test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

When will the community just give up and embrace lockboxes?

17891012

Comments

  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Sheesh.

    Does somebody wanting all your expendable money make them a bad person?

    I know a lot of guys at Cryptic. They ain't exactly Wal-Mart or Bain Capital. But they do want any money you'll part with. I don't see that as greed.

    So then sell the ships in the C-Store! They can get the money that way, for a one-off purchase where I'm putting in X to get Y--where Y is exactly what I'm expecting to pay for and not one of a disparate list of other token prizes.

    Wanting to make money is not greed.; greed is found in the manner in which you make that money.

    Again, I ask: Why would Cryptic or PWE choose to sell these ships in a lottery/chance box as opposed to offering them outright?

    The answer to that question contains the problem.
  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    ... provided said customer is aware they're being exploited and despite that, choose to engage in the exploitation, I agree.

    That kind of painfully unawareness has to fall back to the responsibility of the consumer. We all have to be responsible to educate ourselves on what we are buying before we pull the trigger. The ignorance of a few participants is no excuse to condemn an entire practice.
  • xenor002xenor002 Member Posts: 424
    edited October 2012
    Sheesh.

    Does somebody wanting all your expendable money make them a bad person?

    I know a lot of guys at Cryptic. They ain't exactly Wal-Mart or Bain Capital. But they do want any money you'll part with. I don't see that as greed.

    Explains soooo much. :eek:
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] EXPLORE.

    Dec '07 Account
    I EARNED 1000 days...I didn't BUY it! New LTS=Death to Vet.System: 10/10/12 Never Forget
    Something should be done for those who cared enough to have a 1000+ day sub.
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    xenor002 wrote: »
    In all honesty it makes one wonder if Cryptic/PWE is afraid of the reaction the playerbase would have if they found out what the actual odds were.

    Then the whole, name@handle scam that was brought to the light which was just randomly brining up names that either never existed or falsely stated that a player won a ship, etc.

    They've never contradicted our estimate of 0.5%.

    I just think they want to avoid having to explain that a raffle is an easier sell than a $200 ship. They haven't hidden the drop rate by any means.

    They want stipends spent and they want to make the potential for player spending virtually unlimited. That's it.

    How else would you create a system, for unlimited spending beyond a raffle? Consumables clearly don't do it.
  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    The answer to that question contains the problem.

    I challenge the premise that any problem exists at all.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    azniadeet wrote: »
    That kind of painfully unawareness has to fall back to the responsibility of the consumer. We all have to be responsible to educate ourselves on what we are buying before we pull the trigger. The ignorance of a few participants is no excuse to condemn an entire practice.

    Then we disagree on where the responsibility ultimately lies. But that's moot, because if the practice is agreed to be reprehensible, responsibility matters little at all.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    azniadeet wrote: »
    I challenge the premise that any problem exists at all.

    Totally!

    So do so. :P
  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Then we disagree on where the responsibility ultimately lies. But that's moot, because if the practice is agreed to be reprehensible, responsibility matters little at all.

    So you expect anyone who engages in trade to cater their practices to the lowest common denominator?? And we wonder why so much is dumbed down these days... If you cater to people's ignorance, you never encourage them to learn. A world without the school of hard knocks is no world at all.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    azniadeet wrote: »
    So you expect anyone who engages in trade to cater their practices to the lowest common denominator?? And we wonder why so much is dumbed down these days... If you cater to people's ignorance, you never encourage them to learn. A world without the school of hard knocks is no world at all.

    I don't expect them to do anything other than act responsibly. And when they don't, let's not kid ourselves. A spade is a spade.
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    xenor002 wrote: »
    Explains soooo much. :eek:

    I'm not drinking buddies with them but I do know a few on social networks and chat with 'em when they pop in the live chat for podcasts and such. Had a couple of opportunities for phone calls and betas in the past and I've interacted with some of them since before CoH launched.

    I wouldn't say I know them as well as even a podcaster would or had any contact that any other player couldn't have but I have taken every opportunity to talk to these guys I could get. Because I figure if a company pushes open communication, I want to get to know who I'm talking to in order to maximize the power of my feedback.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    xenor002 wrote: »
    ^ THIS.

    I love how the purps keep defending this and the most recent thing tooth n nail.

    No, I'm not defending lockboxes, exactly. Maybe others are and maybe they aren't, but I'm not going to speak for them.

    I accept certain realities that maybe some people don't, and I accept responsibility for my own behavior. I'm pointing out what those realities are, and that other people have the same responsibility that I do.

    When the lockboxes first came out, I hated them with a passion. They were awful, and they provided extremely bad value for the cost. The consolation prizes were absolute junk.

    As much as they've improved, they still provide only marginal value on average. They're not a smart purchase, but I do it anyway within limits because I want the good prizes. :o

    Sure, I'd rather they put all of that stuff in the C-Store at a fixed price. Who wouldn't? But they don't, and they don't have to.

    If Cryptic were somehow illegally siphoning money from people's bank accounts, or cheating them through false pretenses, that would be immoral and criminal and their victims would be completely faultless. But that's not what happens here.

    What happens is that somebody decides to trust their luck and buy a key to try to win a prize. Nobody ever guaranteed they'd win the prize they wanted, and they always get something of (intangible) value everytime they open one (or sell a key to somebody who opens one). They are morally culpable in the event that transfers their money (or Time/Dilithium) to Cryptic and it's not a crime.

    People make it out to be a moral outrage, and I will admit to some question about the ethics of how lockboxes are marketed. But I don't see anyone acknowledging that Cryptic isn't misrepresenting what lockboxes are or that people don't have to open the darn things. It is not much different from buying a CCG booster pack, or opening a Heroclix box. That is what I am reacting to.
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I'm not drinking buddies with them but I do know a few on social networks and chat with 'me when they pop in the live chat for podcasts and such. Had a couple of opportunities for phone calls and betas in the past and I've interacted with some of them since before CoH launched.

    I wouldn't say I know them as well as even a podcaster would or had any contact that any other player couldn't have but I have taken every opportunity to talk to these guys I could get. Because I figure if a company pushes open communication, I want to get to know who I'm talking to in order to maximize the power of my feedback.

    I really don't think you needed to defend yourself on this one, mate. The comment made about you was totally out of line.
  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Totally!

    So do so. :P

    I buy a lockbox knowing I'll get something, hoping that I'll get something extra.

    I've voluntarily parted with my money, accepting that I will receive a minimum, plus a chance (some chance, which I understand that I don't know the odds of) that I will get extras. I've not been cheated. I've not been deceived. Nobody has inflicted undue force or violence on me. Nobody has defrauded me out of money. There is no problem.

    I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed many of the goodies I've got from lock boxes. No regrets about opening them- even the 'losers'.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    azniadeet wrote: »
    I buy a lockbox knowing I'll get something, hoping that I'll get something extra.

    I've voluntarily parted with my money, accepting that I will receive a minimum, plus a chance (some chance, which I understand that I don't know the odds of) that I will get extras. I've not been cheated. I've not been deceived. Nobody has inflicted undue force or violence on me. Nobody has defrauded me out of money. There is no problem.

    I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed many of the goodies I've got from lock boxes. No regrets about opening them- even the 'losers'.

    Do you think you're in the majority on that?
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I really don't think you needed to defend yourself on this one, mate. The comment made about you was totally out of line.

    I guess my point is that I know their politics and corporate culture. They won't turn down a dollar but they're not exactly "TRIBBLE the poor" types.

    The business model behind F2P is two things:

    Find ways to get value out of people who won't or can't spend $15 a month via smaller transactions or time based monetization.

    Find ways to get much, much more than $15 a month out of people who will spend more.

    It's just eliminating subs as either a cap or a barrier.

    If you want an expected spending cap, stick with monthly fee games.
  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Do you think you're in the majority on that?

    Majorities don't make facts.

    The facts of the situation are as follows: I've voluntarily parted with my money, accepting that I will receive a minimum, plus a chance (some chance, which I understand that I don't know the odds of) that I will get extras. I've not been cheated. I've not been deceived. Nobody has inflicted undue force or violence on me. Nobody has defrauded me out of money.

    Therefore, in a very real sense: there is no problem.

    If the majority feels there is a problem, then the majority needs to get the hell over its own sense of entitlement and self-cententedness, because nobody has harmed them, and they have no reason to act self-righteous or indignant about a voluntary exchange that other people CHOOSE to engage in.

    If you don't like it, don't engage in it. Keep your morals to yourself, please.
  • seekerkorhilseekerkorhil Member Posts: 472
    edited October 2012
    azniadeet wrote: »
    I buy a lockbox knowing I'll get something, hoping that I'll get something extra.

    I've voluntarily parted with my money, accepting that I will receive a minimum, plus a chance (some chance, which I understand that I don't know the odds of) that I will get extras. I've not been cheated. I've not been deceived. Nobody has inflicted undue force or violence on me. Nobody has defrauded me out of money. There is no problem.

    I, for one, have thoroughly enjoyed many of the goodies I've got from lock boxes. No regrets about opening them- even the 'losers'.

    This is the mentality everyone should adopt when it comes to the lockboxes. The prize you always get is Lobi. Clearly this poster is happy paying $1.25 for 5 lobi.

    Personally I'm not happy paying $50 for a single console from the lobi store or $200 for a ship. Thats what it equates to.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    I guess my point is that I know their politics and corporate culture. They won't turn down a dollar but they're not exactly "TRIBBLE the poor" types.

    The business model behind F2P is two things:

    Find ways to get value out of people who won't or can't spend $15 a month via smaller transactions or time based monetization.

    Find ways to get much, much more than $15 a month out of people who will spend more.

    It's just eliminating subs as either a cap or a barrier.

    If you want an expected spending cap, stick with monthly fee games.

    And I guess my point is this: There's a reason they chose to go the lockbox route and it's not because they wanted to do you any favors.

    Ultimately there are other ways for them to earn money, but they chose this particular system and the reasons for that choice are what I question on a moral level.
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    This is the mentality everyone should adopt when it comes to the lockboxes. The prize you always get is Lobi. Clearly this poster is happy paying $1.25 for 5 lobi.

    Personally I'm not happy paying $50 for a single console from the lobi store or $200 for a ship. Thats what it equates to.

    I totally agree there and think other prizes need to be better or Lobi prices need to be 40-50% what they are.

    Maybe if every Lobi purchase awarded back dilithium along with the prize or something, it could be worth it.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    azniadeet wrote: »
    Majorities don't make facts.

    The facts of the situation are as follows: I've voluntarily parted with my money, accepting that I will receive a minimum, plus a chance (some chance, which I understand that I don't know the odds of) that I will get extras. I've not been cheated. I've not been deceived. Nobody has inflicted undue force or violence on me. Nobody has defrauded me out of money.

    Therefore, in a very real sense: there is no problem.

    If the majority feels there is a problem, then the majority needs to get the hell over its own sense of entitlement and self-cententedness, because nobody has harmed them, and they have no reason to act self-righteous or indignant about a voluntary exchange that other people CHOOSE to engage in.

    If you don't like it, don't engage in it. Keep your morals to yourself, please.

    But isn't imposing morals precisely what you're doing?
  • hippiejonhippiejon Member Posts: 1,581 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Do you think you're in the majority on that?

    Maybe he's not a majority, but then again neither are all of your screaming about how bad the boxes are.

    The majority here is the countless players who never visit the forums. Considering that the lockboxes continue to perform quite well as a revenue generator, it would seem that the majority at least accepts them, and some (myself included) have actually found ways to *gasp* enjoy them.

    At this point, I think the original question has been answered.

    When will the community just give up and embrace lockboxes?

    It would seem ... never.
    Embrace may be too strong of a word.
    It does seem that there will never be an end to the ranting, snarky anti lockbox brigade, but it would seem that a large number of players have at least "accepted" them, and recognize the commitment of the Dev team to make them better with each new iteration.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    hippiejon wrote: »
    Maybe he's not a majority, but then again neither are all of your screaming about how bad the boxes are.

    The majority here is the countless players who never visit the forums. Considering that the lockboxes continue to perform quite well as a revenue generator, it would seem that the majority at least accepts them, and some (myself included) have actually found ways to *gasp* enjoy them.

    At this point, I think the original question has been answered.

    When will the community just give up and embrace lockboxes?

    It would seem ... never.
    Embrace may be too strong of a word.
    It does seem that there will never be an end to the ranting, snarky anti lockbox brigade, but it would seem that a large number of players have at least "accepted" them, and recognize the commitment of the Dev team to make them better with each new iteration.

    If 'we' can't speak for the silent majority, then neither can you. I'd also like to point out that using "snark" to decry "snark" is insanely hypocritical.
  • azniadeetazniadeet Member Posts: 1,871 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    But isn't imposing morals precisely what you're doing?

    No.

    I don't believe anyone should be forced to open lockboxes.

    I also don't believe anyone should be able to force me to NOT open lockboxes.

    Accepting the existence of a practice, while accepting that others are free to not engage in said practice, is what 'not imposing morals' is all about.

    If you want to eliminate lockboxes, when cryptic still wants to sell them, and people still want to buy them; you are imposing your morals.

    Conversely, if you want to mandate lockboxes, and require people to buy them against their will; you are imposing your morals.

    If you say, lockboxes should be available to those who want them, by those who want to sell them, but nobody should be forced into it. (the status quo) You are not imposing your morals. You're leaving it up to the seller and the buyer.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    azniadeet wrote: »
    No.

    I don't believe anyone should be forced to open lockboxes.

    I also don't believe anyone should be force to NOT open lockboxes.

    Accepting the existence of a practice, while accepting that others are free to not engage in said practice, is what 'not imposing morals' is all about.

    If you want to eliminate lockboxes, when cryptic still wants to sell them, and people still want to buy them; you are imposing your morals.

    Conversely, if you want to mandate lockboxes, and require people to buy them against their will; you are imposing your morals.

    If you say, lockboxes should be available to those who want them, by those who want to sell them, but nobody should be forced into it. (the status quo) You are not imposing your morals. You're leaving it up to the seller and the buyer.

    You accept the practice and expect others to accept it. It might not be morals, but it's an imposition. It's also bad form.

    Allow me to demonstrate: If you don't like the anti-lockbox conversation, ignore it.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Does somebody wanting all your expendable money make them a bad person?

    I know a lot of guys at Cryptic. They ain't exactly Wal-Mart or Bain Capital. But they do want any money you'll part with. I don't see that as greed.

    Well, by definition, if they want ALL my expendable money then it probably does constitute greed.

    But that's just word-chopping. No, I don't think that Cryptic has proved that they are greedy, or that they don't provide fair value for their product, or that they're out to cheat people, or that they don't care about people spending more than they can afford.

    I think it is fair to say that their marketing practices are calculated to generate sales and that they take advantage of psychology to do it. In that, they are no worse than any other company and I'd even say they're more responsible about it than some. Some companies are a heck of a lot sneakier about it.

    And it is fair to say that Cryptic has to make a good profit and that their employees need an income. They have a responsibility to do that.

    Probably for the most part the people who spend the most on this are the ones that are hurt the least by spending it. That there may be some who spend more than they should, I do not question.

    I think it is also fair to say that people who overspend on entertainment are unwise, and that they've done it to themselves. I include myself in that statement, at times.

    The heart of the matter is that some people, including me, would rather see all of this stuff put into the C-store where we can buy it if we want it and leave it if we don't. But I don't have a militant attitude against lockboxes either. I recognize what they are, probably better than some, and I've bought keys myself.
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
  • daan2006daan2006 Member Posts: 5,346 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    You accept the practice and expect others to accept it. It might not be morals, but it's an imposition. It's also bad form.

    Allow me to demonstrate: If you don't like the anti-lockbox conversation, ignore it.

    i here by support this post
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    swimwear off risa not fixed
    system Lord Baal is dead
    macronius wrote: »
    This! Their ability to outdo their own failures is quite impressive. If only this power could be harnessed for good.
  • hippiejonhippiejon Member Posts: 1,581 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    But isn't imposing morals precisely what you're doing?

    Nope.
    He's saying, this is how it is.
    I accept and even enjoy it .
    Your mileage may vary.

    Either buy them or don't.
    But stop ranting and raging about it, and trying to tell other people that they are bad for supporting the lockboxes.

    It's their decision.
    Just as your decision is *gasp* yours.

    Maybe not you specifically, but this forum is full of posters claiming the Moral high ground about how bad and destructive lockboxes are. I have seen posters called out and told that their morals are screwed up, because they DARED to support lockboxes.

    Asking someone to just, in essence, do their own thing, and let you do yours is in no way, "imposing morals".

    Those who are trying to (through repetition and BEING LOUD !!!!) shame Cryptic and the DEVS by saying that lockboxes are IMMORAL. It is the responsibility of the company to act with more moral responsibility , etc etc etc .... Those are the people attempting to impose morality on others.
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    bluegeek wrote: »
    The heart of the matter is that some people, including me, would rather see all of this stuff put into the C-store where we can buy it if we want it and leave it if we don't. But I don't have a militant attitude against lockboxes either. I recognize what they are, probably better than some, and I've bought keys myself.

    Skadoosh! +10
  • purplegamerpurplegamer Member Posts: 1,015 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    hippiejon wrote: »
    Nope.
    He's saying, this is how it is.
    I accept and even enjoy it .
    Your mileage may vary.

    Either buy them or don't.
    But stop ranting and raging about it, and trying to tell other people that they are bad for supporting the lockboxes.

    It's their decision.
    Just as your decision is *gasp* yours.

    Maybe not you specifically, but this forum is full of posters claiming the Moral high ground about how bad and destructive lockboxes are. I have seen posters called out and told that their morals are screwed up, because they DARED to support lockboxes.

    Asking someone to just, in essence, do their own thing, and let you do yours is in no way, "imposing morals".

    Those who are trying to (through repetition and BEING LOUD !!!!) shame Cryptic and the DEVS by saying that lockboxes are IMMORAL. It is the responsibility of the company to act with more moral responsibility , etc etc etc .... Those are the people attempting to impose morality on others.

    The tone you use is extremely unfriendly. It's also ironic.

    You're also using a straw man. Lots of those around today.

    EDIT - To add, you're using the same 'if you don't like it, don't do it' argument. To which I say this: If you don't like the conversation, don't partake of it.
  • bluegeekbluegeek Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited October 2012
    Gentle reminder... No "Forum PvP", guys...

    Use good sense, a sense of humor, and when in doubt re-read the [URL="http://sto-
    forum.perfectworld.com/announcement.php?f=125&a=51"]forum rules[/URL].

    Thanx :)
    My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here
    Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
This discussion has been closed.