They didn't. End of story. They expected you to CHOOSE ONE like everyone else did. Why? Because only an idiot would pay $60 for an (at most) $3 item. Who the hell would expect a sane person to do that?
When I first heard someone say they bought multiple copies of STO so they could get the extras, I thought they were kidding. I seriously could not wrap my brain around someone being that... man, I don't even have a word for how unintelligent that is. I couldn't believe someone would do that. Unless you are rolling in disposable cash, then it's not a big deal. And if you are rolling in that much cash, why are you complaining?
Bottom line is this: Let's say you eat a certain kind of cereal, and each box contains a lifetime supply of cereal, all you could ever eat. Each box costs $60. Now lets say they put out a promotion where they pack in a cheap $3 toy in those boxes (like they used to). They have several different toys out there. Would you seriously buy several boxes of cereal (you will never be able to eat more than one, no matter how much cereal you eat, and you are forbidden from giving the box of cereal away) just for that $3 toy?
That is basically what this is all about... buying several lifetime-supply-of-cereal boxes at $60 a pop for a $3 toy.
Don't blame Cryptic for you being stupid or naive. That was all you. :rolleyes:
I didn't buy multiple boxes, other than I did end up the CE addtion as my Amazon order was late. Its still there unopened.
I'm annoyed over them short handing people, to make a quick buck. The only bit I'm directly annoyed at is the MU uniforms, which were sold as truely exclusvie and that its a two faced retraction, given they've not put up the Liberated Borg (and yes I do have one already).
Yes they have. Have you seen how many threads and posts people are making over this?
Yes, I have. All of them continue to infer something in the definition of exclusive that the definition does not imply. That is why you have been asked repeatedly to explain:
1. What part of the definition of "exclusive" indicates that this exclusivity must exist for at minimum the time frame you think would be sufficient and at maximum forever.
2. Why a change in degree of exclusivity is somehow the equivalent of no longer being exclusive at all.
"Sometimes I think we forget that it doesn't matter if you bought the pre orders or exclusives or even what sub you have. We all spent money to play the game."
Not all of us played additionally to play the game either. The additional boxes to a STO lifetime subscriber means nothing, but for the items. My reply was not everyone has had to spend money, as most were given free Cryptic points as compensation for downtime or taking replying to a poll.
You missed the point. I said " We all spent money to play the game" Did you spend money to play the game? I never said it was equal or or that you didn't have points only they we all PAYED money to play the game. Nothing about the c-store, nothing about exclusive items, nothing about anything other than we all PAYED money to play the game. Get it. It didn't have anything to do with exclusive items or what you and the other person was saying. You payed money to play STO right, so did I, so did others. That is ALL it was saying.
Yes, I have. All of them continue to infer something in the definition of exclusive that the definition does not imply. That is why you have been asked repeatedly to explain:
1. What part of the definition of "exclusive" indicates that this exclusivity must exist for at minimum the time frame you think would be sufficient and at maximum forever.
2. Why a change in degree of exclusivity is somehow the equivalent of no longer being exclusive at all.
Exclusive means exactly that. Only some warped interpritation would mean exclusive doesn't mean exclusive. You are also continueing to completely miss the point. Exclusive or not, its the short period people have held it that's the problem. If you can't see that, you are extremely selfish.
I am a Lifer and had a few "exclusive" perks b4 this 1st massive c-store update.
Quite frankly I am very very happy about being able to get the others this way.
When I got the others I didn't have to pay an extra anything to get them. Just had to buy the game at the right store or in the case of Del Taco, some food. So, in effect, they were free.
This way I am able to get some of the others I didn't know about until too late. Having to actually PAY extra for these, to me, is a distinction from getting them free. I harbor no ill feelings for people able to get what I got for "free" by paying for them.
I was waiting for Cryptic to make make these available in the C-Store. During the Beta they pretty well said outright that they would, several times.
Would making some of them for purchase for a limited time help? To some maybe.
To me, making people have to PAY still makes what I got for free is enough.
Would you seriously buy several boxes of cereal (you will never be able to eat more than one, no matter how much cereal you eat, and you are forbidden from giving the box of cereal away) just for that $3 toy?
s:
Really that is the heart of the issue right there. Let's face it, be real, these items don't "DO" anything, they don't give you a competitive edge in the game. They are toys. If you paid that much money for extra copies of the game then you STILL have what you paid for, it's not like they removed the items from your inventory and made you buy them again. People are just upset that everyone can play with their toys. THAT...is the issue. Just call it what it is.
Clearly the US need to wake up to consumer rights other countries hold. We aren't in the dark ages, many of our laws are much more precise and comsumer focused.
There you go with bringing law into this. You really don't want to do that again.
Well. I did buy an extra copy of the game to get an item... but perhaps I was the only one thinking that this was the only way of getting this, I had no idea that it would come to c-store. I am new to MMOG gaming and this is my first contact with this..
I saved extra money to be able to buy that "exclusive" object...
I am not angry, I am just disappointed I could have used the money I saved for this to some thing else...
Exclusive means exactly that. Only some warped interpritation would mean exclusive doesn't mean exclusive. You are also continueing to completely miss the point. Exclusive or not, its the short period people have held it that's the problem. If you can't see that, you are extremely selfish.
No, exclusive does not mean either of those things. That IS the point. It has no temporal component implied by it and there are varying degrees of exclusivity. That's why people keep posting the definition, which as every one has seen, does not contain any specification of time limit.
I recognize some people are upset over the time period. Nobody has a problem with that. But there is a massive difference between "we were misled by Cryptic" and "I really wish I got to be more special for longer." The vast majority of you are asserting the former, which is simply not true because there is no evidence to support it of any kind.
And how am I selfish? I don't have any intention of buying any of the items.
All right, I'll continue to feign innocence, and pretend that you are actually trying to persuade people.
If you wish to claim that these actions or the incentives were unethical, then you must:
a) give a simple definition of ethics as they apply to this case, i.e. what behavior a company is ethically (not legally) required to perform; and
b) provide substantial proof that the company violated those rules of behavior.
and once again, yes, it is your responsibility to provide this information.
Wake up to the real world. Who are you, that you think people should HAVE to prove anything to you? You can have you opinion just like everyone else, but that is it.
Well. I did buy an extra copy of the game to get an item... but perhaps I was the only one thinking that this was the only way of getting this, I had no idea that it would come to c-store. I am new to MMOG gaming and this is my first contact with this..
I saved extra money to be able to buy that "exclusive" object...
I am not angry, I am just disappointed I could have used the money I saved for this to some thing else...
you also got extra time also. and depending on what you bought. you could of gotten a better game case, art book, and a com badge. so it wasn't just the items that you paid for.
There you go with bringing law into this. You really don't want to do that again.
Completely out of context. I did not bring it into the conversation. Someone else did. Just because one takes part in a conversation doesn't mean one brought it up.
Again, please quit making these conversations personal.
you also got extra time also. and depending on what you bought. you could of gotten a better game case, art book, and a com badge. so it wasn't just the items that you paid for.
I could not use the extra time, because I was already a lifetime member when I bought the game.
Also I did not need the book, I already owned the standard and the collectors edition.
So actually all I paid for was that item.
What we have now is a case of people can't prove a principle. The truth is, principles can't be proven. Yet they keep trying because they want to "prove" their case and they can't.
Saying the company shouldn't have done X because it is the principle of the thing is one thing. Saying the company shouldn't have done X because of <evidence> and <evidence> and <evidence> is another. The problem is a few are trying to mix those two types of arguments and it just doesn't work.
You can have you opinion just like everyone else, but that is it.
In this case though, his opinions are backed up by the actions the company took. Which is strong evidence that what he's talking about has some merit.
Your opinions are backed up by citations of EU law that do not apply to this issue. Citations of contract law that do not apply to this issue. Citations of the definition of exclusive which have been rewritten by larger games like Rock Band and larger companies like Microsoft before Cryptic ever even put either of its two games into beta. And a very surreal grip on the word unique that would never seem to apply to anything in the conversation.
So while opinion is just that ... opinion. The circumstances and evidence surrounding the opposing opinions can help observers (i.e. the rest of us reading the thread) determine which opinion stand up better.
you also got extra time also. and depending on what you bought. you could of gotten a better game case, art book, and a com badge. so it wasn't just the items that you paid for.
That would depend if they have a lifetime subscription.
I could not use the extra time, because I was already a lifetime member when I bought the game.
Also I did not need the book, I already owned the standard and the collectors edition.
So actually all I paid for was that item.
that's a good point... now let me ask you something ( it's not against you I'm just trying to bring light in to the picture for the other people. ) did cryptic force you buy the extra copies, or who made the choice to buy the extra copies?
I could not use the extra time, because I was already a lifetime member when I bought the game.
Also I did not need the book, I already owned the standard and the collectors edition.
So actually all I paid for was that item.
I like your avatar pic. That's a pretty cool looking badge. How do I get one of those? I'll gladly pay for it in the C-Store.
Completely out of context. I did not bring it into the conversation. Someone else did. Just because one takes part in a conversation doesn't mean one brought it up.
Again, please quit making these conversations personal.
I am not making this personal. Do you want me to make it personal?
At this point all you are doing is making yourself the poster child for a lack of common sense and circular arguments.
I am just trying to get you to see the harm you are doing to yourself at this point.
In this case though, his opinions are backed up by the actions the company took. Which is strong evidence that what he's talking about has some merit.
Your opinions are backed up by citations of EU law that do not apply to this issue. Citations of contract law that do not apply to this issue. Citations of the definition of exclusive which have been rewritten by larger games like Rock Band and larger companies like Microsoft before Cryptic ever even put either of its two games into beta. And a very surreal grip on the word unique that would never seem to apply to anything in the conversation.
So while opinion is just that ... opinion. The circumstances and evidence surrounding the opposing opinions can help observers (i.e. the rest of us reading the thread) determine which opinion stand up better.
Not really. While companies generally trade within regulations, there's considerable more that do so unethically. All you can do with them, is avoid them.
Comments
So the 8 pages or so last night of you discussing donuts was what precisely? :rolleyes:
I didn't buy multiple boxes, other than I did end up the CE addtion as my Amazon order was late. Its still there unopened.
I'm annoyed over them short handing people, to make a quick buck. The only bit I'm directly annoyed at is the MU uniforms, which were sold as truely exclusvie and that its a two faced retraction, given they've not put up the Liberated Borg (and yes I do have one already).
?
Things are getting surreal around here again.
All the numerous threads show is an amazing lack of common sense by a select few.
Lol, yeah ok. In your opinion.
Hasn't been a select few either. Case closed, only your opinion counts.
Yes, I have. All of them continue to infer something in the definition of exclusive that the definition does not imply. That is why you have been asked repeatedly to explain:
1. What part of the definition of "exclusive" indicates that this exclusivity must exist for at minimum the time frame you think would be sufficient and at maximum forever.
2. Why a change in degree of exclusivity is somehow the equivalent of no longer being exclusive at all.
It was a way to relieve the tension until this all started up again
You missed the point. I said " We all spent money to play the game" Did you spend money to play the game? I never said it was equal or or that you didn't have points only they we all PAYED money to play the game. Nothing about the c-store, nothing about exclusive items, nothing about anything other than we all PAYED money to play the game. Get it. It didn't have anything to do with exclusive items or what you and the other person was saying. You payed money to play STO right, so did I, so did others. That is ALL it was saying.
Exclusive means exactly that. Only some warped interpritation would mean exclusive doesn't mean exclusive. You are also continueing to completely miss the point. Exclusive or not, its the short period people have held it that's the problem. If you can't see that, you are extremely selfish.
Quite frankly I am very very happy about being able to get the others this way.
When I got the others I didn't have to pay an extra anything to get them. Just had to buy the game at the right store or in the case of Del Taco, some food. So, in effect, they were free.
This way I am able to get some of the others I didn't know about until too late. Having to actually PAY extra for these, to me, is a distinction from getting them free. I harbor no ill feelings for people able to get what I got for "free" by paying for them.
I was waiting for Cryptic to make make these available in the C-Store. During the Beta they pretty well said outright that they would, several times.
Would making some of them for purchase for a limited time help? To some maybe.
To me, making people have to PAY still makes what I got for free is enough.
not for another year.
Really that is the heart of the issue right there. Let's face it, be real, these items don't "DO" anything, they don't give you a competitive edge in the game. They are toys. If you paid that much money for extra copies of the game then you STILL have what you paid for, it's not like they removed the items from your inventory and made you buy them again. People are just upset that everyone can play with their toys. THAT...is the issue. Just call it what it is.
There you go with bringing law into this. You really don't want to do that again.
I saved extra money to be able to buy that "exclusive" object...
I am not angry, I am just disappointed I could have used the money I saved for this to some thing else...
All right, I'll continue to feign innocence, and pretend that you are actually trying to persuade people.
If you wish to claim that these actions or the incentives were unethical, then you must:
a) give a simple definition of ethics as they apply to this case, i.e. what behavior a company is ethically (not legally) required to perform; and
b) provide substantial proof that the company violated those rules of behavior.
and once again, yes, it is your responsibility to provide this information.
No, exclusive does not mean either of those things. That IS the point. It has no temporal component implied by it and there are varying degrees of exclusivity. That's why people keep posting the definition, which as every one has seen, does not contain any specification of time limit.
I recognize some people are upset over the time period. Nobody has a problem with that. But there is a massive difference between "we were misled by Cryptic" and "I really wish I got to be more special for longer." The vast majority of you are asserting the former, which is simply not true because there is no evidence to support it of any kind.
And how am I selfish? I don't have any intention of buying any of the items.
Wake up to the real world. Who are you, that you think people should HAVE to prove anything to you? You can have you opinion just like everyone else, but that is it.
you also got extra time also. and depending on what you bought. you could of gotten a better game case, art book, and a com badge. so it wasn't just the items that you paid for.
Completely out of context. I did not bring it into the conversation. Someone else did. Just because one takes part in a conversation doesn't mean one brought it up.
Again, please quit making these conversations personal.
No it was a way to mock people indirectly and bury their concerns under pages of off topic commentary.
Not that i'm particularly bothered by this. Its the universal way of forums.
I could not use the extra time, because I was already a lifetime member when I bought the game.
Also I did not need the book, I already owned the standard and the collectors edition.
So actually all I paid for was that item.
Saying the company shouldn't have done X because it is the principle of the thing is one thing. Saying the company shouldn't have done X because of <evidence> and <evidence> and <evidence> is another. The problem is a few are trying to mix those two types of arguments and it just doesn't work.
In this case though, his opinions are backed up by the actions the company took. Which is strong evidence that what he's talking about has some merit.
Your opinions are backed up by citations of EU law that do not apply to this issue. Citations of contract law that do not apply to this issue. Citations of the definition of exclusive which have been rewritten by larger games like Rock Band and larger companies like Microsoft before Cryptic ever even put either of its two games into beta. And a very surreal grip on the word unique that would never seem to apply to anything in the conversation.
So while opinion is just that ... opinion. The circumstances and evidence surrounding the opposing opinions can help observers (i.e. the rest of us reading the thread) determine which opinion stand up better.
That would depend if they have a lifetime subscription.
that's a good point... now let me ask you something ( it's not against you I'm just trying to bring light in to the picture for the other people. ) did cryptic force you buy the extra copies, or who made the choice to buy the extra copies?
I like your avatar pic. That's a pretty cool looking badge. How do I get one of those? I'll gladly pay for it in the C-Store.
I am not making this personal. Do you want me to make it personal?
At this point all you are doing is making yourself the poster child for a lack of common sense and circular arguments.
I am just trying to get you to see the harm you are doing to yourself at this point.
Not really. While companies generally trade within regulations, there's considerable more that do so unethically. All you can do with them, is avoid them.
That is your perception and you are welcome to it