I actually decided to buy two of the packs because my rom needs some better quality doffs. I didn't get any doffs he could use so I put them on the exchange.
I'm not the least bit concerned about winning a ship so I don't care that I didn't get one. I wanted doffs and had some zen and this promotion is the best time to get those packs because there's still a remote possibility to get a ship.
It isn't gambling, technically, but it does affect people with compulsive behaviors.
I think you have that wrong: It is technically gambling. Where PWE and other publishers working with insidious F2P models have found a loophole is that it's not legally gambling.
It's easy to see how a minor could get caught up in wanting in-game "stuff" that they don't have the money to buy. The goal of marketing is always to convince people they want to buy your product.
That's not necessarily bad. They aren't victimizing people. They are providing something with entertainment value. It's up to the person who has the bank account to exercise responsibility for where their money goes. And to the person paying for the Internet connection to take responsibility for how it's used.
Using psychological tactics to convince someone to buy something they don't want or need is most certainly victimizing them--especially because the goal is to remove or otherwise blunt the person's ability to act responsibly.
Calling lockboxes an "entertainment" commodity is giving them too much credit. Their purpose is to obfuscate the real value of what's being "sold" by inflating their value with chance.
Letting (read: encouraging) consumers spend tens and hundreds of dollars for something that has zero intrinsic value is incredibly greedy, disrespectful, and evil. It's especially so because there's no reason these items have to be "sold" this way at all.
Why? Because suddenly the consumer would be armed with knowledge that makes the transaction fair and equitable?
Only an i... err... clueless person would NEED that info. Seriously.... when is coffee normally cold? NOT McDonalds! or any other fast food restaurant. Lock boxes already come with a disclaimer that goes you get 1 of these possible items. Thus this proposal is redundant and pointless.
Seriously... what do YOU think would be a good way for the Devs to finance the game? Obviously the subscription method wasn't lucrative enough.
....
While PWE and Cryptic are presently on firm legal ground and lockboxes don't meet the legal definition of gambling in the U.S. and many other places, I think we can all agree that there is an element of risk involved in buying large quantities of keys or packs for the bonus awards.
At the moment, under very strict legal wording rules and loopholes, it may not be classed as gambling - but as society catches up with technology, that will change, just as other definitions have been updated, so will that one.
It's easy to see how a minor could get caught up in wanting in-game "stuff" that they don't have the money to buy. The goal of marketing is always to convince people they want to buy your product.
It is easy for you to see, you play the game, you understand online entertainment - but not every parent worldwide does, which is my whole point - the slight change would bring this information forward for those who do not understand or know.
It's up to the person who has the bank account to exercise responsibility for where their money goes. And to the person paying for the Internet connection to take responsibility for how it's used.
Just wait until your little ones are 15 - 16 years old, someone at their school will tell them how to subvert any and all measures to get around internet monitoring software and devices you may have in place.
I'm not sure there's a lot of value in PWE posting the equivalent of "This coffee is HOT. May cause burns if misapplied. Drink at your own risk."
"Minors may steal your wallet in order to buy Zen compulsively. May result in financial hardship. Have children at your own risk."
So, the warning on tobacco/ cigarette packets with the gross photos of diseased lungs or the drooping cigarette hinting at impotency is pointless then?
Stella Artois (to name just 1 of many brands) putting the website link for drinkaware.co.uk with "Please drink responsably" on the cans, is pointless?
The information is there not just as a deterrent, if it was then yes it would be pointless. The information is there to help raise awareness and help educate people in what to expect in a worse case scenario.
For a relatively small adjustment to slap a small bit of information on the site with a link to a support site, it may help inform and educate parents what risks they are letting their children face, who may have compulsive disorders or not mentally old enough to understand the gambling aspect of certain promotions.
Never knew who General Mills were - but thank you.
Glad to know, I'm not the only person with a "grossly distorted concept of reality", looks like the concept of "social challenges" sits with them as well as with me - I will be sure to buy those products now I know they are a reasonable and responsible company.
Just out of curiosity, how is a website about a food company a better example that an online marketplace?
Hidden gambling elements masquerading as a social game, suitable for 13 year olds.... don't see the connection with Ebay, Amazon or General Mills - none of those as far as I am aware, can build up gambling addictions in young people.
Come on Gollums, unite in your defense of "my precious" as that's all I'm seeing at the moment... with exception to the General Mills site, a refreshing read.
Website? I'm talking about the grocery store where kids try to convince their parents to buy things simply because they look cool. :P
And yeah... Gambling? No. It's been explained to you multiple times already but since you obviously don't care about that....
I'm not a big fan of the lockbox model, but I understand why they do it. And yes, it is a marketing tactic. A pretty effective one. Very clever psych-fu.
I can dislike the effect it has on me while recognizing it for what it is and even admiring the clever use of psychology to leverage my buyer's impulse.
But they have gone to considerable pains to insure that you don't ever have to open a lockbox to play the game and to provide you with the ability to get something you want (with Lobi) in addition to the random bonus item.
Caveat emptor has been a well known principle since long before marketing became a science.
I honestly cannot understand how anyone can heap all responsibility at Cryptic's door without recognizing that people are making conscious choices to spend money on intangible goods.
If anything, people are victims of their own bad decisions and rightly experience the natural outcome from such.
I will not argue that Cryptic doesn't profit from that. You can debate the ethics of that if you want.
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
You pay some cash and get to open something which, you know will contain something, but possibly not what you want. But there's always chocolate.
Those pesky Kinder eggs, eh?
How come they get a free pass, eh?
In my home, they don't get a free pass. The moment my young ones decided they no longer wanted the chocolate, just the toy, we stopped buying them.
You know why, because I am an informed parent, I know the changes of my child getting the toy they want (seen on TV adverts) and the reality of the toy they may get (old stock, new promo eggs not out yet despite the advert being run etc..).
So, now, they are banned in my house, I'd rather buy my children, well, toys. :P
I'm not a big fan of the lockbox model, but I understand why they do it. And yes, it is a marketing tactic. A pretty effective one. Very clever psych-fu.
I can dislike the effect it has on me while recognizing it for what it is and even admiring the clever use of psychology to leverage my buyer's impulse.
But they have gone to considerable pains to insure that you don't ever have to open a lockbox to play the game and to provide you with the ability to get something you want (with Lobi) in addition to the random bonus item.
Caveat emptor has been a well known principle since long before marketing became a science.
I honestly cannot understand how anyone can heap all responsibility at Cryptic's door without recognizing that people are making conscious choices to spend money on intangible goods.
In my home, they don't get a free pass. The moment my young ones decided they no longer wanted the chocolate, just the toy, we stopped buying them.
You know why, because I am an informed parent, I know the changes of my child getting the toy they want (seen on TV adverts) and the reality of the toy they may get (old stock, new promo eggs not out yet despite the advert being run etc..).
So, now, they are banned in my house, I'd rather buy my children, well, toys. :P
This is the point.
Don't buy a kinder egg for the starship, and don't open a lockbox for the toy inside.
Or the other way around.
Point is, a Kinder egg is absolutely fine, as long as you buy it for the chocolate and not the toy.
Sort of the same with a lockbox.
Open them for the starships and you're not going to be a happy bunny much of the time.
Open them for the lobi, or the idea of a free something without caring what it is, and they're fine too.
It's the expectations that makes lockboxes horrible.
So, the warning on tobacco/ cigarette packets with the gross photos of diseased lungs or the drooping cigarette hinting at impotency is pointless then?
Stella Artois (to name just 1 of many brands) putting the website link for drinkaware.co.uk with "Please drink responsably" on the cans, is pointless?
The information is there not just as a deterrent, if it was then yes it would be pointless. The information is there to help raise awareness and help educate people in what to expect in a worse case scenario.
For a relatively small adjustment to slap a small bit of information on the site with a link to a support site, it may help inform and educate parents what risks they are letting their children face, who may have compulsive disorders or not mentally old enough to understand the gambling aspect of certain promotions.
My cynical side says those warnings are there so that politicians can say they accomplished something and so the companies can cover their legal behinds. They didn't do it willingly. People ignore those labels on a routine basis.
I'm not discounting the value of education. But without moral context, it's worthless.
I would applaud PWE if they actually did such a thing. I just don't expect them to take responsibility for something that I am rightly responsible for, and I'm for sure not sharpening any pitchforks to storm the castle with.
Politicians might someday force a "warning label" on STO. And they'll be wrong. Or at least, doing it for the wrong reasons.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who would prefer that Cryptic (and the government, and the activists) stick to their business and stay out of mine.
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
If anything, people are victims of their own bad decisions and rightly experience the natural outcome from such.
That is one heck of a "U" turn :eek:
As for calling Boxes and Promos "Gambling" - fair enough, if you are 100% happy within yourself, I'll not argue a definition with you.
But, my point and you first quote there, still stand. Those not old enough to know about addictive behaviour and those with disorders are, by any definition, vulnerable persons.
As far as I am aware, in the "modern world" abandoning the vulnerable is left to the animal kingdom - humans strive to help, protect and educate them in potential dangers.
Such as, I don't know, perhaps a bit of information that the game has a mechanic that can be as addictive as, say, gambling - doesn't have to be a giant pop up, just a nice paragraph with a website link, for careers, guardians and parents on say, the download page or sign up sheet.
I keep asking all those who are going mental defending the lack of information - who will it harm adding this - no one has actually answered that question yet.
Here's the thing... I don't recognize "compulsive behavior" to equate to excusing behavior.
If it's not okay to overspend, then you shouldn't overspend no matter what your impulse is telling you to do.
The store you're spending money at doesn't have the responsibility or even the right to tell you that you're overspending.
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
My cynical side says those warnings are there so that politicians can say they accomplished something and so the companies can cover their legal behinds. They didn't do it willingly. People ignore those labels on a routine basis.
I'm not discounting the value of education. But without moral context, it's worthless.
I would applaud PWE if they actually did such a thing. I just don't expect them to take responsibility for something that I am rightly responsible for, and I'm for sure not sharpening any pitchforks to storm the castle with.
Politicians might someday force a "warning label" on STO. And they'll be wrong. Or at least, doing it for the wrong reasons.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who would prefer that Cryptic (and the government, and the activists) stick to their business and stay out of mine.
Oh, I won't disagree with you on the warnings, in part they were forced out to make the government feel better about the health policies it had and so on. But don't discount them either, after 17 years of smoking, I woke up one morning short of breath, my mind right away recalled those 2 pictures (there are more, but those 2 stick with me).
I gave up smoking 18 months ago.
The reasons the information was placed there, may have been the wrong reasons - but we cannot argue the outcomes. The NHS help more and more people give up smoking every year, quite a few can directly relate the "educational" information on tobacco and cigarette packets.
People protested that information just like they protest my suggestion here today - funnily enough :P
[Edit : We seem to have a cross over conversation going - I will go make Tea and give it 10 minutes lol]
I keep asking all those who are going mental defending the lack of information - who will it harm adding this - no one has actually answered that question yet.
If I take any issue with your stance, it is only your apparent insistence that PWE is ethically obligated to provide the warnings you say they should be providing. But you're entitled to your opinion so I won't argue with you about this any more.
If they choose to put up such warnings, fully understanding any ramifications for doing so, then again I say I would applaud them for that choice.
I see that they are already very careful to explain how these promotions work and they are doing something to educate the consumer, and I give them credit for that. They are even acting to protect their customers by repackaging the promo packs so that opportunists can't (easily) rip them off in the Exchange.
In my opinion, they are doing what they should be doing.
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
Here's the thing... I don't recognize "compulsive behavior" to equate to excusing behavior.
If it's not okay to overspend, then you shouldn't overspend no matter what your impulse is telling you to do.
The store you're spending money at doesn't have the responsibility or even the right to tell you that you're overspending.
I would counter that with the example of casinos being required to stop patrons from gambling when they are inebriated. Or bars being required to cut people off.
Clearly, the law recognizes that businesses have a legal responsibility to regulate their interactions with customers with diminished capacity.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
Not saying Cryptic have crossed the line, but there is a line that could be crossed.
I've seen it, a real life friend of mine spent over a weeks wage on the first Bug ship promo in under an hour (not including the EC that also went with it) :mad:
I'm not blaming Cryptic, if that is what everyone is getting mad at - they need to go back and read my posts again, I am not and have not blamed Cryptic, PWE or any other company.
My friend is a grown adult (3 years older than me) - he "should" have known better, but that Bug ship "could be in the next pack". Yes the marketing sucks people in - that's it's job.
All I'm asking for, is a bit of information to aid others in their decision making process.
Yet all I seem to have received is hostility and a strange defensive yet confusing stance from some
The same community who want more information in the patch notes and maintenance schedules don't want any possible downsides (that could affect them) on display
I've seen it, a real life friend of mine spent over a weeks wage on the first Bug ship promo in under an hour (not including the EC that also went with it) :mad:
I'm not blaming Cryptic, if that is what everyone is getting mad at - they need to go back and read my posts again, I am not and have not blamed Cryptic, PWE or any other company.
My friend is a grown adult (3 years older than me) - he "should" have known better, but that Bug ship "could be in the next pack". Yes the marketing sucks people in - that's it's job.
All I'm asking for, is a bit of information to aid others in their decision making process.
Yet all I seem to have received is hostility and a strange defensive yet confusing stance from some
The same community who want more information in the patch notes and maintenance schedules don't want any possible downsides (that could affect them) on display
I can see what happened to your friend being more common than anyone wants.
Including Cryptic.
It's not an easy area to navigate.
And not an easy issue to grapple with.
As said, i don't think Cryptic have crossed any lines, but they are there.
I would say, if the bartender knows that someone is impaired and if they continue to serve them drinks, then they are morally responsible for that action and they share in the responsibility for what that person does when they're drunk.
Yes, I think a bar can and should cut people off. I don't think it's a good comparison here.
A casino doesn't and can't know how much money their patrons can afford to spend. But even there, a trained professional should be able to recognize the signs of a compulsive gambler and could make the decision to stop accepting that person's bets.
Tobacco companies knowingly sold a product that they knew was a health risk for many years, even trying to market it to children who couldn't actually buy it. I won't shed a tear if every last one of them goes under. But I still see adults who are somewhat aware of the risks who still smoke, and the full realization doesn't hit them until their health is already at risk. They had access to the information and they ignored it until they couldn't anymore.
There is a chemical addiction that results from nicotene and I agree that it's not easy for people who have that compulsive behavior to quit. It's not easy for gamblers to quit either, and there are more subtle dependencies at work there. But in both cases, that person chose to put themselves on that path and they are responsible for the decisions that put them in those situations. They can also choose to put in the very difficult effort to change their behavior... or not.
I will say here that mental disorders are not merely bad choices and self-control issues. But not every self-control issue is a mental disorder, if you get my meaning.
So is buying from PWE risky? Well... maybe yes and maybe no. It's debatable, and it depends on the circumstances. I agree that buying keys in bulk is not the wisest decision, and I recognize that PWE would like me to buy lots and lots of them.
Overall, though, I think their promotions are fair.
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
Only an i... err... clueless person would NEED that info. Seriously.... when is coffee normally cold? NOT McDonalds! or any other fast food restaurant. Lock boxes already come with a disclaimer that goes you get 1 of these possible items. Thus this proposal is redundant and pointless.
Seriously... what do YOU think would be a good way for the Devs to finance the game? Obviously the subscription method wasn't lucrative enough.
It's not redundant or pointless because not all of the items in those boxes are created equal; the rarity of the item determines two things: 1) its value and 2) the demand for the item. The more rare the item is, the greater the demand will be for players to win said item. So when a player sits down to open these boxes, I would wager that very few of them are doing it for the lobi (included as part of the loophole that legally distances these boxes from other forms gambling). People want the ships, and as long as they believe they have a chance of winning one from a box, they'll continue to spend their money to open them. Psychological pressure is being created to encourage players to gamble--yes--gamble their money away for a chance to win a ship. The other prizes exist as consolations at best and legal loopholes at worst.
In addition, you're presenting a false dilemma, suggesting that if Cryptic/PWE were to remove the lockboxes, they'd be out of funding options. The fact that so many other games can find funding with different models would suggest that STO could be funded by something other than its current model--a model chosen because Cryptic/PWE believe its the most profitable for the least amount of effort.
At the end of the day, if you make a good game, people will pay you for it. You don't and shouldn't have to trick or coerce them into paying for it.
Here's the thing... I don't recognize "compulsive behavior" to equate to excusing behavior.
If it's not okay to overspend, then you shouldn't overspend no matter what your impulse is telling you to do.
The store you're spending money at doesn't have the responsibility or even the right to tell you that you're overspending.
Yes, for the most part the store won't even KNOW if you're overspending. Thus it's really none of their business. It falls to the spender to decide if they are overspending. The people around them have no reason(or right) to do so for them.
A casino doesn't and can't know how much money their patrons can afford to spend. But even there, a trained professional should be able to recognize the signs of a compulsive gambler and could make the decision to stop accepting that person's bets.
Perhaps not in your juridstiction, but here in BC its possible to sign on to a scheme where you voluntarily ban yourself from casinos.
The casinos are supposed to prevent you entering.
They're not held legally responsible if you evade them and get in trouble, but it is a help of some sort.
I will say here that mental disorders are not merely bad choices and self-control issues. But not every self-control issue is a mental disorder, if you get my meaning.
Absolutely.
Any competent worker in the area will tell you we don't do normal human unhappiness.
Even though unhappiness can be a symptom of other, more problematic, conditions.
Overall, though, I think their promotions are fair.
Actually, I don't disagree.
But its a useful discussion drawing where the line would be.
It's not redundant or pointless because not all of the items in those boxes are created equal; the rarity of the item determines two things: 1) its value and 2) the demand for the item. The more rare the item is, the greater the demand will be for players to win said item. So when a player sits down to open these boxes, I would wager that very few of them are doing it for the lobi (included as part of the loophole that legally distances these boxes from other forms gambling). People want the ships, and as long as they believe they have a chance of winning one from a box, they'll continue to spend their money to open them. Psychological pressure is being created to encourage players to gamble--yes--gamble their money away for a chance to win a ship. The other prizes exist as consolations at best and legal loopholes at worst.
In addition, you're presenting a false dilemma, suggesting that if Cryptic/PWE were to remove the lockboxes, they'd be out of funding options. The fact that so many other games can find funding with different models would suggest that STO could be funded by something other than its current model--a model chosen because Cryptic/PWE believe its the most profitable for the least amount of effort.
At the end of the day, if you make a good game, people will pay you for it. You don't and shouldn't have to trick or coerce them into paying for it.
Right.... and what option is that? Hmm? You keep saying that but you never explain WHAT you think they could do better.
Yes, for the most part the store won't even KNOW if you're overspending. Thus it's really none of their business. It falls to the spender to decide if they are overspending. The people around them have no reason(or right) to do so for them.
Correct, but therein lies the problem: Not every spender is capable of knowing they're overspending and there are many variables as to why that could be: false advertising, inebriation, predatory marketing, bandwagon, disability, etc.
In those cases where does the burden of responsibility fall? I would argue on the business providing the product or service.
Correct, but therein lies the problem: Not every spender is capable of knowing they're overspending
How many people like that do you really think are playing STO(with a payment method)? As nice as your argument sounds, the flaw to it is that it relies on the assumption that it's the company's fault that people are in that situation. When it's really (almost always) the individual's fault.
I would say, if the bartender knows that someone is impaired and if they continue to serve them drinks, then they are morally responsible for that action and they share in the responsibility for what that person does when they're drunk.
It's more than just moral responsibility.
Quoting from an NHTSA study:
Most States have both criminal and administrative laws prohibiting sales of alcohol to intoxicated people; only Florida and Nevada have no such laws at the State level. There are important differences between criminal and administrative SIP laws in terms of the standards of evidence required to prove guilt, who may be charged with a violation, and what types of penalties may be imposed on SIP law violators.
"Participation in PVP-related activities is so low on an hourly, daily, weekly, and monthly basis that we could in fact just completely take it out of STO and it would not impact the overall number of people [who] log in to the game and play in any significant way." -Gozer, Cryptic PvP Dev
I don't have to suggest an alternate pricing model for my claim to be valid that the current model is predatory.
Technically true, but it's a fundamentally flawed argument to say "there's a better way..... maybe somewhere....." It lacks substance and has no real decision making value.
How many people like that do you really think are playing STO(with a payment method)? As nice as your argument sounds, the flaw to it is that it relies on the assumption that it's the company's fault that people are in that situation. When it's really (almost always) the individual's fault.
No that's not the case at all. There's no suggestion inherent to the argument that Cryptic/PWE are at fault. In the specific examples I provided, there's no fault on the part of the individual.
Technically true, but it's a fundamentally flawed argument to say "there's a better way..... maybe somewhere....." It lacks substance and has no real decision making value.
Comments
I'm not the least bit concerned about winning a ship so I don't care that I didn't get one. I wanted doffs and had some zen and this promotion is the best time to get those packs because there's still a remote possibility to get a ship.
I think you have that wrong: It is technically gambling. Where PWE and other publishers working with insidious F2P models have found a loophole is that it's not legally gambling.
Using psychological tactics to convince someone to buy something they don't want or need is most certainly victimizing them--especially because the goal is to remove or otherwise blunt the person's ability to act responsibly.
Calling lockboxes an "entertainment" commodity is giving them too much credit. Their purpose is to obfuscate the real value of what's being "sold" by inflating their value with chance.
Letting (read: encouraging) consumers spend tens and hundreds of dollars for something that has zero intrinsic value is incredibly greedy, disrespectful, and evil. It's especially so because there's no reason these items have to be "sold" this way at all.
Why? Because suddenly the consumer would be armed with knowledge that makes the transaction fair and equitable?
In exactly the same way a Kinder egg is gambling.
You pay some cash and get to open something which, you know will contain something, but possibly not what you want. But there's always chocolate.
Those pesky Kinder eggs, eh?
How come they get a free pass, eh?
Seriously... what do YOU think would be a good way for the Devs to finance the game? Obviously the subscription method wasn't lucrative enough.
My character Tsin'xing
At the moment, under very strict legal wording rules and loopholes, it may not be classed as gambling - but as society catches up with technology, that will change, just as other definitions have been updated, so will that one.
It is easy for you to see, you play the game, you understand online entertainment - but not every parent worldwide does, which is my whole point - the slight change would bring this information forward for those who do not understand or know.
Just wait until your little ones are 15 - 16 years old, someone at their school will tell them how to subvert any and all measures to get around internet monitoring software and devices you may have in place.
So, the warning on tobacco/ cigarette packets with the gross photos of diseased lungs or the drooping cigarette hinting at impotency is pointless then?
Stella Artois (to name just 1 of many brands) putting the website link for drinkaware.co.uk with "Please drink responsably" on the cans, is pointless?
The information is there not just as a deterrent, if it was then yes it would be pointless. The information is there to help raise awareness and help educate people in what to expect in a worse case scenario.
For a relatively small adjustment to slap a small bit of information on the site with a link to a support site, it may help inform and educate parents what risks they are letting their children face, who may have compulsive disorders or not mentally old enough to understand the gambling aspect of certain promotions.
And yeah... Gambling? No. It's been explained to you multiple times already but since you obviously don't care about that....
My character Tsin'xing
I'm not a big fan of the lockbox model, but I understand why they do it. And yes, it is a marketing tactic. A pretty effective one. Very clever psych-fu.
I can dislike the effect it has on me while recognizing it for what it is and even admiring the clever use of psychology to leverage my buyer's impulse.
But they have gone to considerable pains to insure that you don't ever have to open a lockbox to play the game and to provide you with the ability to get something you want (with Lobi) in addition to the random bonus item.
Caveat emptor has been a well known principle since long before marketing became a science.
I honestly cannot understand how anyone can heap all responsibility at Cryptic's door without recognizing that people are making conscious choices to spend money on intangible goods.
They. are. not. Cryptic's. victims. They. chose. to. spend. the. money.
If anything, people are victims of their own bad decisions and rightly experience the natural outcome from such.
I will not argue that Cryptic doesn't profit from that. You can debate the ethics of that if you want.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
In my home, they don't get a free pass. The moment my young ones decided they no longer wanted the chocolate, just the toy, we stopped buying them.
You know why, because I am an informed parent, I know the changes of my child getting the toy they want (seen on TV adverts) and the reality of the toy they may get (old stock, new promo eggs not out yet despite the advert being run etc..).
So, now, they are banned in my house, I'd rather buy my children, well, toys. :P
It's not necessarily what people like, but commerce would die without it.
My character Tsin'xing
This is the point.
Don't buy a kinder egg for the starship, and don't open a lockbox for the toy inside.
Or the other way around.
Point is, a Kinder egg is absolutely fine, as long as you buy it for the chocolate and not the toy.
Sort of the same with a lockbox.
Open them for the starships and you're not going to be a happy bunny much of the time.
Open them for the lobi, or the idea of a free something without caring what it is, and they're fine too.
It's the expectations that makes lockboxes horrible.
My cynical side says those warnings are there so that politicians can say they accomplished something and so the companies can cover their legal behinds. They didn't do it willingly. People ignore those labels on a routine basis.
I'm not discounting the value of education. But without moral context, it's worthless.
I would applaud PWE if they actually did such a thing. I just don't expect them to take responsibility for something that I am rightly responsible for, and I'm for sure not sharpening any pitchforks to storm the castle with.
Politicians might someday force a "warning label" on STO. And they'll be wrong. Or at least, doing it for the wrong reasons.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who would prefer that Cryptic (and the government, and the activists) stick to their business and stay out of mine.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
to;
That is one heck of a "U" turn :eek:
As for calling Boxes and Promos "Gambling" - fair enough, if you are 100% happy within yourself, I'll not argue a definition with you.
But, my point and you first quote there, still stand. Those not old enough to know about addictive behaviour and those with disorders are, by any definition, vulnerable persons.
As far as I am aware, in the "modern world" abandoning the vulnerable is left to the animal kingdom - humans strive to help, protect and educate them in potential dangers.
Such as, I don't know, perhaps a bit of information that the game has a mechanic that can be as addictive as, say, gambling - doesn't have to be a giant pop up, just a nice paragraph with a website link, for careers, guardians and parents on say, the download page or sign up sheet.
I keep asking all those who are going mental defending the lack of information - who will it harm adding this - no one has actually answered that question yet.
If it's not okay to overspend, then you shouldn't overspend no matter what your impulse is telling you to do.
The store you're spending money at doesn't have the responsibility or even the right to tell you that you're overspending.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Oh, I won't disagree with you on the warnings, in part they were forced out to make the government feel better about the health policies it had and so on. But don't discount them either, after 17 years of smoking, I woke up one morning short of breath, my mind right away recalled those 2 pictures (there are more, but those 2 stick with me).
I gave up smoking 18 months ago.
The reasons the information was placed there, may have been the wrong reasons - but we cannot argue the outcomes. The NHS help more and more people give up smoking every year, quite a few can directly relate the "educational" information on tobacco and cigarette packets.
People protested that information just like they protest my suggestion here today - funnily enough :P
[Edit : We seem to have a cross over conversation going - I will go make Tea and give it 10 minutes lol]
What if its not a store?
Can a bar cut you off?
Speaking professionally, some people actually can not control their compulsions.
For a variety of reasons.
Not saying Cryptic have crossed the line, but there is a line that could be crossed.
If I take any issue with your stance, it is only your apparent insistence that PWE is ethically obligated to provide the warnings you say they should be providing. But you're entitled to your opinion so I won't argue with you about this any more.
If they choose to put up such warnings, fully understanding any ramifications for doing so, then again I say I would applaud them for that choice.
I see that they are already very careful to explain how these promotions work and they are doing something to educate the consumer, and I give them credit for that. They are even acting to protect their customers by repackaging the promo packs so that opportunists can't (easily) rip them off in the Exchange.
In my opinion, they are doing what they should be doing.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I would counter that with the example of casinos being required to stop patrons from gambling when they are inebriated. Or bars being required to cut people off.
Clearly, the law recognizes that businesses have a legal responsibility to regulate their interactions with customers with diminished capacity.
I've seen it, a real life friend of mine spent over a weeks wage on the first Bug ship promo in under an hour (not including the EC that also went with it) :mad:
I'm not blaming Cryptic, if that is what everyone is getting mad at - they need to go back and read my posts again, I am not and have not blamed Cryptic, PWE or any other company.
My friend is a grown adult (3 years older than me) - he "should" have known better, but that Bug ship "could be in the next pack". Yes the marketing sucks people in - that's it's job.
All I'm asking for, is a bit of information to aid others in their decision making process.
Yet all I seem to have received is hostility and a strange defensive yet confusing stance from some
The same community who want more information in the patch notes and maintenance schedules don't want any possible downsides (that could affect them) on display
I can see what happened to your friend being more common than anyone wants.
Including Cryptic.
It's not an easy area to navigate.
And not an easy issue to grapple with.
As said, i don't think Cryptic have crossed any lines, but they are there.
I would say, if the bartender knows that someone is impaired and if they continue to serve them drinks, then they are morally responsible for that action and they share in the responsibility for what that person does when they're drunk.
Yes, I think a bar can and should cut people off. I don't think it's a good comparison here.
A casino doesn't and can't know how much money their patrons can afford to spend. But even there, a trained professional should be able to recognize the signs of a compulsive gambler and could make the decision to stop accepting that person's bets.
Tobacco companies knowingly sold a product that they knew was a health risk for many years, even trying to market it to children who couldn't actually buy it. I won't shed a tear if every last one of them goes under. But I still see adults who are somewhat aware of the risks who still smoke, and the full realization doesn't hit them until their health is already at risk. They had access to the information and they ignored it until they couldn't anymore.
There is a chemical addiction that results from nicotene and I agree that it's not easy for people who have that compulsive behavior to quit. It's not easy for gamblers to quit either, and there are more subtle dependencies at work there. But in both cases, that person chose to put themselves on that path and they are responsible for the decisions that put them in those situations. They can also choose to put in the very difficult effort to change their behavior... or not.
I will say here that mental disorders are not merely bad choices and self-control issues. But not every self-control issue is a mental disorder, if you get my meaning.
So is buying from PWE risky? Well... maybe yes and maybe no. It's debatable, and it depends on the circumstances. I agree that buying keys in bulk is not the wisest decision, and I recognize that PWE would like me to buy lots and lots of them.
Overall, though, I think their promotions are fair.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
It's not redundant or pointless because not all of the items in those boxes are created equal; the rarity of the item determines two things: 1) its value and 2) the demand for the item. The more rare the item is, the greater the demand will be for players to win said item. So when a player sits down to open these boxes, I would wager that very few of them are doing it for the lobi (included as part of the loophole that legally distances these boxes from other forms gambling). People want the ships, and as long as they believe they have a chance of winning one from a box, they'll continue to spend their money to open them. Psychological pressure is being created to encourage players to gamble--yes--gamble their money away for a chance to win a ship. The other prizes exist as consolations at best and legal loopholes at worst.
In addition, you're presenting a false dilemma, suggesting that if Cryptic/PWE were to remove the lockboxes, they'd be out of funding options. The fact that so many other games can find funding with different models would suggest that STO could be funded by something other than its current model--a model chosen because Cryptic/PWE believe its the most profitable for the least amount of effort.
At the end of the day, if you make a good game, people will pay you for it. You don't and shouldn't have to trick or coerce them into paying for it.
My character Tsin'xing
Perhaps not in your juridstiction, but here in BC its possible to sign on to a scheme where you voluntarily ban yourself from casinos.
The casinos are supposed to prevent you entering.
They're not held legally responsible if you evade them and get in trouble, but it is a help of some sort.
Absolutely.
Any competent worker in the area will tell you we don't do normal human unhappiness.
Even though unhappiness can be a symptom of other, more problematic, conditions.
Actually, I don't disagree.
But its a useful discussion drawing where the line would be.
My character Tsin'xing
Correct, but therein lies the problem: Not every spender is capable of knowing they're overspending and there are many variables as to why that could be: false advertising, inebriation, predatory marketing, bandwagon, disability, etc.
In those cases where does the burden of responsibility fall? I would argue on the business providing the product or service.
I don't have to suggest an alternate pricing model for my claim to be valid that the current model is predatory.
My character Tsin'xing
It's more than just moral responsibility.
Quoting from an NHTSA study:
My character Tsin'xing
No that's not the case at all. There's no suggestion inherent to the argument that Cryptic/PWE are at fault. In the specific examples I provided, there's no fault on the part of the individual.
Again, it doesn't invalidate my point.