New EU-Act: Possible ingame-store and sales changes incoming?

Northwold · March 28

Lumsdenml wrote: »

Northwold wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

Northwold wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

Northwold wrote: »

Lumsdenml wrote: »

This is annoying. This is an M rated game and nothing in the cash shop gives any actual advantage in the game. Let us be adults, take responsibility for our own actions, and quit regulating things like this.

I'm not sure how being an adult prevents gambling addiction?

It doesnt, but it does make you responsible for yourself.

Well, so would legalising cocaine. That doesn't make it desirable.

An apex mount is not cocaine. There are many other issues with an illegal drug that a mount in eso....

Veering slightly off topic but if you read up on gambling addiction and the like a lot of experts will tell you it's worse than all the rest because of the sheer amount of irreversible damage you can do. With drugs you can stop (if you don't die). But gambling, the money doesn't come back. I think people here are trivialising an issue that is actually rather serious through lack of understanding.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying the issues of gambling addiction. I understand the ramifications, but how much responsibility are you going to put on a company for someone's personal problem? If zos were to put something in the Crown Crates like a mythic item that was op and had a 0.001% drop rate, I'd agree that was predatory and just sleazy. But they aren't doing that.

If someone has a predilection to a gambling addiction, I feel that it is their own responsibility to stay safe and take the necessary steps to keep themselves healthy, even if that means not playing the game at all.

Well there have long been laws against gambling in many jurisdictions and I don't think the endeavours system sprung out of the goodness of ZOS's heart, to be blunt, but out of an awareness that various jurisdictions were making serious noises about outlawing lootboxes because they are so obviously a deliberate gambling mechanic based on real world money. In a number of jurisdictions, you would need to be a licensed gambling operator to offer gambling of any kind.

I'm very much struggling to understand what people are objecting to, here. If regulators are making moves that would require gaming companies to make explicitly clear how much people are spending, why on earth are people against this? We've got people arguing simultaneously that "everyone knows" the prices in the crown store in real world money but that *stating* those prices is objectionable. That's absurd.

manukartofanu · March 28

DenverRalphy wrote: »

IMHO, this would be bad for the players in EU.

Basically it would remove ZOS' ability to allow players to buy crowns in bulk to get more bang for their buck. Effectively cowns in EU would have a set currency value, so the player would have to pay top dollar for every item.

For example (caveat, using USD as the currency)..

A 750 Crown item.
$7.99 as that's the base value if you purchased the smallest package. $1.06 per crown.

A 5000 Crown item.
After the change: at $1.06 per, would cost $53.00.

Before the change: $40 for the 5500 bundle, and you'd have 500 crowns left over.

This won't negatively affect EU players in any way—there are only benefits. The price displayed alongside is purely informational, showing how much you'd pay if you purchased without discounts at the worst conversion rate. And that's completely normal. No one is prohibiting discounts or sales, nor is anyone forbidding the use of internal currencies. All this document requires is displaying the worst-case conversion price alongside the in-game currency cost. That's it. Nobody is forcing you to sell at that exact price at the time of purchase.

Amottica · March 28

I am surprised this thread has lasted.

NO NEW RULES were passed this week or last. The article speaks of existing rules that have been around for awhile and that they are going after a company that seems to be in violation.

So Zenimax is likely in compliance with those existing rules. Hence we should not expect anything to change.

Read the article for yourself instead of taking anyone's word for it. Correct me if I am wrong.

wolfie1.0. · March 28

Amottica wrote: »

I am surprised this thread has lasted.

NO NEW RULES were passed this week or last. The article speaks of existing rules that have been around for awhile and that they are going after a company that seems to be in violation.

So Zenimax is likely in compliance with those existing rules. Hence we should not expect anything to change.

Read the article for yourself instead of taking anyone's word for it. Correct me if I am wrong.

It's really more that they are actually enforcing those rules that matters. Prior to this they really havnt come down hard on any one game too badly. But they have now and thar warrants discussion.

Because setting rules and guidelines don't have any teeth if they arnt enforced. That enforcement has occurred is the real news here.

Ratzkifal · March 28

Amottica wrote: »

I am surprised this thread has lasted.

NO NEW RULES were passed this week or last. The article speaks of existing rules that have been around for awhile and that they are going after a company that seems to be in violation.

So Zenimax is likely in compliance with those existing rules. Hence we should not expect anything to change.

Read the article for yourself instead of taking anyone's word for it. Correct me if I am wrong.

@Amottica
There are a couple of guidelines that ZOS isn't following yet.
For example ZOS should display the real money value of all crown store items according to the EU guidelines.

Action points to be taken:
When in-game virtual currency or in-game digital content or
services are offered for sale, their price in real-world money
should be clearly and prominently displayed

When in-game virtual currency is offered in exchange for another
in-game virtual currency which the users can buy with real-world
money, its price should be indicated also in real-world money

When in-game digital content or services are offered in exchange
for in-game virtual currency that can be bought (directly or indirectly via another
in-game virtual currency), their price should also be indicated in real-world money.
The price should be indicated based on what the consumer would have to pay in full, directly or indirectly via another in-game virtual currency, the required amount of in-game virtual currency, without applying quantity discounts or other promotional offers

Although consumers may acquire in-game virtual currency in different ways and quantities, for example through gameplay or due to promotional offers, this does not change the price of the in-game digital content or services itself. The price must constitute an objective reference for what the real-world monetary cost is, regardless of how the consumer acquires the means to purchase it

Or this one, which would require ZOS to stop selling crowns in bundles but rather as a flexible amount, so you won't have to buy 2250 crowns to buy a 2100 crown item:

Practices to avoid:
Offering in-game virtual currencies only in bundles mismatching the value of purchasable in-game digital content and services

Denying consumers the possibility to choose the specific amount of in-game virtual currency to be purchased

Source straight from the EU commission
ESO isn't a big offender compared to some of the industry giants out there, so for now ZOS can probably get away with not complying, but if this becomes a larger push, they should probably follow them sooner rather than later.

XSTRONG · March 28

Lumsdenml wrote: »

This is annoying. This is an M rated game and nothing in the cash shop gives any actual advantage in the game. Let us be adults, take responsibility for our own actions, and quit regulating things like this.

I agree their is no p2w in Crownstore but I know alot of players play Eso to collect cool stuff like, skins, mounts, weapon styles, HOUSES etc etc and I would guess about 90% of the stuff players want are in the Crownstore.

Im not a big Crown buyer myself but Zos investing and focusing so much on Crown crates items are an act to make their player gamble with their money.

To have a store where you can buy cosmetic stuff for a fixed price "like D4" is one thing but to have gambling involved in it is another thing and should be considered as any place where you can gamble with your money.

Thats my thoughts,

Amottica · March 31

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I am surprised this thread has lasted.

NO NEW RULES were passed this week or last. The article speaks of existing rules that have been around for awhile and that they are going after a company that seems to be in violation.

So Zenimax is likely in compliance with those existing rules. Hence we should not expect anything to change.

Read the article for yourself instead of taking anyone's word for it. Correct me if I am wrong.

It's really more that they are actually enforcing those rules that matters. Prior to this they really havnt come down hard on any one game too badly. But they have now and thar warrants discussion.

Because setting rules and guidelines don't have any teeth if they arnt enforced. That enforcement has occurred is the real news here.

and I have mentioned the fact the article noted they were initiating an enforcement action against a company that alledge has a number of practices that are in violation of consumer protection legislation. It is worth noting that those violations were considered particularly harmful to children which make sense due to the game in question.

So I do not see what I missed since I read the actual article, but thanks anyhow.

wolfie1.0. · March 31

Amottica wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I am surprised this thread has lasted.

NO NEW RULES were passed this week or last. The article speaks of existing rules that have been around for awhile and that they are going after a company that seems to be in violation.

So Zenimax is likely in compliance with those existing rules. Hence we should not expect anything to change.

Read the article for yourself instead of taking anyone's word for it. Correct me if I am wrong.

It's really more that they are actually enforcing those rules that matters. Prior to this they really havnt come down hard on any one game too badly. But they have now and thar warrants discussion.

Because setting rules and guidelines don't have any teeth if they arnt enforced. That enforcement has occurred is the real news here.

and I have mentioned the fact the article noted they were initiating an enforcement action against a company that alledge has a number of practices that are in violation of consumer protection legislation. It is worth noting that those violations were considered particularly harmful to children which make sense due to the game in question.

So I do not see what I missed since I read the actual article, but thanks anyhow.

Sorry, was on pain meds when I wrote this. I agree. My main point is really that enforcement has started. Governments can pass a ton of laws (and they do) and said laws are meaningless (they often are) unless they are willing to enforce them ( they don't always). It's like speeding in a car, you can ignore the limits if there isn't anyone around to enforce those limits.