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 that the current model is predatory to be valid.
Only in some of them.
Inebriation is a choice. Choices have consequences.
However, in rare instances, people are not capable of making informed choices at any part of the chain.
Various obsessive disorders come to mind. Gambling being one such.
As we all should know, there is nothing wrong with gambling per se, provided one can keep making rational spending decisions.
However, some people have weaknesses to certain stimuli and lose the ability to be rational.
Is this Cryptics problem?
Strictly speaking, no.
We contract with them in various ways to provide us a game to play, not health services.
However, it does Casinos in BC no financial harm to actively promote responsible gambling. Indeed, in a series of court cases, their willingness to do so has been taken by courts to represent a serious attempt to reduce harm.
And that intent has helped them in those court cases.
Thus, if Cryptic did put some small effort into promoting responsible lock box opening, it wouldnt hurt them in any material way.
But it would have a powerful immunising effect against potential problems down the line.
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.
Except that your arguments are either bogus, or the fault of the individual in question.
So, now, they are banned in my house, I'd rather buy my children, well, toys. :P
And therein lies the flaw of your entire argument, as the 'toys' that come from lockboxes can only be gotten from you know, lockboxes (even buying the ship off exchange means someone had to open a lockbox first).
So, in terms of your flawed analogy, it's either a Kinder egg with the chance of a toy, or no toy at all.
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.
You may wish to reconsider the word 'fault'
Blaming a sufferer of, say, OCD or compulsive gambling is far from helpful.
Are there many here?
Probably more OCD than compulsive gamblers, by a fairly substantial ratio...just due to the nature of fandom and the IP.
As for the incidence of OCD, about 1%
So, if we have 10,000 players on, at a given time, stats suggest we have about 100 OCD.
Except that your arguments are either bogus, or the fault of the individual in question.
Saying it doesn't make it true.
The examples provided are not bogus. Someone with a gambling addiction cannot make reasonable or responsible choices as it regards their gambling habits. Someone inebriated cannot make reasonable or responsible choices either. Someone influenced by false advertising or predatory marketing (early access comes to mind) cannot make these choices reasonably or responsibly either.
Inebriation is a choice. Choices have consequences.
However, in rare instances, people are not capable of making informed choices at any part of the chain.
Various obsessive disorders come to mind. Gambling being one such.
As we all should know, there is nothing wrong with gambling per se, provided one can keep making rational spending decisions.
However, some people have weaknesses to certain stimuli and lose the ability to be rational.
Is this Cryptics problem?
Strictly speaking, no.
We contract with them in various ways to provide us a game to play, not health services.
However, it does Casinos in BC no financial harm to actively promote responsible gambling. Indeed, in a series of court cases, their willingness to do so has been taken by courts to represent a serious attempt to reduce harm.
And that intent has helped them in those court cases.
Thus, if Cryptic did put some small effort into promoting responsible lock box opening, it wouldnt hurt them in any material way.
But it would have a powerful immunising effect against potential problems down the line.
I hesitated to explain the inebriation claim, but now I realize I should have. :P
At a certain point, the person can no longer drink responsibly since their faculties are eroded during the course of drinking, effectively canceling one's capacity to judge limits. At that point, I would not hold them responsible, but I would the people around and responsible for them (friends for example).
Blaming a sufferer of, say, OCD or compulsive gambling is far from helpful.
Are there many here?
Probably more OCD than compulsive gamblers, by a fairly substantial ratio...just due to the nature of fandom and the IP.
As for the incidence of OCD, about 1%
So, if we have 10,000 players on, at a given time, stats suggest we have about 100 OCD.
Compulsive gamblers, I'd estimate much lower.
Like many people have said, it's about impulse control. People like that should recognize that they have a problem. If they don't, then STO is likely to be just one of many problems they have.
I hesitated to explain the inebriation claim, but now I realize I should have. :P
At a certain point, the person can no longer drink responsibly since their faculties are eroded during the course of drinking, effectively canceling one's capacity to judge limits. At that point, I would not hold them responsible, but I would the people around and responsible for them (friends for example).
Sorry, cant agree.
A drunk driver, by dint of their primary decision, is responsible for their actions under the influence.
A full blown schitzophrenic made no such decision.
Both could end up, say, decapitating someone.
However, the former is legally, morally and ethically responsible.
A drunk driver, by dint of their primary decision, is responsible for their actions under the influence.
A full blown schitzophrenic made no such decision.
Both could end up, say, decapitating someone.
However, the former is legally, morally and ethically responsible.
The latter is not.
Legally, yes. At some point the person is incapable of making sound judgments; often a drunk driver does not understand that they're intoxicated to the point that they're a danger. We hold them legally responsible, sure, but I'm arguing that I couldn't hold the responsible ethically.
So hollow and self-invalidating that you cannot overcome it. I take that to mean you concede the point, thank you.
:rolleyes:
All you really said was that you think other games have a better solution to funding the game. You haven't even bothered to give a single example of ONE method you think is better. It's little more than an opinion. What's there to "overcome"?
Blaming a sufferer of, say, OCD or compulsive gambling is far from helpful.
No need to reconsider anything. There may be reasons ppl gamble; or why they are OCD. But for the purpose of attributing 'fault' (in a system where a negative cause can be said to be a 'fault'), said 'fault' is always with the player, and never with Cryptic. Cryptic does not make you buy Zen, any more than any commercial makes you buy stuff. It's just that some ppl are better able to resist tempation, and all kinds of impulsive behavior, than others.
To wit, I'm fairly OCD my own self. For instance, I can't stand having Embassy boffs with no feet on my bridge. So, I bought several loadout extension packs, with Zen, to load a faux bridge crew for when I visit my bridge. OCD-ish, for sure; but nothing I would ever blame Cryptic for. It's my fault for having the OCD, not Cryptic's.
All you really said was that you think other games have a better solution to funding the game. You haven't even bothered to give a single example of ONE method you think is better. It's little more than an opinion. What's there to "overcome"?
Except that I didn't say they had 'better' solutions, just different solutions. If you have to put words in my mouth to make your point, you clearly don't have ground to stand on. In the interest of keeping the discussion going--since I'm enjoying it--here's a further breakdown of my claim:
I consider lockboxes to be predatory and insidious by nature and advocate for their removal from the game's financial model. To counter my argument, you presented a false dilemma, saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that it's either the lockboxes or no game. My response was to point out that Cryptic/PWE's model is not the only model for financing a game, and therefore they're more than capable of figuring out how to find revenue in other places.
In no way does my claim require that I provide an alternate pricing model for Star Trek Online for it to be valid--a point which you conceded.
Again: I do not have to come up with an alternate or "better" pricing model for my claim to be valid that lockboxes are predatory and insidious by nature.
And therein lies the flaw of your entire argument, as the 'toys' that come from lockboxes can only be gotten from you know, lockboxes (even buying the ship off exchange means someone had to open a lockbox first).
So, in terms of your flawed analogy, it's either a Kinder egg with the chance of a toy, or no toy at all.
And who said no toy at all, there is the C-Store, full of toys. With my children, there is Toys R Us instead of the Kinder Egg toys. As long as they get a toy is what it boils down to.
The only flawed thing here, is your understanding of choices and alternate options and the original analogy I was responding to.
Same way drinks manufacturers tell people to 'drink responsibly'.
It's not an order, but a suggestion.
And it isnt heeded very often.
But it is occasionally, and thats better than nothing and also shows responsibility on behalf of the company.
And given how much law is predicated on mens rea, demonstrating such concerns when you dont have to is a sensible thing to do.
And again, thank you.
As for the person who was on about bars / public houses (pubs) - I know here in the UK there has been a precedent set quite a few years back where by a pub was sued (successfully) by someone who became injured due to a customer from the pub, who had become a danger to themselves and others by being overly inebriated. I think the final distance for "responsibility" was 1 mile from the pub.
My old boss in a pub I worked in had the news article framed in the staff area, as a reminder to monitor how much people drink, and it falls on the server not the owner of the pub.
And who said no toy at all, there is the C-Store, full of toys. With my children, there is Toys R Us instead of the Kinder Egg toys. As long as they get a toy is what it boils down to.
The only flawed thing here, is your understanding of choices and alternate options and the original analogy I was responding to.
An alternative requires having a choice of getting something of more or less equal value. Lockbox ships are the best. Just taking your kid to the C-Store, and try and get her a toy from there, is not a real alternative.
Great. Now I've imagined this Jurassic Park/Voth themed mental movie clip where people are being stalked by packs of lock boxes (instead of velociraptors) and are being forced to unlock them when caught.
And we can only be saved from the lock boxes is if Jeff Goldblum manages to upload a computer virus into the Voth mothership.
Heh. I'd watch that movie. It might actually be scarier than the original!
What's up with people defending Cryptic/Perfect World? They don't need you to argue on their behalf. They've got lawyers, public relations, marketing, advertising, social media, lobbyists, consultants, etc.
If you still want to defend Cryptic/Perfect World, why not just work for them? With the same posters constantly posting in these threads, I have no doubt that some of them are working for Cryptic/Perfect World.
In YOUR opinion - I've seen quite a few people on these very forums who do not share that opinion. It all depends on your playstyle and willingness to experiment with configs.
Right now, it seems to be the overall ship of choice is the Scim - way more people screaming it needs a nerf or it is the pinnacle of power creep in STO. So a C-Store "toy" is better than a gamble-box "toy"
Such is subjective reasoning :P
So, back to square 1 you go, try again....
Still waiting on someone explaining why it would be so wrong for PWE / Cryptic to add the information mentioned, lots of keyboard rattling going on in defense of not adding it - but no actual reasoning behind it - it is almost as if, some people have an irrational fear of a bit of honesty from a company. Have we been lied to so many times by companies, that it would break our mentalities and grip on reality if one suddenly owned up to what we are exposed to with their product.
We're not defending Cryptic/PWE. We're defending ourselves from people that think they have the obligation to dictate how and what we spend our money on.
Some people have been that have been quoting me, with some really irrational comparisons of lockboxes and Ebay or General Mills
Though I'm not sure what captainsucre point is.
"They don't even make a blip on the radar when compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars being made on lock box sales."
Still does not make them "better" - that is a subjective term, which is a nonsensical argument that will just go around in circles and moves the focus away from the 2 major themes of this thread. So I will not engage in that in this thread - feel free to start a new thread and I will comment there regarding "best" ship in game.
The themes were;
1)Value for money in lockboxes (At least, that's what I think the OP was on about).
2)My 10 page request and subsequent defense on PWE / Cryptic, just adding a little bit of information warning parents / guardians / carers that there is an "element" of gambling involved in the game, as not all parents / guardians / carers are aware by the current game information it has that side to it.
What's up with people defending Cryptic/Perfect World? They don't need you to argue on their behalf. They've got lawyers, public relations, marketing, advertising, social media, lobbyists, consultants, etc.
If you still want to defend Cryptic/Perfect World, why not just work for them? With the same posters constantly posting in these threads, I have no doubt that some of them are working for Cryptic/Perfect World.
I don't think they're defending Cryptic/PWE. I think they're defending their opinions--opinions which happen to align with the Cryptic/PWE status quo.
In YOUR opinion - I've seen quite a few people on these very forums who do not share that opinion. It all depends on your playstyle and willingness to experiment with configs.
Right now, it seems to be the overall ship of choice is the Scim - way more people screaming it needs a nerf or it is the pinnacle of power creep in STO. So a C-Store "toy" is better than a gamble-box "toy"
Such is subjective reasoning :P
So, back to square 1 you go, try again....
Commonly accepted order:
Lockbox/Lobi -> Fleet -> C-Store -> Free
I should have seen it coming, that you would go so far as to try and undermine this order, just to avoid having to concede that lockbox ships are generally considered the best.
And Scim best overall ship?! You must be joking. Just hit lv. 50 on my Rom the other weekend. First thing I did was get me a Fleet Ark'if. And probably not even gonna touch Scim. But even it it were the 'best' ship, for argument's sake, you do know the exception confirms the rule, right?
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.
Depends on the jurisdiction whether or not a barkeep can be held criminally responsible in an alcohol related fatality. In mine, they cannot. But they do open themselves to civil suit.
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.
Sounds good in theory, but opens up the door for other problems. A blackjack dealer isn't likely to be a trained therapist or psychiatrist.
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.
Here's a newsflash: The general public also knew the health risks behind tobacco for years. The tobacco companies have been required to print warnings on cigarette packs since 1970. And there have been health warnings related to smoking dating back to 1910. The medical community has been attempting to educate the public and encouraging quitting since the '70s. The whole notion that the "evil" tobacco companies have been peddling death to an unsuspecting public, to be honest, is total bulls**t.
And the tobacco companies, contrary to the Joe Camel hysteria spread by Waxman and his "Tobacco Gestapo", haven't deliberately marketed tobacco products to kids since the early 20th Century.
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 can agree with this.
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.
Once again, I'm in agreement.
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.
At a certain point, the person can no longer drink responsibly since their faculties are eroded during the course of drinking, effectively canceling one's capacity to judge limits. At that point, I would not hold them responsible, but I would the people around and responsible for them (friends for example).
Legally, yes. At some point the person is incapable of making sound judgments; often a drunk driver does not understand that they're intoxicated to the point that they're a danger. We hold them legally responsible, sure, but I'm arguing that I couldn't hold the responsible ethically.
This is the classic "I screwed up, but it was somebody else's fault" philosophy.
An individual knows beforehand that they are planning to get s**tfaced. They assume responsibility for their actions beforehand, knowing full well how alcohol will effect them and their social interaction. And I mean they are ethically, morally, and legally responsible for their actions. Period.
This is like arguing that a crackhead isn't ethically responsible for a robbery/murder they commit, because they were high or going through withdraw pains. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in the real world.
Same goes for the whole lockbox/promotion debate. If somebody blows their entire paycheck on keys/zen, then that is their fault. Not mine. Not Cryptic/PWE's. The player knows they have to eat and pay bills. It's not somebody else's responsibility to hold their hand when it comes to spending habits. They just have to learn the hard way and take responsibility for their irresponsibility.
What's up with people defending Cryptic/Perfect World? They don't need you to argue on their behalf. They've got lawyers, public relations, marketing, advertising, social media, lobbyists, consultants, etc.
If you still want to defend Cryptic/Perfect World, why not just work for them? With the same posters constantly posting in these threads, I have no doubt that some of them are working for Cryptic/Perfect World.
Yes, and I'm sure all parents have a safe in their homes and lock away all valuables out of sight - after all why would anyone want to relax and let their guard down in their own homes :rolleyes:
At least I've figured out who the people are without children or under 18 around here
People need to get over it, if you cannot control your gambling habits, than you shouldn't be the one in charge of your checkbook and need seek some help.
If you cannot monitor your child's activities and prevent them from stealing money from you, than you shouldn't be a parent nor the one in charge of your finances.
Cryptic/PWE markets these promos no different than 99% of any company trying to get people to impulse buy, and will remain effective until said politics and financial institutions cause ever more financial recessions/depressions, which effect spenders and companies the most.
Same goes for the whole lockbox/promotion debate. If somebody blows their entire paycheck on keys/zen, then that is their fault. Not mine. Not Cryptic/PWE's. The player knows they have to eat and pay bills. It's not somebody else's responsibility to hold their hand when it comes to spending habits. They just have to learn the hard way and take responsibility for their irresponsibility.
Some people are incapable of being responsible for their actions, whether through their own agency or because of natural circumstances. A perfectly rational person is responsible for what happens with their wallet, but Cryptic/PWE have a moral and ethical responsibility to act responsibly when conducting business with people who cannot act rationally. That is the crux of my argument.
Some people are incapable of being responsible for their actions, whether through their own agency or because of natural circumstances. A perfectly rational person is responsible for what happens with their wallet, but Cryptic/PWE have a moral and ethical responsibility to act responsibly when conducting business with people who cannot act rationally. That is the crux of my argument.
So retail store's should be responsible for your habit if it involves buying that 80" flatscreen, and 7.1 surround home theatre, and that brand new couch set with tables, and that brand new refrigerator, and microwave, and the new washer/dryer set, and that new lawnmower, weedeater, trimmer, hedger, chainsaw, 10 pack of movies, 5 burner BBQ grille, etc...? :rolleyes:
So retail store's should be responsible for your habit if it involves buying that 80" flatscreen, and 7.1 surround home theatre, and that brand new couch set with tables, and that brand new refrigerator, and microwave, and the new washer/dryer set, and that new lawnmower, weedeater, trimmer, hedger, chainsaw, 10 pack of movies, 5 burner BBQ grille, etc...? :rolleyes:
No.
They're responsible if I spent the same amount of money trying to win "that 80" flatscreen, and 7.1 surround home theatre, and that brand new couch set with tables, and that brand new refrigerator, and microwave, and the new washer/dryer set, and that new lawnmower, weedeater, trimmer, hedger, chainsaw, 10 pack of movies, 5 burner BBQ grille, etc." out of a grab bag--even if the grab bag included a consolation prize of paper plates.
Comments
Only in some of them.
Inebriation is a choice. Choices have consequences.
However, in rare instances, people are not capable of making informed choices at any part of the chain.
Various obsessive disorders come to mind. Gambling being one such.
As we all should know, there is nothing wrong with gambling per se, provided one can keep making rational spending decisions.
However, some people have weaknesses to certain stimuli and lose the ability to be rational.
Is this Cryptics problem?
Strictly speaking, no.
We contract with them in various ways to provide us a game to play, not health services.
However, it does Casinos in BC no financial harm to actively promote responsible gambling. Indeed, in a series of court cases, their willingness to do so has been taken by courts to represent a serious attempt to reduce harm.
And that intent has helped them in those court cases.
Thus, if Cryptic did put some small effort into promoting responsible lock box opening, it wouldnt hurt them in any material way.
But it would have a powerful immunising effect against potential problems down the line.
My character Tsin'xing
And therein lies the flaw of your entire argument, as the 'toys' that come from lockboxes can only be gotten from you know, lockboxes (even buying the ship off exchange means someone had to open a lockbox first).
So, in terms of your flawed analogy, it's either a Kinder egg with the chance of a toy, or no toy at all.
My character Tsin'xing
You may wish to reconsider the word 'fault'
Blaming a sufferer of, say, OCD or compulsive gambling is far from helpful.
Are there many here?
Probably more OCD than compulsive gamblers, by a fairly substantial ratio...just due to the nature of fandom and the IP.
As for the incidence of OCD, about 1%
So, if we have 10,000 players on, at a given time, stats suggest we have about 100 OCD.
Compulsive gamblers, I'd estimate much lower.
Saying it doesn't make it true.
The examples provided are not bogus. Someone with a gambling addiction cannot make reasonable or responsible choices as it regards their gambling habits. Someone inebriated cannot make reasonable or responsible choices either. Someone influenced by false advertising or predatory marketing (early access comes to mind) cannot make these choices reasonably or responsibly either.
I hesitated to explain the inebriation claim, but now I realize I should have.
At a certain point, the person can no longer drink responsibly since their faculties are eroded during the course of drinking, effectively canceling one's capacity to judge limits. At that point, I would not hold them responsible, but I would the people around and responsible for them (friends for example).
My character Tsin'xing
Demonstration of awareness of the issue.
Same way drinks manufacturers tell people to 'drink responsibly'.
It's not an order, but a suggestion.
And it isnt heeded very often.
But it is occasionally, and thats better than nothing and also shows responsibility on behalf of the company.
And given how much law is predicated on mens rea, demonstrating such concerns when you dont have to is a sensible thing to do.
So hollow and self-invalidating that you cannot overcome it. I take that to mean you concede the point, thank you.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, cant agree.
A drunk driver, by dint of their primary decision, is responsible for their actions under the influence.
A full blown schitzophrenic made no such decision.
Both could end up, say, decapitating someone.
However, the former is legally, morally and ethically responsible.
The latter is not.
Legally, yes. At some point the person is incapable of making sound judgments; often a drunk driver does not understand that they're intoxicated to the point that they're a danger. We hold them legally responsible, sure, but I'm arguing that I couldn't hold the responsible ethically.
My character Tsin'xing
No need to reconsider anything. There may be reasons ppl gamble; or why they are OCD. But for the purpose of attributing 'fault' (in a system where a negative cause can be said to be a 'fault'), said 'fault' is always with the player, and never with Cryptic. Cryptic does not make you buy Zen, any more than any commercial makes you buy stuff. It's just that some ppl are better able to resist tempation, and all kinds of impulsive behavior, than others.
To wit, I'm fairly OCD my own self. For instance, I can't stand having Embassy boffs with no feet on my bridge. So, I bought several loadout extension packs, with Zen, to load a faux bridge crew for when I visit my bridge. OCD-ish, for sure; but nothing I would ever blame Cryptic for. It's my fault for having the OCD, not Cryptic's.
Except that I didn't say they had 'better' solutions, just different solutions. If you have to put words in my mouth to make your point, you clearly don't have ground to stand on. In the interest of keeping the discussion going--since I'm enjoying it--here's a further breakdown of my claim:
I consider lockboxes to be predatory and insidious by nature and advocate for their removal from the game's financial model. To counter my argument, you presented a false dilemma, saying (and I'm paraphrasing) that it's either the lockboxes or no game. My response was to point out that Cryptic/PWE's model is not the only model for financing a game, and therefore they're more than capable of figuring out how to find revenue in other places.
In no way does my claim require that I provide an alternate pricing model for Star Trek Online for it to be valid--a point which you conceded.
Again: I do not have to come up with an alternate or "better" pricing model for my claim to be valid that lockboxes are predatory and insidious by nature.
And who said no toy at all, there is the C-Store, full of toys. With my children, there is Toys R Us instead of the Kinder Egg toys. As long as they get a toy is what it boils down to.
The only flawed thing here, is your understanding of choices and alternate options and the original analogy I was responding to.
Thank you, someone who understands !
And again, thank you.
As for the person who was on about bars / public houses (pubs) - I know here in the UK there has been a precedent set quite a few years back where by a pub was sued (successfully) by someone who became injured due to a customer from the pub, who had become a danger to themselves and others by being overly inebriated. I think the final distance for "responsibility" was 1 mile from the pub.
My old boss in a pub I worked in had the news article framed in the staff area, as a reminder to monitor how much people drink, and it falls on the server not the owner of the pub.
An alternative requires having a choice of getting something of more or less equal value. Lockbox ships are the best. Just taking your kid to the C-Store, and try and get her a toy from there, is not a real alternative.
Heh. I'd watch that movie. It might actually be scarier than the original!
If you still want to defend Cryptic/Perfect World, why not just work for them? With the same posters constantly posting in these threads, I have no doubt that some of them are working for Cryptic/Perfect World.
In YOUR opinion - I've seen quite a few people on these very forums who do not share that opinion. It all depends on your playstyle and willingness to experiment with configs.
Right now, it seems to be the overall ship of choice is the Scim - way more people screaming it needs a nerf or it is the pinnacle of power creep in STO. So a C-Store "toy" is better than a gamble-box "toy"
Such is subjective reasoning :P
So, back to square 1 you go, try again....
Still waiting on someone explaining why it would be so wrong for PWE / Cryptic to add the information mentioned, lots of keyboard rattling going on in defense of not adding it - but no actual reasoning behind it - it is almost as if, some people have an irrational fear of a bit of honesty from a company. Have we been lied to so many times by companies, that it would break our mentalities and grip on reality if one suddenly owned up to what we are exposed to with their product.
Some people have been that have been quoting me, with some really irrational comparisons of lockboxes and Ebay or General Mills
Though I'm not sure what captainsucre point is.
"They don't even make a blip on the radar when compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars being made on lock box sales."
Still does not make them "better" - that is a subjective term, which is a nonsensical argument that will just go around in circles and moves the focus away from the 2 major themes of this thread. So I will not engage in that in this thread - feel free to start a new thread and I will comment there regarding "best" ship in game.
The themes were;
1)Value for money in lockboxes (At least, that's what I think the OP was on about).
2)My 10 page request and subsequent defense on PWE / Cryptic, just adding a little bit of information warning parents / guardians / carers that there is an "element" of gambling involved in the game, as not all parents / guardians / carers are aware by the current game information it has that side to it.
I don't think they're defending Cryptic/PWE. I think they're defending their opinions--opinions which happen to align with the Cryptic/PWE status quo.
I'm glad you know what people are defending, I've asked 4 times for it to be explained to me.
Between eBay, Amazon, kinder eggs, general mills, lockboxes, duty officer packs, the bug ship and things that make less sense;
I've got a headache :mad:
Commonly accepted order:
Lockbox/Lobi -> Fleet -> C-Store -> Free
I should have seen it coming, that you would go so far as to try and undermine this order, just to avoid having to concede that lockbox ships are generally considered the best.
And Scim best overall ship?! You must be joking. Just hit lv. 50 on my Rom the other weekend. First thing I did was get me a Fleet Ark'if. And probably not even gonna touch Scim. But even it it were the 'best' ship, for argument's sake, you do know the exception confirms the rule, right?
Depends on the jurisdiction whether or not a barkeep can be held criminally responsible in an alcohol related fatality. In mine, they cannot. But they do open themselves to civil suit.
Sounds good in theory, but opens up the door for other problems. A blackjack dealer isn't likely to be a trained therapist or psychiatrist.
Here's a newsflash: The general public also knew the health risks behind tobacco for years. The tobacco companies have been required to print warnings on cigarette packs since 1970. And there have been health warnings related to smoking dating back to 1910. The medical community has been attempting to educate the public and encouraging quitting since the '70s. The whole notion that the "evil" tobacco companies have been peddling death to an unsuspecting public, to be honest, is total bulls**t.
And the tobacco companies, contrary to the Joe Camel hysteria spread by Waxman and his "Tobacco Gestapo", haven't deliberately marketed tobacco products to kids since the early 20th Century.
I can agree with this.
Once again, I'm in agreement.
I agree.
@purplegamer
This is the classic "I screwed up, but it was somebody else's fault" philosophy.
An individual knows beforehand that they are planning to get s**tfaced. They assume responsibility for their actions beforehand, knowing full well how alcohol will effect them and their social interaction. And I mean they are ethically, morally, and legally responsible for their actions. Period.
This is like arguing that a crackhead isn't ethically responsible for a robbery/murder they commit, because they were high or going through withdraw pains. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in the real world.
Same goes for the whole lockbox/promotion debate. If somebody blows their entire paycheck on keys/zen, then that is their fault. Not mine. Not Cryptic/PWE's. The player knows they have to eat and pay bills. It's not somebody else's responsibility to hold their hand when it comes to spending habits. They just have to learn the hard way and take responsibility for their irresponsibility.
I actually LOL'd.
Yes, i'm a cryptic sock puppet.
In reality, I am Darth Gecko
*squints*
And I find your lack of faith.....disturbing.
People need to get over it, if you cannot control your gambling habits, than you shouldn't be the one in charge of your checkbook and need seek some help.
If you cannot monitor your child's activities and prevent them from stealing money from you, than you shouldn't be a parent nor the one in charge of your finances.
Cryptic/PWE markets these promos no different than 99% of any company trying to get people to impulse buy, and will remain effective until said politics and financial institutions cause ever more financial recessions/depressions, which effect spenders and companies the most.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Some people are incapable of being responsible for their actions, whether through their own agency or because of natural circumstances. A perfectly rational person is responsible for what happens with their wallet, but Cryptic/PWE have a moral and ethical responsibility to act responsibly when conducting business with people who cannot act rationally. That is the crux of my argument.
So retail store's should be responsible for your habit if it involves buying that 80" flatscreen, and 7.1 surround home theatre, and that brand new couch set with tables, and that brand new refrigerator, and microwave, and the new washer/dryer set, and that new lawnmower, weedeater, trimmer, hedger, chainsaw, 10 pack of movies, 5 burner BBQ grille, etc...? :rolleyes:
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
No.
They're responsible if I spent the same amount of money trying to win "that 80" flatscreen, and 7.1 surround home theatre, and that brand new couch set with tables, and that brand new refrigerator, and microwave, and the new washer/dryer set, and that new lawnmower, weedeater, trimmer, hedger, chainsaw, 10 pack of movies, 5 burner BBQ grille, etc." out of a grab bag--even if the grab bag included a consolation prize of paper plates.