As I recall, in the beginning of SWG they told us that we could become Jedi, when actually we couldn't yet.
So what's to stop them from doing the same type of thing with the cards. Maybe they have a highly sought after loot card that they forget to make one month. What if SOE 'stacks the deck' against the players? And how would we ever even know, without spending tons of money.
I think they need to be regulated just like other gambling institutions.
Atleast if they had a SWG item shop, you could just spend a buck or two to get what you wanted.
I agree this should be regulated by an independent institution. But there is no governing body that sees this as gambling. Mainly because if you win you are not receiving money as a reward. You are receiving a product...an intangible virtual product at that. Plus this is kind of breaking new ground, cyberspace and all.
The focus shouldn't be on the outcome reward to define it as gambling. It should focus on if RL money is paid for a random chance of a reward, what ever the form.
Don't get me wrong, I like to gamble and have seen many casinos in my day. I see nothing wrong with this as a legitimate way to do business. But there has to be oversight of some kind. People also have to know the true odds of winning any one card in a game pack. Purchased or not. SOE needs to post these odds on the TCG site. And not change the odds without notifying the public. Plus invite a third party independent watch dog to ensure they are accurrate.
Look at the annual Monopoly game at McDonald's. They give away prizes like $1mil, a PS3 (yeeshhh), and Huffy bicycles (double yeeshh). Read the fine print on the game pamphlet. They give the odds. That way they don't get in trouble. They also have the NO PURCHASE NECESSARY to play clause. You just have to mail a self addressed stamped envelope to their address, wait two weeks for the round trip to get a game piece. They do that so it can't be called gambling in a court. But it still is because most people aren't going to do the hassle for free. They are going to buy that BigMac meal. The meal they paid money for to get game pieces to randomly receive a reward.
Sodas, cereals, condoms etc... have these same gambling contests too. But in the fine print the odds are all there. They have the NPN clause because years ago someone said it is gambling ( I suspect).
EDIT: Also all it will take is one parent who's kid spent hundreds to tell Tipper Gore (triple yeeshhh) and she starts running around like Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy screaming "Won't somebody think of the children!" and this will bring SOEs model down faster then a $5 hooker.
"Me so horny" - Two Live Crew
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
You also seem to keep ignoring that you don't have to pay any RL money to get these loot items.
Um, that is precisely his point, Obraik. No RL money at all involved in obtaining them. Just luck on an in-game loot drop.
Unlike the obviously RMT inspired card game loot cards. Where you DO have to pay RL money to have any reasonable chance to beat the randominzed odds to get them.
I would like to go even further (this is the post where I try to bash you on the head to get you to my way of thinking, although I don't expect it to work).
I will use an analogy.
1. One month of sub time in SWG = one night stay at hotel.
2. The TCG = blackjack (from now on BJ)
3. The podracer loot card reward = money won at BJ as a reward.
4. The nightly stay "free" $20 BJ play coupon = "free" TCG card pack given monthly for SWG sub.
This analogy doesn't really work. Point 3 would be equal to winning some item for the hotel (heh, maybe an extra pillow?).
You don't need to play the TCG (or, black jack in your example) to get the loot rewards, you simply need to redeem the pack (whatever the equiv is for that in black jack, I've never played it). Getting more opportunities to get the loot cards would be like buying more of the play coupons and redeeming them - but you wouldn't need to play the actual game.
You also seem to keep ignoring that you don't have to pay any RL money to get these loot items.
Um, that is precisely his point, Obraik. No RL money at all involved in obtaining them. Just luck on an in-game loot drop.
Unlike the obviously RMT inspired card game loot cards. Where you DO have to pay RL money to have any reasonable chance to beat the randominzed odds to get them.
I would like to go even further (this is the post where I try to bash you on the head to get you to my way of thinking, although I don't expect it to work).
I will use an analogy.
1. One month of sub time in SWG = one night stay at hotel.
2. The TCG = blackjack (from now on BJ)
3. The podracer loot card reward = money won at BJ as a reward.
4. The nightly stay "free" $20 BJ play coupon = "free" TCG card pack given monthly for SWG sub.
This analogy doesn't really work. Point 3 would be equal to winning some item for the hotel (heh, maybe an extra pillow?).
You don't need to play the TCG (or, black jack in your example) to get the loot rewards, you simply need to redeem the pack (whatever the equiv is for that in black jack, I've never played it). Getting more opportunities to get the loot cards would be like buying more of the play coupons and redeeming them - but you wouldn't need to play the actual game.
Obraik,
For the sake of good discussion I will concede your point that a person can still receive and use loot cards in SWG and not actually play the TCG. Good job. But answer this, does that invalidate my whole analogy. Yes the dynamic between SWG and TCG is different than BJ. BJ does not have a third party dynamic to it. I mainly used BJ as an example as most people that have visited casinos understand the obvious gambling involved.
As far as point three. The point of that is reward = money. Not necessarily an item. Items are rewards, so is money.
Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING."
As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system?
If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling?
Again I gamble all the time. This as a model system is not inherently evil and me disliking SOE has nothing to do with it. This could be "Hello Kitty Online" we are talking about here.
Thanks for the concession on the gum thing. I do think you present valid arguments for disscussion.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
As I recall, in the beginning of SWG they told us that we could become Jedi, when actually we couldn't yet.
So what's to stop them from doing the same type of thing with the cards. Maybe they have a highly sought after loot card that they forget to make one month. What if SOE 'stacks the deck' against the players? And how would we ever even know, without spending tons of money.
I think they need to be regulated just like other gambling institutions.
Atleast if they had a SWG item shop, you could just spend a buck or two to get what you wanted.
I agree this should be regulated by an independent institution. But there is no governing body that sees this as gambling. Mainly because if you win you are not receiving money as a reward. You are receiving a product...an intangible virtual product at that. Plus this is kind of breaking new ground, cyberspace and all.
The focus shouldn't be on the outcome reward to define it as gambling. It should focus on if RL money is paid for a random chance of a reward, what ever the form.
Don't get me wrong, I like to gamble and have seen many casinos in my day. I see nothing wrong with this as a legitimate way to do business. But there has to be oversight of some kind. People also have to know the true odds of winning any one card in a game pack. Purchased or not. SOE needs to post these odds on the TCG site. And not change the odds without notifying the public. Plus invite a third party independent watch dog to ensure they are accurrate.
Look at the annual Monopoly game at McDonald's. They give away prizes like $1mil, a PS3 (yeeshhh), and Huffy bicycles (double yeeshh). Read the fine print on the game pamphlet. They give the odds. That way they don't get in trouble. They also have the NO PURCHASE NECESSARY to play clause. You just have to mail a self addressed stamped envelope to their address, wait two weeks for the round trip to get a game piece. They do that so it can't be called gambling in a court. But it still is because most people aren't going to do the hassle for free. They are going to buy that BigMac meal. The meal they paid money for to get game pieces to randomly receive a reward.
Sodas, cereals, condoms etc... have these same gambling contests too. But in the fine print the odds are all there. They have the NPN clause because years ago someone said it is gambling ( I suspect).
EDIT: Also all it will take is one parent who's kid spent hundreds to tell Tipper Gore (triple yeeshhh) and she starts running around like Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy screaming "Won't somebody think of the children!" and this will bring SOEs model down faster then a $5 hooker.
"Me so horny" - Two Live Crew
Heh, GrandAm just posted at the same time as me, and his is better lol, so I scrapped mine. I'm just going to listen to the ongoing, excellent dialogue, and hope to learn something
You also seem to keep ignoring that you don't have to pay any RL money to get these loot items.
Um, that is precisely his point, Obraik. No RL money at all involved in obtaining them. Just luck on an in-game loot drop.
Unlike the obviously RMT inspired card game loot cards. Where you DO have to pay RL money to have any reasonable chance to beat the randominzed odds to get them.
I would like to go even further (this is the post where I try to bash you on the head to get you to my way of thinking, although I don't expect it to work).
I will use an analogy.
1. One month of sub time in SWG = one night stay at hotel.
2. The TCG = blackjack (from now on BJ)
3. The podracer loot card reward = money won at BJ as a reward.
4. The nightly stay "free" $20 BJ play coupon = "free" TCG card pack given monthly for SWG sub.
This analogy doesn't really work. Point 3 would be equal to winning some item for the hotel (heh, maybe an extra pillow?).
You don't need to play the TCG (or, black jack in your example) to get the loot rewards, you simply need to redeem the pack (whatever the equiv is for that in black jack, I've never played it). Getting more opportunities to get the loot cards would be like buying more of the play coupons and redeeming them - but you wouldn't need to play the actual game.
Obraik,
For the sake of good discussion I will concede your point that a person can still receive and use loot cards in SWG and not actually play the TCG. Good job. But answer this, does that invalidate my whole analogy. Yes the dynamic between SWG and TCG is different than BJ. BJ does not have a third party dynamic to it. I mainly used BJ as an example as most people that have visited casinos understand the obvious gambling involved.
As far as point three. The point of that is reward = money. Not necessarily an item. Items are rewards, so is money.
Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING."
As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system?
If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling?
Again I gamble all the time. This as a model system is not inherently evil and me disliking SOE has nothing to do with it. This could be "Hello Kitty Online" we are talking about here.
Thanks for the concession on the gum thing. I do think you present valid arguments for disscussion.
My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit
Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating.
After reading a large amount of the posts in this thread with folks wondering WHY SWG is in the state it is, I have to make a comment.
I played for almost a year (pre-NGE and one month after), it was the most fun I ever had in an MMO, the diversity in abilities, not being shoved into a class I may or may not like , entertainers, I was on my way to becoming force sensetive...
but that was then.
Now, people are wondering why it seems that SOE isn't making any attempt at cutting overhead by shutting down servers and consolidating populations on the more populated servers, they wonder why SOE still charges for a character to move from one server to another, they wonder why instead of fixing issues, the devs create a stinking card game that needs RL money to get decent cards.
I may have an answer, but you won't like it...
SOE is soaking you poor saps for all it can, they are doing this because they are losing the Star Wars IP in 2009 and are trying to make a last minute cash grab. SWG will die next year, not sure which month. The reason that Bioware has not made an OFFICIAL announcement abot the KOTORO game is because they are waiting to obtain the IP next year before speaking about it They can't OFFICIALY say anything until the IP is theirs (legal issues). I myself mourn the game that SWG was and I feel bad for the folks who stuck it out hoping things might get better, because it won't. SOE has made some very lousey decisions with the game and have proven to everyone who is a Star Wars fan that they no longer deserve to use the Star Wars IP.
SWG will die next year, but Bioware is a good company and the will do a better job with the IP than SOE did.
"My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit
Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating."
Good the quote tower is gone. OK back to disscussion.
Obraik, I concede that my analogy is not perfect and may not be held as valid. Instead I will now say it is only a hint for the way I perceive the disscussion as opposed to this analogy is a comparable fact. Truth is I am having a hard time coming up with a better analogy because you are right. The third party element does make it difficult to compare with something else that would widely be considered gambling. Good Job!.
I do feel some headway has been made here. You said you see it no different than contests on Weet-Bix cereal. We agree. I see no difference either. I live in the U.S. Here when products offer "contests" in the fine print here in the U.S. they post all the odds for each reward to be given. What keeps this "contest" from being considered gambling in our courts is the No Pruchase Ness. clause also in the fine print. Please read my post #127 in this thread for more details, especially the NPN is such a hassle no one does it.
Now for the sake of disscussion, on the below points I was really hoping for a more direct response to the questions in them like yes, no or "I can see how you feel that way but I disagree."
Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING."
As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system?
If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling?
There is a reason why I would like a more direct response. It has to do with an argument I will put forth in another post. And believe it or not it kind of supports this business model.
Also to compare my definition with here is websters...
gambling
One entry found.
gamble[1,verb]
Main Entry: 1gam·ble
Pronunciation: ?gam-b?l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gam·bled; gam·bling -b(?-)li?
Etymology: probably back-formation from gambler, probably alteration of obsolete gamner, from obsolete gamen to play
Date: 1772
intransitive verb
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome
2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
My definition may not be exact if used in a court of law, but common sense wise, what do you think?
EDIT: I just reread what you posted and something struck me rather odd...
"My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all......."
If the loot cards don't contribute or are not related to the TCG...what do you suppose their intended purpose is for?... Unless of course you were paraphrasing my statement and I am to dense to see that. Either way do the loot cards serve a purpose in the TCG?
EDIT to follow up my previous edit.
No...I reread the posts and I don't think you were paraphrasing something I wrote. In fact you used "My change" the operative word "My" in that statement you made, as in coming from you. It can't be a paraphrase. If that's the case, what is their purpose if they don't relate to the TCG?
And no I am not trying to be blithe, you just said something I need clarification on. Thanks.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
After reading a large amount of the posts in this thread with folks wondering WHY SWG is in the state it is, I have to make a comment. I played for almost a year (pre-NGE and one month after), it was the most fun I ever had in an MMO, the diversity in abilities, not being shoved into a class I may or may not like , entertainers, I was on my way to becoming force sensetive... but that was then. Now, people are wondering why it seems that SOE isn't making any attempt at cutting overhead by shutting down servers and consolidating populations on the more populated servers, they wonder why SOE still charges for a character to move from one server to another, they wonder why instead of fixing issues, the devs create a stinking card game that needs RL money to get decent cards. I may have an answer, but you won't like it... SOE is soaking you poor saps for all it can, they are doing this because they are losing the Star Wars IP in 2009 and are trying to make a last minute cash grab. SWG will die next year, not sure which month. The reason that Bioware has not made an OFFICIAL announcement abot the KOTORO game is because they are waiting to obtain the IP next year before speaking about it They can't OFFICIALY say anything until the IP is theirs (legal issues). I myself mourn the game that SWG was and I feel bad for the folks who stuck it out hoping things might get better, because it won't. SOE has made some very lousey decisions with the game and have proven to everyone who is a Star Wars fan that they no longer deserve to use the Star Wars IP. SWG will die next year, but Bioware is a good company and the will do a better job with the IP than SOE did.
I have to say, this thought crossed my mind as well. SOE could have introduced new content with ingame incentives like short-term buffs and new vechicle schematics. This would add value to the current subscription, add enjoyable content, add rewards for completing the content, and increase player interaction. All very nice, very player friendly, and very good for long-term growth.
Instead, they introduced a loot card system that has you waiting months to get desirable loot, or paying real money for only a chance to get it. This is less player friendly, and less consistent with a long-term growth strategy. It looks entirely like a very short-term cash grab that hurts the game and further paints SOE as caring solely about customers' visa cards, not about the customers themselves, or their experience.
I'm not making any shut-down predictions, and I never have, but this current move is certainly more consistent with a desire to rapidly maximize short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth.
I have to say, this thought crossed my mind as well. SOE could have introduced new content with ingame incentives like short-term buffs and new vechicle schematics. This would add value to the current subscription, add enjoyable content, add rewards for completing the content, and increase player interaction. All very nice, very player friendly, and very good for long-term growth. Instead, they introduced a loot card system that has you waiting months to get desirable loot, or paying real money for only a chance to get it. This is less player friendly, and less consistent with a long-term growth strategy. It looks entirely like a very short-term cash grab that hurts the game and further paints SOE as caring solely about customers' visa cards, not about the customers themselves, or their experience. I'm not making any shut-down predictions, and I never have, but this current move is certainly more consistent with a desire to rapidly maximize short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth.
I heard the news from a friend who works for a developer (I cannot say who since I don't want to get him canned).
Since we all know that Bioware is working on an on-line SW game and hasn't made an official announcement yet, SWG seems to be in "light maintenance" mode (not to mention that SOE utterly detests it's own customers), and Lucas Arts will not allow two companies to use their IP at the same time, I feel that what he told me was the truth. I wish I was wrong and SWG could get better, but logic tells me that SOE is just waiting until the IP slips from their grasp, all the while gathering as much cash as they can get from the customer.
I don't hate SOE, but I do not trust them, either.
Quoted from Obraik "My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating."
Good the quote tower is gone. OK back to disscussion. Obraik, I concede that my analogy is not perfect and may not be held as valid. Instead I will now say it is only a hint for the way I perceive the disscussion as opposed to this analogy is a comparable fact. Truth is I am having a hard time coming up with a better analogy because you are right. The third party element does make it difficult to compare with something else that would widely be considered gambling. Good Job!. I do feel some headway has been made here. You said you see it no different than contests on Weet-Bix cereal. We agree. I see no difference either. I live in the U.S. Here when products offer "contests" in the fine print here in the U.S. they post all the odds for each reward to be given. What keeps this "contest" from being considered gambling in our courts is the No Pruchase Ness. clause also in the fine print. Please read my post #127 in this thread for more details, especially the NPN is such a hassle no one does it. Now for the sake of disscussion, on the below points I was really hoping for a more direct response to the questions in them like yes, no or "I can see how you feel that way but I disagree." Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING." As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system? If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling? There is a reason why I would like a more direct response. It has to do with an argument I will put forth in another post. And believe it or not it kind of supports this business model. Also to compare my definition with here is websters... gambling
One entry found. gamble[1,verb]
Main Entry: 1gam·ble
Pronunciation: ?gam-b?l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gam·bled; gam·bling -b(?-)li?
Etymology: probably back-formation from gambler, probably alteration of obsolete gamner, from obsolete gamen to play
Date: 1772
intransitive verb
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome
2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
transitive verb
1: to risk by gambling : wager
2: venture, hazard
— gam·bler -bl?r noun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gambling My definition may not be exact if used in a court of law, but common sense wise, what do you think? EDIT: I just reread what you posted and something struck me rather odd... "My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all......." If the loot cards don't contribute or are not related to the TCG...what do you suppose their intended purpose is for?... Unless of course you were paraphrasing my statement and I am to dense to see that. Either way do the loot cards serve a purpose in the TCG? EDIT to follow up my previous edit. No...I reread the posts and I don't think you were paraphrasing something I wrote. In fact you used "My change" the operative word "My" in that statement you made, as in coming from you. It can't be a paraphrase. If that's the case, what is their purpose if they don't relate to the TCG? And no I am not trying to be blithe, you just said something I need clarification on. Thanks.
Here in New Zealand, there is no such requirement that the odds of a competition be posted (as far as I'm aware at least, I've never seen such things listed in contest rules).
I'll concede that those purely buying packs of cards in hopes of getting cards could be stretched to gambling but any competition can be "abused" this way. Personally, if you're someone that would go out and do that when you know you don't have the cash then you deserve to lose your money/credit card - I have no sympathy for that. Playing the TCG however, is not gambling at all.
What are the loot cards for? IMO, to get people that play SWG interested in giving the TCG a try, since you have to go into the TCG client to get the loot cards. If the intention of them was purely to get people in SWG to pay for loot cards then there would be no free packs.
Quoted from Obraik "My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating."
Good the quote tower is gone. OK back to disscussion. Obraik, I concede that my analogy is not perfect and may not be held as valid. Instead I will now say it is only a hint for the way I perceive the disscussion as opposed to this analogy is a comparable fact. Truth is I am having a hard time coming up with a better analogy because you are right. The third party element does make it difficult to compare with something else that would widely be considered gambling. Good Job!. I do feel some headway has been made here. You said you see it no different than contests on Weet-Bix cereal. We agree. I see no difference either. I live in the U.S. Here when products offer "contests" in the fine print here in the U.S. they post all the odds for each reward to be given. What keeps this "contest" from being considered gambling in our courts is the No Pruchase Ness. clause also in the fine print. Please read my post #127 in this thread for more details, especially the NPN is such a hassle no one does it. Now for the sake of disscussion, on the below points I was really hoping for a more direct response to the questions in them like yes, no or "I can see how you feel that way but I disagree." Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING." As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system? If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling? There is a reason why I would like a more direct response. It has to do with an argument I will put forth in another post. And believe it or not it kind of supports this business model. Also to compare my definition with here is websters... gambling
One entry found. gamble[1,verb]
Main Entry: 1gam·ble
Pronunciation: ?gam-b?l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gam·bled; gam·bling -b(?-)li?
Etymology: probably back-formation from gambler, probably alteration of obsolete gamner, from obsolete gamen to play
Date: 1772
intransitive verb
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome
2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
transitive verb
1: to risk by gambling : wager
2: venture, hazard
— gam·bler -bl?r noun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gambling My definition may not be exact if used in a court of law, but common sense wise, what do you think? EDIT: I just reread what you posted and something struck me rather odd... "My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all......." If the loot cards don't contribute or are not related to the TCG...what do you suppose their intended purpose is for?... Unless of course you were paraphrasing my statement and I am to dense to see that. Either way do the loot cards serve a purpose in the TCG? EDIT to follow up my previous edit. No...I reread the posts and I don't think you were paraphrasing something I wrote. In fact you used "My change" the operative word "My" in that statement you made, as in coming from you. It can't be a paraphrase. If that's the case, what is their purpose if they don't relate to the TCG? And no I am not trying to be blithe, you just said something I need clarification on. Thanks.
Here in New Zealand, there is no such requirement that the odds of a competition be posted (as far as I'm aware at least, I've never seen such things listed in contest rules).
I'll concede that those purely buying packs of cards in hopes of getting cards could be stretched to gambling but any competition can be "abused" this way. Personally, if you're someone that would go out and do that when you know you don't have the cash then you deserve to lose your money/credit card - I have no sympathy for that. Playing the TCG however, is not gambling at all.
What are the loot cards for? IMO, to get people that play SWG interested in giving the TCG a try, since you have to go into the TCG client to get the loot cards. If the intention of them was purely to get people in SWG to pay for loot cards then there would be no free packs.
Thanks for the concession that even though for most this system is not a problem, but for at a silly few this could be a problem, even if it is a stretch to call it gambling. I agree any "ism" whether called a contest, sweepstakes, competion, or gambling can be abused if it is based on a random chance or contingency. Whether it is free or something paid for to receive that chance.
I also agree it is a person's individual responsibily when making a decision and their responsibility accept the rewards and consequences of their choices. I have no sympathy for them as well. Although I will still empathize with their situation if they want someone to listen. I won't get invovled, just listen.
Loot cards are there to spark interest from SWG to the TCG, I agree they serve that purpose. Maybe even the main purpose. But other purposes may also exist with it. The idea that no free cards would be given away for free if the idea is to get people to play, this is where we still differ and that is OK. There are many contests, promos, competitions, sweepstakes, and obvious gambling venues that give away stuff for free to entice people to pay for more or something else associated with it. I live in Arizona. You can buy guns here like they were baked beans. Often they advertise free ammo with purchase of gun. Knowing full well after the gun is purchased more ammo will be purchased.
You may only feel it is to get SWG players to try and spend money for the card game. I submit it is to get SWG players to get hooked on the idea of ingame loot coming from cards. After all if it was just to get people to try the TCG they only have to give free TCG cards to players. They don't need to have a loot card. The same TCG cards they give away as well already at the moment. Plus even though it is free the way you play, it is a 30 day spread between free comes again. Many will not be patient.
In the second paragraph of your ressponse you did say playing the TCG is not gambling at all. I agree in a common sense sort of way just as kids that buy baseball cards buy a pack hoping to get their favorite player. But buy websters definition it is. And I was saying it was gambling with its dynamic with SWG and its loot card rewards.
I will write a post and start a new thread. I will propose an argument that it is in everyones best interest to acknowledge this system is gambling. Especially for those that enjoy and support these games. It will be very long citing examples with links. I know you can't wait.
Thanks for the disscussion as a gentleman Obraik and cheers.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
You also seem to keep ignoring that you don't have to pay any RL money to get these loot items.
Um, that is precisely his point, Obraik. No RL money at all involved in obtaining them. Just luck on an in-game loot drop.
Unlike the obviously RMT inspired card game loot cards. Where you DO have to pay RL money to have any reasonable chance to beat the randominzed odds to get them.
I would like to go even further (this is the post where I try to bash you on the head to get you to my way of thinking, although I don't expect it to work).
I will use an analogy.
1. One month of sub time in SWG = one night stay at hotel.
2. The TCG = blackjack (from now on BJ)
3. The podracer loot card reward = money won at BJ as a reward.
4. The nightly stay "free" $20 BJ play coupon = "free" TCG card pack given monthly for SWG sub.
This analogy doesn't really work. Point 3 would be equal to winning some item for the hotel (heh, maybe an extra pillow?).
You don't need to play the TCG (or, black jack in your example) to get the loot rewards, you simply need to redeem the pack (whatever the equiv is for that in black jack, I've never played it). Getting more opportunities to get the loot cards would be like buying more of the play coupons and redeeming them - but you wouldn't need to play the actual game.
Obraik,
For the sake of good discussion I will concede your point that a person can still receive and use loot cards in SWG and not actually play the TCG. Good job. But answer this, does that invalidate my whole analogy. Yes the dynamic between SWG and TCG is different than BJ. BJ does not have a third party dynamic to it. I mainly used BJ as an example as most people that have visited casinos understand the obvious gambling involved.
As far as point three. The point of that is reward = money. Not necessarily an item. Items are rewards, so is money.
Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING."
As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system?
If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling?
Again I gamble all the time. This as a model system is not inherently evil and me disliking SOE has nothing to do with it. This could be "Hello Kitty Online" we are talking about here.
Thanks for the concession on the gum thing. I do think you present valid arguments for disscussion.
My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit
Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating.
Unfortunately though Obraik this doesn't really make this game stink any less it just covers the scent with a perfume that ironically stinks almost as bad as the game by itself
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Quoted from Obraik "My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating."
Good the quote tower is gone. OK back to disscussion. Obraik, I concede that my analogy is not perfect and may not be held as valid. Instead I will now say it is only a hint for the way I perceive the disscussion as opposed to this analogy is a comparable fact. Truth is I am having a hard time coming up with a better analogy because you are right. The third party element does make it difficult to compare with something else that would widely be considered gambling. Good Job!. I do feel some headway has been made here. You said you see it no different than contests on Weet-Bix cereal. We agree. I see no difference either. I live in the U.S. Here when products offer "contests" in the fine print here in the U.S. they post all the odds for each reward to be given. What keeps this "contest" from being considered gambling in our courts is the No Pruchase Ness. clause also in the fine print. Please read my post #127 in this thread for more details, especially the NPN is such a hassle no one does it. Now for the sake of disscussion, on the below points I was really hoping for a more direct response to the questions in them like yes, no or "I can see how you feel that way but I disagree." Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING." As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system? If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling? There is a reason why I would like a more direct response. It has to do with an argument I will put forth in another post. And believe it or not it kind of supports this business model. Also to compare my definition with here is websters... gambling
One entry found. gamble[1,verb]
Main Entry: 1gam·ble
Pronunciation: ?gam-b?l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gam·bled; gam·bling -b(?-)li?
Etymology: probably back-formation from gambler, probably alteration of obsolete gamner, from obsolete gamen to play
Date: 1772
intransitive verb
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome
2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
transitive verb
1: to risk by gambling : wager
2: venture, hazard
— gam·bler -bl?r noun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gambling My definition may not be exact if used in a court of law, but common sense wise, what do you think? EDIT: I just reread what you posted and something struck me rather odd... "My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all......." If the loot cards don't contribute or are not related to the TCG...what do you suppose their intended purpose is for?... Unless of course you were paraphrasing my statement and I am to dense to see that. Either way do the loot cards serve a purpose in the TCG? EDIT to follow up my previous edit. No...I reread the posts and I don't think you were paraphrasing something I wrote. In fact you used "My change" the operative word "My" in that statement you made, as in coming from you. It can't be a paraphrase. If that's the case, what is their purpose if they don't relate to the TCG? And no I am not trying to be blithe, you just said something I need clarification on. Thanks.
Here in New Zealand, there is no such requirement that the odds of a competition be posted (as far as I'm aware at least, I've never seen such things listed in contest rules).
I'll concede that those purely buying packs of cards in hopes of getting cards could be stretched to gambling but any competition can be "abused" this way. Personally, if you're someone that would go out and do that when you know you don't have the cash then you deserve to lose your money/credit card - I have no sympathy for that. Playing the TCG however, is not gambling at all.
What are the loot cards for? IMO, to get people that play SWG interested in giving the TCG a try, since you have to go into the TCG client to get the loot cards. If the intention of them was purely to get people in SWG to pay for loot cards then there would be no free packs.
Thanks for the concession that even though for most this system is not a problem, but for at a silly few this could be a problem, even if it is a stretch to call it gambling. I agree any "ism" whether called a contest, sweepstakes, competion, or gambling can be abused if it is based on a random chance or contingency. Whether it is free or something paid for to receive that chance.
I also agree it is a person's individual responsibily when making a decision and their responsibility accept the rewards and consequences of their choices. I have no sympathy for them as well. Although I will still empathize with their situation if they want someone to listen. I won't get invovled, just listen.
Loot cards are there to spark interest from SWG to the TCG, I agree they serve that purpose. Maybe even the main purpose. But other purposes may also exist with it. The idea that no free cards would be given away for free if the idea is to get people to play, this is where we still differ and that is OK. There are many contests, promos, competitions, sweepstakes, and obvious gambling venues that give away stuff for free to entice people to pay for more or something else associated with it. I live in Arizona. You can buy guns here like they were baked beans. Often they advertise free ammo with purchase of gun. Knowing full well after the gun is purchased more ammo will be purchased.
You may only feel it is to get SWG players to try and spend money for the card game. I submit it is to get SWG players to get hooked on the idea of ingame loot coming from cards. After all if it was just to get people to try the TCG they only have to give free TCG cards to players. They don't need to have a loot card. The same TCG cards they give away as well already at the moment. Plus even though it is free the way you play, it is a 30 day spread between free comes again. Many will not be patient.
In the second paragraph of your ressponse you did say playing the TCG is not gambling at all. I agree in a common sense sort of way just as kids that buy baseball cards buy a pack hoping to get their favorite player. But buy websters definition it is. And I was saying it was gambling with its dynamic with SWG and its loot card rewards.
I will write a post and start a new thread. I will propose an argument that it is in everyones best interest to acknowledge this system is gambling. Especially for those that enjoy and support these games. It will be very long citing examples with links. I know you can't wait.
Thanks for the disscussion as a gentleman Obraik and cheers.
My thoughts are very similar to yours here GrandAm. The payment for the chance of winning loot is indeed a gambling component. (That is of course why gambling is often referred to as a "game of chance.") I also agree that the month waiting period for the free, no-trade cards, will serve to motivate people to take their chances with the booster packs, and more often than not pay cash and not get what they were hoping for. I also see important differences between this and things like cereal promotions. Cereal promotions are regulated, odds of winning are always published in my jurisdiction, and no purchase of anything at all is required to participate. None of these features, not even one, are applicable to the loot cards.
As for having sympathy for people that get duped by this component into spending more than they wish they would have, well I have a few thoughts about that.
First of all, I do believe in personal responsibility. Gamers are responsible for the financial decisions we make. If we're talking about minors, however, I think developmental issues need to be considered.
At the same time, If SOE execs intentionally cooked up a gambling system with the intent of hooking vulnerable people and draining them of as much cash as possible, I would indeed take issue with that. Also, if they know it's a gambling system, but try to spin it as something else entirely, I would take issue with that.
The one issue is premeditated exploitation. The other is deception by misdirection. Both are unethical behaviours that do not have consumers' best interest in mind at all.
Other aspects of the card game don't seem to be a problem, and I hope they're fun for people. If I was going to buy booster packs for a card game though, and I do play one occasionally, I would want to actually own the cards. I would also want to know that the rules of the card game would not be changed part way through. With SOE's virtual cards, I know you don't own them, and I wouldn't be sure that they wouldn't change the rules as they go along.
P.S. Looking forward to the new thread myself GrandAm, and I admire how you dialogue so respectfully and patiently with those who hold opposing viewpoints. I try, but sometimes get exasperated, and that probably comes through my tone, unfortunately.
Quoted from Obraik "My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating."
Good the quote tower is gone. OK back to disscussion. Obraik, I concede that my analogy is not perfect and may not be held as valid. Instead I will now say it is only a hint for the way I perceive the disscussion as opposed to this analogy is a comparable fact. Truth is I am having a hard time coming up with a better analogy because you are right. The third party element does make it difficult to compare with something else that would widely be considered gambling. Good Job!. I do feel some headway has been made here. You said you see it no different than contests on Weet-Bix cereal. We agree. I see no difference either. I live in the U.S. Here when products offer "contests" in the fine print here in the U.S. they post all the odds for each reward to be given. What keeps this "contest" from being considered gambling in our courts is the No Pruchase Ness. clause also in the fine print. Please read my post #127 in this thread for more details, especially the NPN is such a hassle no one does it. Now for the sake of disscussion, on the below points I was really hoping for a more direct response to the questions in them like yes, no or "I can see how you feel that way but I disagree." Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING." As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system? If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling? There is a reason why I would like a more direct response. It has to do with an argument I will put forth in another post. And believe it or not it kind of supports this business model. Also to compare my definition with here is websters... gambling
One entry found. gamble[1,verb]
Main Entry: 1gam·ble
Pronunciation: ?gam-b?l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gam·bled; gam·bling -b(?-)li?
Etymology: probably back-formation from gambler, probably alteration of obsolete gamner, from obsolete gamen to play
Date: 1772
intransitive verb
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome
2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
transitive verb
1: to risk by gambling : wager
2: venture, hazard
— gam·bler -bl?r noun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gambling My definition may not be exact if used in a court of law, but common sense wise, what do you think? EDIT: I just reread what you posted and something struck me rather odd... "My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all......." If the loot cards don't contribute or are not related to the TCG...what do you suppose their intended purpose is for?... Unless of course you were paraphrasing my statement and I am to dense to see that. Either way do the loot cards serve a purpose in the TCG? EDIT to follow up my previous edit. No...I reread the posts and I don't think you were paraphrasing something I wrote. In fact you used "My change" the operative word "My" in that statement you made, as in coming from you. It can't be a paraphrase. If that's the case, what is their purpose if they don't relate to the TCG? And no I am not trying to be blithe, you just said something I need clarification on. Thanks.
Here in New Zealand, there is no such requirement that the odds of a competition be posted (as far as I'm aware at least, I've never seen such things listed in contest rules).
I'll concede that those purely buying packs of cards in hopes of getting cards could be stretched to gambling but any competition can be "abused" this way. Personally, if you're someone that would go out and do that when you know you don't have the cash then you deserve to lose your money/credit card - I have no sympathy for that. Playing the TCG however, is not gambling at all.
What are the loot cards for? IMO, to get people that play SWG interested in giving the TCG a try, since you have to go into the TCG client to get the loot cards. If the intention of them was purely to get people in SWG to pay for loot cards then there would be no free packs.
Thanks for the concession that even though for most this system is not a problem, but for at a silly few this could be a problem, even if it is a stretch to call it gambling. I agree any "ism" whether called a contest, sweepstakes, competion, or gambling can be abused if it is based on a random chance or contingency. Whether it is free or something paid for to receive that chance.
I also agree it is a person's individual responsibily when making a decision and their responsibility accept the rewards and consequences of their choices. I have no sympathy for them as well. Although I will still empathize with their situation if they want someone to listen. I won't get invovled, just listen.
Loot cards are there to spark interest from SWG to the TCG, I agree they serve that purpose. Maybe even the main purpose. But other purposes may also exist with it. The idea that no free cards would be given away for free if the idea is to get people to play, this is where we still differ and that is OK. There are many contests, promos, competitions, sweepstakes, and obvious gambling venues that give away stuff for free to entice people to pay for more or something else associated with it. I live in Arizona. You can buy guns here like they were baked beans. Often they advertise free ammo with purchase of gun. Knowing full well after the gun is purchased more ammo will be purchased.
You may only feel it is to get SWG players to try and spend money for the card game. I submit it is to get SWG players to get hooked on the idea of ingame loot coming from cards. After all if it was just to get people to try the TCG they only have to give free TCG cards to players. They don't need to have a loot card. The same TCG cards they give away as well already at the moment. Plus even though it is free the way you play, it is a 30 day spread between free comes again. Many will not be patient.
In the second paragraph of your ressponse you did say playing the TCG is not gambling at all. I agree in a common sense sort of way just as kids that buy baseball cards buy a pack hoping to get their favorite player. But buy websters definition it is. And I was saying it was gambling with its dynamic with SWG and its loot card rewards.
I will write a post and start a new thread. I will propose an argument that it is in everyones best interest to acknowledge this system is gambling. Especially for those that enjoy and support these games. It will be very long citing examples with links. I know you can't wait.
Thanks for the disscussion as a gentleman Obraik and cheers.
My thoughts are very similar to yours here GrandAm. The payment for the chance of winning loot is indeed a gambling component. (That is of course why gambling is often referred to as a "game of chance.") I also agree that the month waiting period for the free, no-trade cards, will serve to motivate people to take their chances with the booster packs, and more often than not pay cash and not get what they were hoping for. I also see important differences between this and things like cereal promotions. Cereal promotions are regulated, odds of winning are always published in my jurisdiction, and no purchase of anything at all is required to participate. None of these features, not even one, are applicable to the loot cards.
As for having sympathy for people that get duped by this component into spending more than they wish they would have, well I have a few thoughts about that.
First of all, I do believe in personal responsibility. Gamers are responsible for the financial decisions we make. If we're talking about minors, however, I think developmental issues need to be considered.
At the same time, If SOE execs intentionally cooked up a gambling system with the intent of hooking vulnerable people and draining them of as much cash as possible, I would indeed take issue with that. Also, if they know it's a gambling system, but try to spin it as something else entirely, I would take issue with that.
The one issue is premeditated exploitation. The other is deception by misdirection. Both are unethical behaviours that do not have consumers' best interest in mind at all.
Other aspects of the card game don't seem to be a problem, and I hope they're fun for people. If I was going to buy booster packs for a card game though, and I do play one occasionally, I would want to actually own the cards. I would also want to know that the rules of the card game would not be changed part way through. With SOE's virtual cards, I know you don't own them, and I wouldn't be sure that they wouldn't change the rules as they go along.
P.S. Looking forward to the new thread myself GrandAm, and I admire how you dialogue so respectfully and patiently with those who hold opposing viewpoints. I try, but sometimes get exasperated, and that probably comes through my tone, unfortunately.
Thanks ArchAngel
I was not taken advantatage as true vets. If you have read some past posts of mine you would know where I come from. And my Ahole has had far less vasoline than any vet here.
Why do I tend to side with them? Simple. Most vets have been able to cite what has happened with examples and such. There are some that resort to name calling. But most present well founded arguments. As well as many Pro SWG current players have.
I respect any person here that presents a good discussion and lends their opinion in the name of good discussion whether they call themselves Obraik or Archangel or whatever. We don't have to see eye to eye and accept what each other says. We just have to try to understand why people disagree with us even if it it doesn't change our minds. I am sure you disagree with some things I have said. If so I appreciate the respect you have shown in discussion to me as well as Obraik who has shown respect to the discussion even though we ultimatley completely disagree.
As far as my future post.... It may take awhile.
Thanks to all for reading!
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
I read during the NGE debacle, when people suggested that preCU SWG could continue and the NGE could be marketed as SWG 2 that LEC said no, that they didn't want two SW IP MMOs on the market at the same time, I imagine because they didn't want their brand diluted.
It's pretty silly, as they could have two entirely different audiences enjoying the SW IP in different ways, but these are the guys who are able to make money on bantha poodoo in a box marked "Star Wars" all the time.
So I find it quite believable that once some BioWare product comes out that is MMO in nature that LEC will kill SWG to make way for their new offering.
To avoid consumer confusion, no doubt.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
I read during the NGE debacle, when people suggested that preCU SWG could continue and the NGE could be marketed as SWG 2 that LEC said no, that they didn't want two SW IP MMOs on the market at the same time, I imagine because they didn't want their brand diluted. It's pretty silly, as they could have two entirely different audiences enjoying the SW IP in different ways, but these are the guys who are able to make money on bantha poodoo in a box marked "Star Wars" all the time. So I find it quite believable that once some BioWare product comes out that is MMO in nature that LEC will kill SWG to make way for their new offering. To avoid consumer confusion, no doubt.
One would think... but it would seem odd that SOE bothers to make the card game etc if they know the game is going away.
I mean the resources could be doing other things.. like making sure The Agency and DCUO have a card game ready to go at launch!!
My GF was reading massive.. forget why I get the magazine I know I didn't pay for it but anyway... she says they are bringing pre-cu back? I was like huh?
So I said ya see it says "in the spirit of pre-cu" ... I really wish no one from SOE would mention pre-cu... unless they are going to tell me about a pre-cu server...
Oh and then I see the directors letter... "well I was talking with marketing about what we're doing for low pop servers".... Can't tell us what they've decided to do.. have to wait for the announcement.
I'm thinking wtf does marketing have to do with anything.
If you merge servers... marketing has no role in that.
and... you aren't gonna get 200 or 300 thousand people to come pay for the NGE.. if that's not clear by now... then there is some serious brain damage at that company.. cuz the only thing marketing could do is spam emails.. come pay for this crap you quit over... its not the same crap.. but its not the game you've all stated you want... back.. over and over and over.
Anyway...
Whatever crapfest BioWare is making (ya sorry it will be crap.. and if it isn't LEC will mandate changes to make sure it is)... won't be like pre-cu... so "our" game and BioWare's could have run at the same time.
But there isn't really any reason to have two versions of WoW with star wars textures running at the same time.
There is no doubt that there are too many servers that are hurting. I won't defend that. But take a moment to log into Starsider or Bria. One of the larger servers during the evening. The population on those servers have been steadily growing via transfers as well as new players. The bottom line is that the new dev team is doing a pretty good job of scraping up the pieces and making SWG fun again. Of course it is still not the same fun as it was before the NGE but it is becoming fun again nonetheless. I am still excited over KoTOR MMO thoughts though.
bria is full of whiny little brats who want to wtfpwn with their glowbats..and by full i mean you might find 20-30 ppl in restuss during prime time on a good day.Face it nobody wants to play with the trash that came in with the NGE.
One would think... but it would seem odd that SOE bothers to make the card game etc if they know the game is going away.
this is SOE we are talking about.They stand outside of mcdonalds waiting for some pimply face kid who got fired and say: hey buddy wanna job abusing the people who used to beat you up in school?
My thoughts are very similar to yours here GrandAm. The payment for the chance of winning loot is indeed a gambling component. (That is of course why gambling is often referred to as a "game of chance.") I also agree that the month waiting period for the free, no-trade cards, will serve to motivate people to take their chances with the booster packs, and more often than not pay cash and not get what they were hoping for. I also see important differences between this and things like cereal promotions. Cereal promotions are regulated, odds of winning are always published in my jurisdiction, and no purchase of anything at all is required to participate. None of these features, not even one, are applicable to the loot cards. As for having sympathy for people that get duped by this component into spending more than they wish they would have, well I have a few thoughts about that. First of all, I do believe in personal responsibility. Gamers are responsible for the financial decisions we make. If we're talking about minors, however, I think developmental issues need to be considered. At the same time, If SOE execs intentionally cooked up a gambling system with the intent of hooking vulnerable people and draining them of as much cash as possible, I would indeed take issue with that. Also, if they know it's a gambling system, but try to spin it as something else entirely, I would take issue with that. The one issue is premeditated exploitation. The other is deception by misdirection. Both are unethical behaviours that do not have consumers' best interest in mind at all. Other aspects of the card game don't seem to be a problem, and I hope they're fun for people. If I was going to buy booster packs for a card game though, and I do play one occasionally, I would want to actually own the cards. I would also want to know that the rules of the card game would not be changed part way through. With SOE's virtual cards, I know you don't own them, and I wouldn't be sure that they wouldn't change the rules as they go along. P.S. Looking forward to the new thread myself GrandAm, and I admire how you dialogue so respectfully and patiently with those who hold opposing viewpoints. I try, but sometimes get exasperated, and that probably comes through my tone, unfortunately.
Um, last I checked, you actually need to buy the cereal to be able to participate in the competition. At least with the loot cards, you have a choice of not paying and still get the chance of getting the same results as if you had paid.
If SOE was a New Zealand based company, this whole thing would be covered by the Fair Trading Act. Being the US, I'd find it unlikely that there isn't something similar in the US, which keeps companies from being deceptive with their claims, gambling or not. I think you'd find that a law/act such as that will be keeping SOE from doing what you fear
As for SOE being responsible for the way people spend, I disagree. If anyone (other then person who can't control their spending habits) is to blame then it should be the bank for giving such a person a credit card in the first place. Personally, I think banks make credit cards too easy to get, especially for people that really don't have the means or control to support a credit card in the first place.
My thoughts are very similar to yours here GrandAm. The payment for the chance of winning loot is indeed a gambling component. (That is of course why gambling is often referred to as a "game of chance.") I also agree that the month waiting period for the free, no-trade cards, will serve to motivate people to take their chances with the booster packs, and more often than not pay cash and not get what they were hoping for. I also see important differences between this and things like cereal promotions. Cereal promotions are regulated, odds of winning are always published in my jurisdiction, and no purchase of anything at all is required to participate. None of these features, not even one, are applicable to the loot cards. As for having sympathy for people that get duped by this component into spending more than they wish they would have, well I have a few thoughts about that. First of all, I do believe in personal responsibility. Gamers are responsible for the financial decisions we make. If we're talking about minors, however, I think developmental issues need to be considered. At the same time, If SOE execs intentionally cooked up a gambling system with the intent of hooking vulnerable people and draining them of as much cash as possible, I would indeed take issue with that. Also, if they know it's a gambling system, but try to spin it as something else entirely, I would take issue with that. The one issue is premeditated exploitation. The other is deception by misdirection. Both are unethical behaviours that do not have consumers' best interest in mind at all. Other aspects of the card game don't seem to be a problem, and I hope they're fun for people. If I was going to buy booster packs for a card game though, and I do play one occasionally, I would want to actually own the cards. I would also want to know that the rules of the card game would not be changed part way through. With SOE's virtual cards, I know you don't own them, and I wouldn't be sure that they wouldn't change the rules as they go along. P.S. Looking forward to the new thread myself GrandAm, and I admire how you dialogue so respectfully and patiently with those who hold opposing viewpoints. I try, but sometimes get exasperated, and that probably comes through my tone, unfortunately.
Um, last I checked, you actually need to buy the cereal to be able to participate in the competition. At least with the loot cards, you have a choice of not paying and still get the chance of getting the same results as if you had paid.
If SOE was a New Zealand based company, this whole thing would be covered by the Fair Trading Act. Being the US, I'd find it unlikely that there isn't something similar in the US, which keeps companies from being deceptive with their claims, gambling or not. I think you'd find that a law/act such as that will be keeping SOE from doing what you fear
As for SOE being responsible for the way people spend, I disagree. If anyone (other then person who can't control their spending habits) is to blame then it should be the bank for giving such a person a credit card in the first place. Personally, I think banks make credit cards too easy to get, especially for people that really don't have the means or control to support a credit card in the first place.
No, you don't need to buy the cereal. Here's GrandAm's explanation of the "no purchase necessary" clause again. It's accurate, and clearly stated:
"Look at the annual Monopoly game at McDonald's. They give away prizes like $1mil, a PS3 (yeeshhh), and Huffy bicycles (double yeeshh). Read the fine print on the game pamphlet. They give the odds. That way they don't get in trouble. They also have the NO PURCHASE NECESSARY to play clause. You just have to mail a self addressed stamped envelope to their address, wait two weeks for the round trip to get a game piece. They do that so it can't be called gambling in a court. But it still is because most people aren't going to do the hassle for free. They are going to buy that BigMac meal. The meal they paid money for to get game pieces to randomly receive a reward.
Sodas, cereals, condoms etc... have these same gambling contests too. But in the fine print the odds are all there. They have the NPN clause because years ago someone said it is gambling ( I suspect)."
No purchase necessary means exactly that, you don't have to pay any real cash for the chance to win. If you pay for the chance to win, it's gambling and subject to all the laws pertaining to gambling. Tbh it seems you haven't understood this. Is it more clear now?
Can you see that SOE's loot cards do not function by the same "no purchase necessary" principle? You either have to purchase the SWG client and subscription time for a chance to get the reward over the long term, or you have to purchase all of these things plus booster packs if you hope to speed up the process.
Second, I never said that SOE is responsible for the way people spend. In fact I said quite the opposite. Gamers are responsible for our own choices. I also highlighted, however, that this doesn't apply to minors who can be manipulated by adults because of the minor's developmental immaturity. SOE's loot card gambling system is available to minors, and yes I take issue with that also, as I tried to indicate.
While mature gamers are responsible for their decisions, SOE is also responsible for its decisions. This is not an either/or scenario. If SOE has implemented gambling in the loot card system, and it is available to minors, and it is unregulated, all of these things pertain to SOE's decisions; and they are responsible for them.
I happen to disagree with the following decisions made by SOE:
-the decision to implement gambling for loot,
-the decision to make gambling for loot available to minors,
-the decision to offer an unregulated game of chance that costs people real money,
-and finally the implementation of gambling for loot when the rules of the game and the value of the reward can be changed at any time at the sole discretion of the service provider.
The odds are known, if you were to purchase a box of cards ($100.00 worth) you wil get on average 3 loot cards. So unless you really do actually play the game and want the rare PLAYING cards (as opposed to loot cards) it seems to me that that is not really a great way to get your loot.
It also seems that the VAST majority of people who get the loot trade ingame credit's or items for the loot cards anyway.
It also seems that the VAST majority of people who get the loot trade ingame credit's or items for the loot cards anyway.
There is the problem I have with SOEs actions and these stupid card games that have no business being in an MMO in the first place.
People pay credits for loot cards. Those cards come from giving SOE money for boosters (or whatever they are called), plus whatever free packs are given out. First hit is free.
This is effectively putting real money transactions on top of a monthly subscription. On top of that they already failed in trying to push in game advertising into their MMOs. Those are things most FREE to play MMOs do, but not here.
Sorry, but I find it disrespectful for SOE to not spend money on an expansion in three years and instead cook up some scheme to stick their hands in subscribers wallets again. SOE is treating their aging games as test beds for their future revenue models and people gleefully pay for the priviledge.
Lets not blow smoke up anyones ass and pretend this card game was made as some sort of content expansion for players. It is a straight up money grab that is so far off the design concepts of an MMO it isn't even funny. Think about it, how boring does an MMO have to be that people actually want to not play their avatars in the virtual world and instead play some virtual collectable card game?
Comments
I agree this should be regulated by an independent institution. But there is no governing body that sees this as gambling. Mainly because if you win you are not receiving money as a reward. You are receiving a product...an intangible virtual product at that. Plus this is kind of breaking new ground, cyberspace and all.
The focus shouldn't be on the outcome reward to define it as gambling. It should focus on if RL money is paid for a random chance of a reward, what ever the form.
Don't get me wrong, I like to gamble and have seen many casinos in my day. I see nothing wrong with this as a legitimate way to do business. But there has to be oversight of some kind. People also have to know the true odds of winning any one card in a game pack. Purchased or not. SOE needs to post these odds on the TCG site. And not change the odds without notifying the public. Plus invite a third party independent watch dog to ensure they are accurrate.
Look at the annual Monopoly game at McDonald's. They give away prizes like $1mil, a PS3 (yeeshhh), and Huffy bicycles (double yeeshh). Read the fine print on the game pamphlet. They give the odds. That way they don't get in trouble. They also have the NO PURCHASE NECESSARY to play clause. You just have to mail a self addressed stamped envelope to their address, wait two weeks for the round trip to get a game piece. They do that so it can't be called gambling in a court. But it still is because most people aren't going to do the hassle for free. They are going to buy that BigMac meal. The meal they paid money for to get game pieces to randomly receive a reward.
Sodas, cereals, condoms etc... have these same gambling contests too. But in the fine print the odds are all there. They have the NPN clause because years ago someone said it is gambling ( I suspect).
EDIT: Also all it will take is one parent who's kid spent hundreds to tell Tipper Gore (triple yeeshhh) and she starts running around like Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy screaming "Won't somebody think of the children!" and this will bring SOEs model down faster then a $5 hooker.
"Me so horny" - Two Live Crew
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
Um, that is precisely his point, Obraik. No RL money at all involved in obtaining them. Just luck on an in-game loot drop.
Unlike the obviously RMT inspired card game loot cards. Where you DO have to pay RL money to have any reasonable chance to beat the randominzed odds to get them.
I would like to go even further (this is the post where I try to bash you on the head to get you to my way of thinking, although I don't expect it to work).
I will use an analogy.
1. One month of sub time in SWG = one night stay at hotel.
2. The TCG = blackjack (from now on BJ)
3. The podracer loot card reward = money won at BJ as a reward.
4. The nightly stay "free" $20 BJ play coupon = "free" TCG card pack given monthly for SWG sub.
This analogy doesn't really work. Point 3 would be equal to winning some item for the hotel (heh, maybe an extra pillow?).
You don't need to play the TCG (or, black jack in your example) to get the loot rewards, you simply need to redeem the pack (whatever the equiv is for that in black jack, I've never played it). Getting more opportunities to get the loot cards would be like buying more of the play coupons and redeeming them - but you wouldn't need to play the actual game.
Um, that is precisely his point, Obraik. No RL money at all involved in obtaining them. Just luck on an in-game loot drop.
Unlike the obviously RMT inspired card game loot cards. Where you DO have to pay RL money to have any reasonable chance to beat the randominzed odds to get them.
I would like to go even further (this is the post where I try to bash you on the head to get you to my way of thinking, although I don't expect it to work).
I will use an analogy.
1. One month of sub time in SWG = one night stay at hotel.
2. The TCG = blackjack (from now on BJ)
3. The podracer loot card reward = money won at BJ as a reward.
4. The nightly stay "free" $20 BJ play coupon = "free" TCG card pack given monthly for SWG sub.
This analogy doesn't really work. Point 3 would be equal to winning some item for the hotel (heh, maybe an extra pillow?).
You don't need to play the TCG (or, black jack in your example) to get the loot rewards, you simply need to redeem the pack (whatever the equiv is for that in black jack, I've never played it). Getting more opportunities to get the loot cards would be like buying more of the play coupons and redeeming them - but you wouldn't need to play the actual game.
Obraik,
For the sake of good discussion I will concede your point that a person can still receive and use loot cards in SWG and not actually play the TCG. Good job. But answer this, does that invalidate my whole analogy. Yes the dynamic between SWG and TCG is different than BJ. BJ does not have a third party dynamic to it. I mainly used BJ as an example as most people that have visited casinos understand the obvious gambling involved.
As far as point three. The point of that is reward = money. Not necessarily an item. Items are rewards, so is money.
Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING."
As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system?
If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling?
Again I gamble all the time. This as a model system is not inherently evil and me disliking SOE has nothing to do with it. This could be "Hello Kitty Online" we are talking about here.
Thanks for the concession on the gum thing. I do think you present valid arguments for disscussion.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
I agree this should be regulated by an independent institution. But there is no governing body that sees this as gambling. Mainly because if you win you are not receiving money as a reward. You are receiving a product...an intangible virtual product at that. Plus this is kind of breaking new ground, cyberspace and all.
The focus shouldn't be on the outcome reward to define it as gambling. It should focus on if RL money is paid for a random chance of a reward, what ever the form.
Don't get me wrong, I like to gamble and have seen many casinos in my day. I see nothing wrong with this as a legitimate way to do business. But there has to be oversight of some kind. People also have to know the true odds of winning any one card in a game pack. Purchased or not. SOE needs to post these odds on the TCG site. And not change the odds without notifying the public. Plus invite a third party independent watch dog to ensure they are accurrate.
Look at the annual Monopoly game at McDonald's. They give away prizes like $1mil, a PS3 (yeeshhh), and Huffy bicycles (double yeeshh). Read the fine print on the game pamphlet. They give the odds. That way they don't get in trouble. They also have the NO PURCHASE NECESSARY to play clause. You just have to mail a self addressed stamped envelope to their address, wait two weeks for the round trip to get a game piece. They do that so it can't be called gambling in a court. But it still is because most people aren't going to do the hassle for free. They are going to buy that BigMac meal. The meal they paid money for to get game pieces to randomly receive a reward.
Sodas, cereals, condoms etc... have these same gambling contests too. But in the fine print the odds are all there. They have the NPN clause because years ago someone said it is gambling ( I suspect).
EDIT: Also all it will take is one parent who's kid spent hundreds to tell Tipper Gore (triple yeeshhh) and she starts running around like Mrs. Reverend Lovejoy screaming "Won't somebody think of the children!" and this will bring SOEs model down faster then a $5 hooker.
"Me so horny" - Two Live Crew
Heh, GrandAm just posted at the same time as me, and his is better lol, so I scrapped mine. I'm just going to listen to the ongoing, excellent dialogue, and hope to learn something
Um, that is precisely his point, Obraik. No RL money at all involved in obtaining them. Just luck on an in-game loot drop.
Unlike the obviously RMT inspired card game loot cards. Where you DO have to pay RL money to have any reasonable chance to beat the randominzed odds to get them.
I would like to go even further (this is the post where I try to bash you on the head to get you to my way of thinking, although I don't expect it to work).
I will use an analogy.
1. One month of sub time in SWG = one night stay at hotel.
2. The TCG = blackjack (from now on BJ)
3. The podracer loot card reward = money won at BJ as a reward.
4. The nightly stay "free" $20 BJ play coupon = "free" TCG card pack given monthly for SWG sub.
This analogy doesn't really work. Point 3 would be equal to winning some item for the hotel (heh, maybe an extra pillow?).
You don't need to play the TCG (or, black jack in your example) to get the loot rewards, you simply need to redeem the pack (whatever the equiv is for that in black jack, I've never played it). Getting more opportunities to get the loot cards would be like buying more of the play coupons and redeeming them - but you wouldn't need to play the actual game.
Obraik,
For the sake of good discussion I will concede your point that a person can still receive and use loot cards in SWG and not actually play the TCG. Good job. But answer this, does that invalidate my whole analogy. Yes the dynamic between SWG and TCG is different than BJ. BJ does not have a third party dynamic to it. I mainly used BJ as an example as most people that have visited casinos understand the obvious gambling involved.
As far as point three. The point of that is reward = money. Not necessarily an item. Items are rewards, so is money.
Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING."
As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system?
If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling?
Again I gamble all the time. This as a model system is not inherently evil and me disliking SOE has nothing to do with it. This could be "Hello Kitty Online" we are talking about here.
Thanks for the concession on the gum thing. I do think you present valid arguments for disscussion.
My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit
Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating.
After reading a large amount of the posts in this thread with folks wondering WHY SWG is in the state it is, I have to make a comment.
I played for almost a year (pre-NGE and one month after), it was the most fun I ever had in an MMO, the diversity in abilities, not being shoved into a class I may or may not like , entertainers, I was on my way to becoming force sensetive...
but that was then.
Now, people are wondering why it seems that SOE isn't making any attempt at cutting overhead by shutting down servers and consolidating populations on the more populated servers, they wonder why SOE still charges for a character to move from one server to another, they wonder why instead of fixing issues, the devs create a stinking card game that needs RL money to get decent cards.
I may have an answer, but you won't like it...
SOE is soaking you poor saps for all it can, they are doing this because they are losing the Star Wars IP in 2009 and are trying to make a last minute cash grab. SWG will die next year, not sure which month. The reason that Bioware has not made an OFFICIAL announcement abot the KOTORO game is because they are waiting to obtain the IP next year before speaking about it They can't OFFICIALY say anything until the IP is theirs (legal issues). I myself mourn the game that SWG was and I feel bad for the folks who stuck it out hoping things might get better, because it won't. SOE has made some very lousey decisions with the game and have proven to everyone who is a Star Wars fan that they no longer deserve to use the Star Wars IP.
SWG will die next year, but Bioware is a good company and the will do a better job with the IP than SOE did.
Quoted from Obraik
"My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit
Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating."
Good the quote tower is gone. OK back to disscussion.
Obraik, I concede that my analogy is not perfect and may not be held as valid. Instead I will now say it is only a hint for the way I perceive the disscussion as opposed to this analogy is a comparable fact. Truth is I am having a hard time coming up with a better analogy because you are right. The third party element does make it difficult to compare with something else that would widely be considered gambling. Good Job!.
I do feel some headway has been made here. You said you see it no different than contests on Weet-Bix cereal. We agree. I see no difference either. I live in the U.S. Here when products offer "contests" in the fine print here in the U.S. they post all the odds for each reward to be given. What keeps this "contest" from being considered gambling in our courts is the No Pruchase Ness. clause also in the fine print. Please read my post #127 in this thread for more details, especially the NPN is such a hassle no one does it.
Now for the sake of disscussion, on the below points I was really hoping for a more direct response to the questions in them like yes, no or "I can see how you feel that way but I disagree."
Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING."
As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system?
If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling?
There is a reason why I would like a more direct response. It has to do with an argument I will put forth in another post. And believe it or not it kind of supports this business model.
Also to compare my definition with here is websters...
gambling
One entry found.
gamble[1,verb]
Main Entry: 1gam·ble
Pronunciation: ?gam-b?l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): gam·bled; gam·bling -b(?-)li?
Etymology: probably back-formation from gambler, probably alteration of obsolete gamner, from obsolete gamen to play
Date: 1772
intransitive verb
1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome
2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance
transitive verb
1: to risk by gambling : wager
2: venture, hazard
— gam·bler -bl?r noun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gambling
My definition may not be exact if used in a court of law, but common sense wise, what do you think?
EDIT: I just reread what you posted and something struck me rather odd...
"My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all......."
If the loot cards don't contribute or are not related to the TCG...what do you suppose their intended purpose is for?... Unless of course you were paraphrasing my statement and I am to dense to see that. Either way do the loot cards serve a purpose in the TCG?
EDIT to follow up my previous edit.
No...I reread the posts and I don't think you were paraphrasing something I wrote. In fact you used "My change" the operative word "My" in that statement you made, as in coming from you. It can't be a paraphrase. If that's the case, what is their purpose if they don't relate to the TCG?
And no I am not trying to be blithe, you just said something I need clarification on. Thanks.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
I have to say, this thought crossed my mind as well. SOE could have introduced new content with ingame incentives like short-term buffs and new vechicle schematics. This would add value to the current subscription, add enjoyable content, add rewards for completing the content, and increase player interaction. All very nice, very player friendly, and very good for long-term growth.
Instead, they introduced a loot card system that has you waiting months to get desirable loot, or paying real money for only a chance to get it. This is less player friendly, and less consistent with a long-term growth strategy. It looks entirely like a very short-term cash grab that hurts the game and further paints SOE as caring solely about customers' visa cards, not about the customers themselves, or their experience.
I'm not making any shut-down predictions, and I never have, but this current move is certainly more consistent with a desire to rapidly maximize short-term gain at the expense of long-term growth.
I heard the news from a friend who works for a developer (I cannot say who since I don't want to get him canned).
Since we all know that Bioware is working on an on-line SW game and hasn't made an official announcement yet, SWG seems to be in "light maintenance" mode (not to mention that SOE utterly detests it's own customers), and Lucas Arts will not allow two companies to use their IP at the same time, I feel that what he told me was the truth. I wish I was wrong and SWG could get better, but logic tells me that SOE is just waiting until the IP slips from their grasp, all the while gathering as much cash as they can get from the customer.
I don't hate SOE, but I do not trust them, either.
Here in New Zealand, there is no such requirement that the odds of a competition be posted (as far as I'm aware at least, I've never seen such things listed in contest rules).
I'll concede that those purely buying packs of cards in hopes of getting cards could be stretched to gambling but any competition can be "abused" this way. Personally, if you're someone that would go out and do that when you know you don't have the cash then you deserve to lose your money/credit card - I have no sympathy for that. Playing the TCG however, is not gambling at all.
What are the loot cards for? IMO, to get people that play SWG interested in giving the TCG a try, since you have to go into the TCG client to get the loot cards. If the intention of them was purely to get people in SWG to pay for loot cards then there would be no free packs.
Here in New Zealand, there is no such requirement that the odds of a competition be posted (as far as I'm aware at least, I've never seen such things listed in contest rules).
I'll concede that those purely buying packs of cards in hopes of getting cards could be stretched to gambling but any competition can be "abused" this way. Personally, if you're someone that would go out and do that when you know you don't have the cash then you deserve to lose your money/credit card - I have no sympathy for that. Playing the TCG however, is not gambling at all.
What are the loot cards for? IMO, to get people that play SWG interested in giving the TCG a try, since you have to go into the TCG client to get the loot cards. If the intention of them was purely to get people in SWG to pay for loot cards then there would be no free packs.
Thanks for the concession that even though for most this system is not a problem, but for at a silly few this could be a problem, even if it is a stretch to call it gambling. I agree any "ism" whether called a contest, sweepstakes, competion, or gambling can be abused if it is based on a random chance or contingency. Whether it is free or something paid for to receive that chance.
I also agree it is a person's individual responsibily when making a decision and their responsibility accept the rewards and consequences of their choices. I have no sympathy for them as well. Although I will still empathize with their situation if they want someone to listen. I won't get invovled, just listen.
Loot cards are there to spark interest from SWG to the TCG, I agree they serve that purpose. Maybe even the main purpose. But other purposes may also exist with it. The idea that no free cards would be given away for free if the idea is to get people to play, this is where we still differ and that is OK. There are many contests, promos, competitions, sweepstakes, and obvious gambling venues that give away stuff for free to entice people to pay for more or something else associated with it. I live in Arizona. You can buy guns here like they were baked beans. Often they advertise free ammo with purchase of gun. Knowing full well after the gun is purchased more ammo will be purchased.
You may only feel it is to get SWG players to try and spend money for the card game. I submit it is to get SWG players to get hooked on the idea of ingame loot coming from cards. After all if it was just to get people to try the TCG they only have to give free TCG cards to players. They don't need to have a loot card. The same TCG cards they give away as well already at the moment. Plus even though it is free the way you play, it is a 30 day spread between free comes again. Many will not be patient.
In the second paragraph of your ressponse you did say playing the TCG is not gambling at all. I agree in a common sense sort of way just as kids that buy baseball cards buy a pack hoping to get their favorite player. But buy websters definition it is. And I was saying it was gambling with its dynamic with SWG and its loot card rewards.
I will write a post and start a new thread. I will propose an argument that it is in everyones best interest to acknowledge this system is gambling. Especially for those that enjoy and support these games. It will be very long citing examples with links. I know you can't wait.
Thanks for the disscussion as a gentleman Obraik and cheers.
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
Um, that is precisely his point, Obraik. No RL money at all involved in obtaining them. Just luck on an in-game loot drop.
Unlike the obviously RMT inspired card game loot cards. Where you DO have to pay RL money to have any reasonable chance to beat the randominzed odds to get them.
I would like to go even further (this is the post where I try to bash you on the head to get you to my way of thinking, although I don't expect it to work).
I will use an analogy.
1. One month of sub time in SWG = one night stay at hotel.
2. The TCG = blackjack (from now on BJ)
3. The podracer loot card reward = money won at BJ as a reward.
4. The nightly stay "free" $20 BJ play coupon = "free" TCG card pack given monthly for SWG sub.
This analogy doesn't really work. Point 3 would be equal to winning some item for the hotel (heh, maybe an extra pillow?).
You don't need to play the TCG (or, black jack in your example) to get the loot rewards, you simply need to redeem the pack (whatever the equiv is for that in black jack, I've never played it). Getting more opportunities to get the loot cards would be like buying more of the play coupons and redeeming them - but you wouldn't need to play the actual game.
Obraik,
For the sake of good discussion I will concede your point that a person can still receive and use loot cards in SWG and not actually play the TCG. Good job. But answer this, does that invalidate my whole analogy. Yes the dynamic between SWG and TCG is different than BJ. BJ does not have a third party dynamic to it. I mainly used BJ as an example as most people that have visited casinos understand the obvious gambling involved.
As far as point three. The point of that is reward = money. Not necessarily an item. Items are rewards, so is money.
Now please read this quote I wrote in my original analogy "The moment anyone pays to receive a reward given randomly after they pay. THEY ARE GAMBLING."
As objectively as you can (forget SWG and TCG, I mean as in life in general) read the statement, does it accruately describe a gambling system?
If not cool. If yes, can you see If only one person pays looking for a specific rewarded loot card, leaving it up to random chance by buying a card pack not knowing what's inside and only finds out afier the money is gone, isn't that gambling?
Again I gamble all the time. This as a model system is not inherently evil and me disliking SOE has nothing to do with it. This could be "Hello Kitty Online" we are talking about here.
Thanks for the concession on the gum thing. I do think you present valid arguments for disscussion.
My change to point 3 is based on that the loot cards aren't related to the actual TCG, the rewards you get don't contribute to the TCG at all. In your analogy, the rewards were being used for your substitute of the TCG (Blackjack) - for the analogy to have been correct the rewards would need to directly influence your hotel room (SWG) with no interaction to Blackjack (the TCG). My disagreement in this case isn't because it's SWG but because you're analogy didn't fit
Personally, I don't see it as any different to cereal box promotions, retail store competitions (buy products and have a chance at winning other stuff, etc). Interestingly, there's a promo going on with a cereal (Weet-Bix) here where you get random playing cards in the box that you can then use to enter a code into a online card game based around the All Blacks rugby team and use your cards to play against other teams. Naturally, certain players from the team are rarer and will help improve your chances of winning the game and there are rewards given out for participating.
Unfortunately though Obraik this doesn't really make this game stink any less it just covers the scent with a perfume that ironically stinks almost as bad as the game by itself
but yeah, to call this game Fantastic is like calling Twilight the Godfather of vampire movies....
Here in New Zealand, there is no such requirement that the odds of a competition be posted (as far as I'm aware at least, I've never seen such things listed in contest rules).
I'll concede that those purely buying packs of cards in hopes of getting cards could be stretched to gambling but any competition can be "abused" this way. Personally, if you're someone that would go out and do that when you know you don't have the cash then you deserve to lose your money/credit card - I have no sympathy for that. Playing the TCG however, is not gambling at all.
What are the loot cards for? IMO, to get people that play SWG interested in giving the TCG a try, since you have to go into the TCG client to get the loot cards. If the intention of them was purely to get people in SWG to pay for loot cards then there would be no free packs.
Thanks for the concession that even though for most this system is not a problem, but for at a silly few this could be a problem, even if it is a stretch to call it gambling. I agree any "ism" whether called a contest, sweepstakes, competion, or gambling can be abused if it is based on a random chance or contingency. Whether it is free or something paid for to receive that chance.
I also agree it is a person's individual responsibily when making a decision and their responsibility accept the rewards and consequences of their choices. I have no sympathy for them as well. Although I will still empathize with their situation if they want someone to listen. I won't get invovled, just listen.
Loot cards are there to spark interest from SWG to the TCG, I agree they serve that purpose. Maybe even the main purpose. But other purposes may also exist with it. The idea that no free cards would be given away for free if the idea is to get people to play, this is where we still differ and that is OK. There are many contests, promos, competitions, sweepstakes, and obvious gambling venues that give away stuff for free to entice people to pay for more or something else associated with it. I live in Arizona. You can buy guns here like they were baked beans. Often they advertise free ammo with purchase of gun. Knowing full well after the gun is purchased more ammo will be purchased.
You may only feel it is to get SWG players to try and spend money for the card game. I submit it is to get SWG players to get hooked on the idea of ingame loot coming from cards. After all if it was just to get people to try the TCG they only have to give free TCG cards to players. They don't need to have a loot card. The same TCG cards they give away as well already at the moment. Plus even though it is free the way you play, it is a 30 day spread between free comes again. Many will not be patient.
In the second paragraph of your ressponse you did say playing the TCG is not gambling at all. I agree in a common sense sort of way just as kids that buy baseball cards buy a pack hoping to get their favorite player. But buy websters definition it is. And I was saying it was gambling with its dynamic with SWG and its loot card rewards.
I will write a post and start a new thread. I will propose an argument that it is in everyones best interest to acknowledge this system is gambling. Especially for those that enjoy and support these games. It will be very long citing examples with links. I know you can't wait.
Thanks for the disscussion as a gentleman Obraik and cheers.
My thoughts are very similar to yours here GrandAm. The payment for the chance of winning loot is indeed a gambling component. (That is of course why gambling is often referred to as a "game of chance.") I also agree that the month waiting period for the free, no-trade cards, will serve to motivate people to take their chances with the booster packs, and more often than not pay cash and not get what they were hoping for. I also see important differences between this and things like cereal promotions. Cereal promotions are regulated, odds of winning are always published in my jurisdiction, and no purchase of anything at all is required to participate. None of these features, not even one, are applicable to the loot cards.
As for having sympathy for people that get duped by this component into spending more than they wish they would have, well I have a few thoughts about that.
First of all, I do believe in personal responsibility. Gamers are responsible for the financial decisions we make. If we're talking about minors, however, I think developmental issues need to be considered.
At the same time, If SOE execs intentionally cooked up a gambling system with the intent of hooking vulnerable people and draining them of as much cash as possible, I would indeed take issue with that. Also, if they know it's a gambling system, but try to spin it as something else entirely, I would take issue with that.
The one issue is premeditated exploitation. The other is deception by misdirection. Both are unethical behaviours that do not have consumers' best interest in mind at all.
Other aspects of the card game don't seem to be a problem, and I hope they're fun for people. If I was going to buy booster packs for a card game though, and I do play one occasionally, I would want to actually own the cards. I would also want to know that the rules of the card game would not be changed part way through. With SOE's virtual cards, I know you don't own them, and I wouldn't be sure that they wouldn't change the rules as they go along.
P.S. Looking forward to the new thread myself GrandAm, and I admire how you dialogue so respectfully and patiently with those who hold opposing viewpoints. I try, but sometimes get exasperated, and that probably comes through my tone, unfortunately.
Here in New Zealand, there is no such requirement that the odds of a competition be posted (as far as I'm aware at least, I've never seen such things listed in contest rules).
I'll concede that those purely buying packs of cards in hopes of getting cards could be stretched to gambling but any competition can be "abused" this way. Personally, if you're someone that would go out and do that when you know you don't have the cash then you deserve to lose your money/credit card - I have no sympathy for that. Playing the TCG however, is not gambling at all.
What are the loot cards for? IMO, to get people that play SWG interested in giving the TCG a try, since you have to go into the TCG client to get the loot cards. If the intention of them was purely to get people in SWG to pay for loot cards then there would be no free packs.
Thanks for the concession that even though for most this system is not a problem, but for at a silly few this could be a problem, even if it is a stretch to call it gambling. I agree any "ism" whether called a contest, sweepstakes, competion, or gambling can be abused if it is based on a random chance or contingency. Whether it is free or something paid for to receive that chance.
I also agree it is a person's individual responsibily when making a decision and their responsibility accept the rewards and consequences of their choices. I have no sympathy for them as well. Although I will still empathize with their situation if they want someone to listen. I won't get invovled, just listen.
Loot cards are there to spark interest from SWG to the TCG, I agree they serve that purpose. Maybe even the main purpose. But other purposes may also exist with it. The idea that no free cards would be given away for free if the idea is to get people to play, this is where we still differ and that is OK. There are many contests, promos, competitions, sweepstakes, and obvious gambling venues that give away stuff for free to entice people to pay for more or something else associated with it. I live in Arizona. You can buy guns here like they were baked beans. Often they advertise free ammo with purchase of gun. Knowing full well after the gun is purchased more ammo will be purchased.
You may only feel it is to get SWG players to try and spend money for the card game. I submit it is to get SWG players to get hooked on the idea of ingame loot coming from cards. After all if it was just to get people to try the TCG they only have to give free TCG cards to players. They don't need to have a loot card. The same TCG cards they give away as well already at the moment. Plus even though it is free the way you play, it is a 30 day spread between free comes again. Many will not be patient.
In the second paragraph of your ressponse you did say playing the TCG is not gambling at all. I agree in a common sense sort of way just as kids that buy baseball cards buy a pack hoping to get their favorite player. But buy websters definition it is. And I was saying it was gambling with its dynamic with SWG and its loot card rewards.
I will write a post and start a new thread. I will propose an argument that it is in everyones best interest to acknowledge this system is gambling. Especially for those that enjoy and support these games. It will be very long citing examples with links. I know you can't wait.
Thanks for the disscussion as a gentleman Obraik and cheers.
My thoughts are very similar to yours here GrandAm. The payment for the chance of winning loot is indeed a gambling component. (That is of course why gambling is often referred to as a "game of chance.") I also agree that the month waiting period for the free, no-trade cards, will serve to motivate people to take their chances with the booster packs, and more often than not pay cash and not get what they were hoping for. I also see important differences between this and things like cereal promotions. Cereal promotions are regulated, odds of winning are always published in my jurisdiction, and no purchase of anything at all is required to participate. None of these features, not even one, are applicable to the loot cards.
As for having sympathy for people that get duped by this component into spending more than they wish they would have, well I have a few thoughts about that.
First of all, I do believe in personal responsibility. Gamers are responsible for the financial decisions we make. If we're talking about minors, however, I think developmental issues need to be considered.
At the same time, If SOE execs intentionally cooked up a gambling system with the intent of hooking vulnerable people and draining them of as much cash as possible, I would indeed take issue with that. Also, if they know it's a gambling system, but try to spin it as something else entirely, I would take issue with that.
The one issue is premeditated exploitation. The other is deception by misdirection. Both are unethical behaviours that do not have consumers' best interest in mind at all.
Other aspects of the card game don't seem to be a problem, and I hope they're fun for people. If I was going to buy booster packs for a card game though, and I do play one occasionally, I would want to actually own the cards. I would also want to know that the rules of the card game would not be changed part way through. With SOE's virtual cards, I know you don't own them, and I wouldn't be sure that they wouldn't change the rules as they go along.
P.S. Looking forward to the new thread myself GrandAm, and I admire how you dialogue so respectfully and patiently with those who hold opposing viewpoints. I try, but sometimes get exasperated, and that probably comes through my tone, unfortunately.
Thanks ArchAngel
I was not taken advantatage as true vets. If you have read some past posts of mine you would know where I come from. And my Ahole has had far less vasoline than any vet here.
Why do I tend to side with them? Simple. Most vets have been able to cite what has happened with examples and such. There are some that resort to name calling. But most present well founded arguments. As well as many Pro SWG current players have.
I respect any person here that presents a good discussion and lends their opinion in the name of good discussion whether they call themselves Obraik or Archangel or whatever. We don't have to see eye to eye and accept what each other says. We just have to try to understand why people disagree with us even if it it doesn't change our minds. I am sure you disagree with some things I have said. If so I appreciate the respect you have shown in discussion to me as well as Obraik who has shown respect to the discussion even though we ultimatley completely disagree.
As far as my future post.... It may take awhile.
Thanks to all for reading!
"Suddenly, thousands of Trekies whose heads are full of facts of things like the stardate when the Cardassians farted on Deep Space nine are irrlelevant." - hardcoremoviecritic
I read during the NGE debacle, when people suggested that preCU SWG could continue and the NGE could be marketed as SWG 2 that LEC said no, that they didn't want two SW IP MMOs on the market at the same time, I imagine because they didn't want their brand diluted.
It's pretty silly, as they could have two entirely different audiences enjoying the SW IP in different ways, but these are the guys who are able to make money on bantha poodoo in a box marked "Star Wars" all the time.
So I find it quite believable that once some BioWare product comes out that is MMO in nature that LEC will kill SWG to make way for their new offering.
To avoid consumer confusion, no doubt.
CH, Jedi, Commando, Smuggler, BH, Scout, Doctor, Chef, BE...yeah, lots of SWG time invested.
Once a denizen of Ahazi
One would think... but it would seem odd that SOE bothers to make the card game etc if they know the game is going away.
I mean the resources could be doing other things.. like making sure The Agency and DCUO have a card game ready to go at launch!!
My GF was reading massive.. forget why I get the magazine I know I didn't pay for it but anyway... she says they are bringing pre-cu back? I was like huh?
So I said ya see it says "in the spirit of pre-cu" ... I really wish no one from SOE would mention pre-cu... unless they are going to tell me about a pre-cu server...
Oh and then I see the directors letter... "well I was talking with marketing about what we're doing for low pop servers".... Can't tell us what they've decided to do.. have to wait for the announcement.
I'm thinking wtf does marketing have to do with anything.
If you merge servers... marketing has no role in that.
and... you aren't gonna get 200 or 300 thousand people to come pay for the NGE.. if that's not clear by now... then there is some serious brain damage at that company.. cuz the only thing marketing could do is spam emails.. come pay for this crap you quit over... its not the same crap.. but its not the game you've all stated you want... back.. over and over and over.
Anyway...
Whatever crapfest BioWare is making (ya sorry it will be crap.. and if it isn't LEC will mandate changes to make sure it is)... won't be like pre-cu... so "our" game and BioWare's could have run at the same time.
But there isn't really any reason to have two versions of WoW with star wars textures running at the same time.
bria is full of whiny little brats who want to wtfpwn with their glowbats..and by full i mean you might find 20-30 ppl in restuss during prime time on a good day.Face it nobody wants to play with the trash that came in with the NGE.
One would think... but it would seem odd that SOE bothers to make the card game etc if they know the game is going away.
this is SOE we are talking about.They stand outside of mcdonalds waiting for some pimply face kid who got fired and say: hey buddy wanna job abusing the people who used to beat you up in school?
Um, last I checked, you actually need to buy the cereal to be able to participate in the competition. At least with the loot cards, you have a choice of not paying and still get the chance of getting the same results as if you had paid.
If SOE was a New Zealand based company, this whole thing would be covered by the Fair Trading Act. Being the US, I'd find it unlikely that there isn't something similar in the US, which keeps companies from being deceptive with their claims, gambling or not. I think you'd find that a law/act such as that will be keeping SOE from doing what you fear
As for SOE being responsible for the way people spend, I disagree. If anyone (other then person who can't control their spending habits) is to blame then it should be the bank for giving such a person a credit card in the first place. Personally, I think banks make credit cards too easy to get, especially for people that really don't have the means or control to support a credit card in the first place.
Um, last I checked, you actually need to buy the cereal to be able to participate in the competition. At least with the loot cards, you have a choice of not paying and still get the chance of getting the same results as if you had paid.
If SOE was a New Zealand based company, this whole thing would be covered by the Fair Trading Act. Being the US, I'd find it unlikely that there isn't something similar in the US, which keeps companies from being deceptive with their claims, gambling or not. I think you'd find that a law/act such as that will be keeping SOE from doing what you fear
As for SOE being responsible for the way people spend, I disagree. If anyone (other then person who can't control their spending habits) is to blame then it should be the bank for giving such a person a credit card in the first place. Personally, I think banks make credit cards too easy to get, especially for people that really don't have the means or control to support a credit card in the first place.
No, you don't need to buy the cereal. Here's GrandAm's explanation of the "no purchase necessary" clause again. It's accurate, and clearly stated:
"Look at the annual Monopoly game at McDonald's. They give away prizes like $1mil, a PS3 (yeeshhh), and Huffy bicycles (double yeeshh). Read the fine print on the game pamphlet. They give the odds. That way they don't get in trouble. They also have the NO PURCHASE NECESSARY to play clause. You just have to mail a self addressed stamped envelope to their address, wait two weeks for the round trip to get a game piece. They do that so it can't be called gambling in a court. But it still is because most people aren't going to do the hassle for free. They are going to buy that BigMac meal. The meal they paid money for to get game pieces to randomly receive a reward.
Sodas, cereals, condoms etc... have these same gambling contests too. But in the fine print the odds are all there. They have the NPN clause because years ago someone said it is gambling ( I suspect)."
No purchase necessary means exactly that, you don't have to pay any real cash for the chance to win. If you pay for the chance to win, it's gambling and subject to all the laws pertaining to gambling. Tbh it seems you haven't understood this. Is it more clear now?
Can you see that SOE's loot cards do not function by the same "no purchase necessary" principle? You either have to purchase the SWG client and subscription time for a chance to get the reward over the long term, or you have to purchase all of these things plus booster packs if you hope to speed up the process.
Second, I never said that SOE is responsible for the way people spend. In fact I said quite the opposite. Gamers are responsible for our own choices. I also highlighted, however, that this doesn't apply to minors who can be manipulated by adults because of the minor's developmental immaturity. SOE's loot card gambling system is available to minors, and yes I take issue with that also, as I tried to indicate.
While mature gamers are responsible for their decisions, SOE is also responsible for its decisions. This is not an either/or scenario. If SOE has implemented gambling in the loot card system, and it is available to minors, and it is unregulated, all of these things pertain to SOE's decisions; and they are responsible for them.
I happen to disagree with the following decisions made by SOE:
-the decision to implement gambling for loot,
-the decision to make gambling for loot available to minors,
-the decision to offer an unregulated game of chance that costs people real money,
-and finally the implementation of gambling for loot when the rules of the game and the value of the reward can be changed at any time at the sole discretion of the service provider.
Hopefully not much longer.
The odds are known, if you were to purchase a box of cards ($100.00 worth) you wil get on average 3 loot cards. So unless you really do actually play the game and want the rare PLAYING cards (as opposed to loot cards) it seems to me that that is not really a great way to get your loot.
It also seems that the VAST majority of people who get the loot trade ingame credit's or items for the loot cards anyway.
There is the problem I have with SOEs actions and these stupid card games that have no business being in an MMO in the first place.
People pay credits for loot cards. Those cards come from giving SOE money for boosters (or whatever they are called), plus whatever free packs are given out. First hit is free.
This is effectively putting real money transactions on top of a monthly subscription. On top of that they already failed in trying to push in game advertising into their MMOs. Those are things most FREE to play MMOs do, but not here.
Sorry, but I find it disrespectful for SOE to not spend money on an expansion in three years and instead cook up some scheme to stick their hands in subscribers wallets again. SOE is treating their aging games as test beds for their future revenue models and people gleefully pay for the priviledge.
Lets not blow smoke up anyones ass and pretend this card game was made as some sort of content expansion for players. It is a straight up money grab that is so far off the design concepts of an MMO it isn't even funny. Think about it, how boring does an MMO have to be that people actually want to not play their avatars in the virtual world and instead play some virtual collectable card game?
What next?
Thereby shafting crafters and destroying the in-game economy even more. Good job, SOE!
Thereby stimulating the economy actually. The fact that you don't play the game really shows up in your snappy answers.