount I want directly.
Now, let's say a new batch of boxes comes out, and there's like 6 or 7 different things I like; I can try my luck with the lootboxes. In the case of League, if I get skins I don't like, I'll reroll 3 into a new one for free(In this case, we have the lootbox gems currency to convert items we don't want.). I'll but 10k worth of boxes, and if I get what I want, fine, maybe I get 2 or 3 of the things I wanted, maybe only one, but I'll probably be able to buy one of the others with the loot gems I have, and I can still buy more crowns and get the 1 item I'm missing from the batch I liked.
Now THIS is how lootboxes should be done.
asttreb17_ESO wrote: »its a system they all know if i bought something and got it 100% thats the value but if its say rare item in box 10% chance then of cause im going to have to pay the odds might cost me 10 boxes compared to someone else who gets it in 3 boxes. And this invitives players with real money to be poured into eso supporting the game in return they can buy in game gold/colections and be rich in game and that an option for the people who want in game gold in exchnage for real money to zos. it only effects the player base who want items in game to complte ther colection and the others who pay for eso+ and expansions thats there limit how much they are willing to pay for playing this games. Before it eats away our time in pursuit in game achievments know it wants more money to pursuit in game items. after sepending soo much time and money thers nothing i can show for it except playing the why zos wants us to play. keep using new items/builds keep collecting new motifs and recipe to the point i cant keep up. not likeing it but have to keep playing because of the enjoyment and loyalty i have for the game thats all i can show for it. 7years playing 2700cp where a lot of player left the game due to how the game is managed and we dont get to here from them anymore just the new player who dont know the history of eso-online
asttreb17_ESO wrote: »dont see it as evil if you have the money and like it go for it, its an option in the game, dont have spare cash to spend in their and not really into that. free to play added later crown store added later dlc and expansions added later comapred to a new player joining all this wasn't avilable to older players starting the game, new player where attracted by all this investment on zos team adding more content to cater for everyone