Thereby stimulating the economy actually. The fact that you don't play the game really shows up in your snappy answers.
How is taking business away from the crafting professions stimulating the economy? How is it better for the game as a whole to trick people into paying real money for in-game rewards and buffs? My understanding of the game is just fine, btw.
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.
Must have linky for SOE TCG website only; showing actual odds for any and all (one) specific loot cards. Keep in mind every loot card gives a different reward. A buff may be the most important to one while another only cares about the podracer. Therefore they are not all the same even if they have "loot card" in their title.
And fan sites, forums, and third party sites do not count for a linky. Not even the SOE forums buy a dev. The rules of the game are on the TCG site so that is where the odds must be posted. Not "known." elswhere.
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
Thereby stimulating the economy actually. The fact that you don't play the game really shows up in your snappy answers.
How is taking business away from the crafting professions stimulating the economy? How is it better for the game as a whole to trick people into paying real money for in-game rewards and buffs? My understanding of the game is just fine, btw.
Some people defend SOE and promote SWG by sharing helpful, accurate information. I started a thread in the vet refuge about this. There was a current player that explained some of the new crafting system and offered to help new players with it.
Others seem to use outright deception to suppress truthful consumer feedback. If this does't work, they then try to say that a consumer's opinion must in some way be dated and therefore invalid.
In actual fact, most veteran players that continue to comment on the game, have played the NGE in various stages of its development. Many have taken the free veteran trials offered to them. Others have even resubbed briefly to give the game another shot. We also keep in touch regularly with online and offline friends who currently play the game.
So, despite what some people might say, a lot of commentary from veteran SWG players is based on up to date information about the game.
With all that said, I agree that vehicle schematic drops instead of loot card vehicles would have been better for an ingame economy. Instead of this, people now interact with SOE's online store, paying rl dollars for the chance to get vehicles, and not interacting ingame with other players in the process. An economy is certainly being stimulated, but it is not a virtual one.
Gutboy I thought about the math and that works out 1/180 ratio. On average for every one loot card you have to go through 180 non loot cards. Plus this assumes all loot cards at the same value. A buff loot card may not be as valuble as the podracer and so rare and so since there is a higher demand because it is rare. SOE can change out the algorythim that gives the cards so the podracer drops far less to take advantage of some one that wants. Ultimately makeing it more rare because it decreases supply.
Plus those odds suck. Roulette in vegas pays out 36 to 1. true odds are 1/38. The difference represents the house advantage. Now if I spend that $100 on black 24 and it hits I win $3600. This on a game with a 1/38 chance to win. If I bet $100 on three loot cards I am betting on 3/540. 540 cards to a $100 dollar pack. 15cards to a pack, 36 packs in the $100 dollar case totaling 540. Reduce the 3/540 ratio =1/180.
So on ~5 time worse odds than roulette where I can make $3600 my reward for $100 are three loot cards, all of which I may not want. Can't even hold them in my hand. Use them to buy gas like I can with cash.
/scratches head ......Huh?.....
"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
The vast majority of players are not buying cards, the few that are actually play the game and use loot cards they get to trade for other things they want in game (think sith waistpack 4/5).
I sell swoops in game by your theory I should be "hurt" by the new speeders, I have not been my sales are steady as always.
The ingame economy is moving faster with more player interaction than before the card game was introduced simply because more goods are changing hands.
And you know GrandAm when I get that sith speeder or podracer I will have had 100% odds and paid exactly nothing for it. I will never pay 1 cent to get something that I will get for free in game by simply waiting for each month's 5 free booster packs of cards per account.
The vast majority of players are not buying cards, the few that are actually play the game and use loot cards they get to trade for other things they want in game (think sith waistpack 4/5). I sell swoops in game by your theory I should be "hurt" by the new speeders, I have not been my sales are steady as always. The ingame economy is moving faster with more player interaction than before the card game was introduced simply because more goods are changing hands.
But imagine how much better your sales would be if you could sell Sith Speeders and Podracers. As usual you are intentionally ignoring my point to make SOE look better.
The vast majority of players are not buying cards, the few that are actually play the game and use loot cards they get to trade for other things they want in game (think sith waistpack 4/5). I sell swoops in game by your theory I should be "hurt" by the new speeders, I have not been my sales are steady as always. The ingame economy is moving faster with more player interaction than before the card game was introduced simply because more goods are changing hands.
To claim that the "vast majority of players are not buying cards" you'd have to take a representative sample of the current population and survey them, asking how many have or have not bought cards.
I'm glad you haven't been "hurt" by the loot cards from your point of view. I'd say it's pretty early to form solid conclusions about the impact of the loot cards on crafting. I'd be interested to see over the next 4-6 months if more and more players are riding around on sith speeders, and crafters find themselves with less business since the vehicles they can make are no longer in demand.
I'd also expect that if you could in fact craft and sell the new speeders, your business would have gone up. Again, I think this was an opportunity missed by SOE to give crafters more of a role to play and increase player interaction.
And you know GrandAm when I get that sith speeder or podracer I will have had 100% odds and paid exactly nothing for it. I will never pay 1 cent to get something that I will get for free in game by simply waiting for each month's 5 free booster packs of cards per account.
You surely don't have 100% odds by any calculation that you will get the cards you want. I'm thinking you don't understand the mathematics of probability. It is kind of boring, but it really does help you out if you ever take a serious interest in gambling A friend of mine is a statistician, and wow does he ever make a bag of loot at the casino lol.
If you're thinking to yourself, "I'll keep paying for my 5 accounts, and that way I'm sure to get the cards I want eventually," and you think you're not paying 1 cent to get those cards, I think you're kidding yourself. That's your perogative though.
I'm truly not paying 1 cent because (a) I"m not buying any booster packs, and (b) I'm not paying for one or more accounts in the hope that by doing so I'll obtain desirable loot cards. There's an important distinction here btw. Some people will have one or more accounts just because they like to play SWG. Cool. If they start making subscription decisions based around loot cards though, I'd say they've been hooked.
The vast majority of players are not buying cards, the few that are actually play the game and use loot cards they get to trade for other things they want in game (think sith waistpack 4/5). I sell swoops in game by your theory I should be "hurt" by the new speeders, I have not been my sales are steady as always. The ingame economy is moving faster with more player interaction than before the card game was introduced simply because more goods are changing hands.
To claim that the "vast majority of players are not buying cards" you'd have to take a representative sample of the current population and survey them, asking how many have or have not bought cards.
I'm glad you haven't been "hurt" by the loot cards from your point of view. I'd say it's pretty early to form solid conclusions about the impact of the loot cards on crafting. I'd be interested to see over the next 4-6 months if more and more players are riding around on sith speeders, and crafters find themselves with less business since the vehicles they can make are no longer in demand.
I'd also expect that if you could in fact craft and sell the new speeders, your business would have gone up. Again, I think this was an opportunity missed by SOE to give crafters more of a role to play and increase player interaction.
I would submit when Gutboy said "vast majority" there is an implied concession of an existing "small minority". After all majority is not an absolute whole. What maters now since it was conceded there is a minority, we just need to define "vast". A very subjective term.
In terms of percentages vast can be set by different people. Such as governments may use 51% or 66% of a vote to define "vast." Mine would be 90% for gereal life use.
Using 90% lets say there are for the sake of easy math 10,000 SWG subbers that will engage in the free packs given monthly. 90% will not buy more than what is given free. 10% will buy at least one additional pack. My math puts it at 1000 people paying extra.
Of course SOE won't officially give out any real numbers on anything, subs exact numer of TCG cards, etc. so there is no way to quantiy exactly how many people are buying and how much.
Still on my simple example of 90% a 1000 people are paying extra.
Gutboy out of curiosity what percentage do you consider a "vast majority?"
"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
And you know GrandAm when I get that sith speeder or podracer I will have had 100% odds and paid exactly nothing for it. I will never pay 1 cent to get something that I will get for free in game by simply waiting for each month's 5 free booster packs of cards per account.
100% odds? No rules of probability says basically in a system of chance you can only expect to continally get closer to an expected conclussion but never reach it.you get 99.99repeat forever, but never hit one hundred. This is because each time an event occurs it has no idea what the last event's results were. In short the dice have no memory.
Also since I absolutley do not have better numbers I used the ones you gave and calculated how many $100 packs you would need to buy to ensure a 99.99% chance of receiving a loot card per 180 cards received (1/180) based on your 3/540 average. At 99.99% I got 1654 $100 card packs. I may be wrong; I don't have my math books and my notes with me. Also SOE keeps all the other relavent numbers hidden. So it was the best I could do using the formula found here.
Now I do invite you to say my math sucks and I agree. I invite any math nuts that have kept up on probability and statistics to work the values given by Gutboy a try. In the end it doesn't matter any way because with out looking a SOE's values and algorithim used there is now way to tell RL accurately.
Also I never said you personally would pay for a chance to get the sith or pod thing. I said others may try. I have said it in other posts I respect you. I just disagree and that's OK.
"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
And you know GrandAm when I get that sith speeder or podracer I will have had 100% odds and paid exactly nothing for it. I will never pay 1 cent to get something that I will get for free in game by simply waiting for each month's 5 free booster packs of cards per account.
100% odds? No rules of probability says basically in a system of chance you can only expect to continally get closer to an expected conclussion but never reach it.you get 99.99repeat forever, but never hit one hundred. This is because each time an event occurs it has no idea what the last event's results were. In short the dice have no memory.
Also since I absolutley do not have better numbers I used the ones you gave and calculated how many $100 packs you would need to buy to ensure a 99.99% chance of receiving a loot card per 180 cards received (1/180) based on your 3/540 average. At 99.99% I got 1654 $100 card packs. I may be wrong; I don't have my math books and my notes with me. Also SOE keeps all the other relavent numbers hidden. So it was the best I could do using the formula found here.
Now I do invite you to say my math sucks and I agree. I invite any math nuts that have kept up on probability and statistics to work the values given by Gutboy a try. In the end it doesn't matter any way because with out looking a SOE's values and algorithim used there is now way to tell RL accurately.
Also I never said you personally would pay for a chance to get the sith or pod thing. I said others may try. I have said it in other posts I respect you. I just disagree and that's OK.
The point is to approach a 99.9% chance of obtaiing a loot card, you're going to have to spend a whack of cash, and even still you never get the 100% chance that's being promoted via word of mouth marketting on this board. The best way to explain that 100% chance is impossible is to say that the dice have no memory. Great summary. You can sub for as long as the game exists (however long that may be) or spend thousands on card packs if you want, you never guarantee that you will get one single card that you're hoping for.
Also, the claim that the odds are known assumes that the information present (3 loot cards for every 100 cards) is accurate. If SOE makes this claim, then we have only their "word" on those figures because unlike other online gambling opportunities these odds are not monitored by a third party, and the game is subject to change at any time, at the sole discretion of SOE according to their EULA.
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
Out of about 75 people in my guild and another 100 or so friends in game about 98% of them will never spend a single penny for additional cards. Is that representive if the game as a whole, nope but it is a strong indication I think.
The only people who buy cards are people that want to get additional cards to actually play the game, not for frills like the loot cards give you in game.
Out of about 75 people in my guild and another 100 or so friends in game about 98% of them will never spend a single penny for additional cards. Is that representive if the game as a whole, nope but it is a strong indication I think. The only people who buy cards are people that want to get additional cards to actually play the game, not for frills like the loot cards give you in game.
coll, thanks for the update. I agree a number that small is difficult to get a reliable sample. But it is a start that can be observered as time goes on.
I don't know if Oforums have a poll tool like they do here. If they do any chance you would want to start one in the name of disscussion.
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
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
The exact rules vary from state to state. Some reguire more some require less. Even though our cereal contests don't operate that way. I have seen other sweepstakes here and there that do. But generally there is always a NPN, prize odds, and even void where prohibited.
In the really long post I just wrote in another thread there are some links to indiviual states rules. California is probably the best one to read. It has the regulations and gives definitions for California. Because of its populace most other contests I have seen follow it, even from another state.
Might be worth a click.
"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
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
The exact rules vary from state to state. Some reguire more some require less. Even though our cereal contests don't operate that way. I have seen other sweepstakes here and there that do. But generally there is always a NPN, prize odds, and even void where prohibited.
In the really long post I just wrote in another thread there are some links to indiviual states rules. California is probably the best one to read. It has the regulations and gives definitions for California. Because of its populace most other contests I have seen follow it, even from another state.
Might be worth a click.
On the outside of the bottle, box or what have you, there are instructions on how you can participate in a promotional contest without purchasing the product. This is done to avoid setting up a gambling mechanic. The same is even done for promotions via commercials here (Ontario, Canada). You can buy beer for a chance to win a trip, or you can send a letter to become a participant in the promotion. The commentator on the commercials says clearly, "no purchase necessary," and the fine print on the commercial tells you what you need to do to participate without paying any money. The odds of winning a promotional contest are also printed on the product or are stated clearly in commercials.
Since we're an international community on this site, it was good of GrandAm to provide links to certain jurisdictions. Thanks for that.
As for the game being unregulated, I mean the loot card game odds are not monitored or verified by an independent party like they are in official gambling venues. If for example, someone claims that people have a 3/100 chance of winning a loot card, no one is monitoring SOE to ensure that this is truthful. No one is making sure that the odds aren't changed outside of the player's awareness, thereby giving him or her the "shaft."
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
The exact rules vary from state to state. Some reguire more some require less. Even though our cereal contests don't operate that way. I have seen other sweepstakes here and there that do. But generally there is always a NPN, prize odds, and even void where prohibited.
In the really long post I just wrote in another thread there are some links to indiviual states rules. California is probably the best one to read. It has the regulations and gives definitions for California. Because of its populace most other contests I have seen follow it, even from another state.
Might be worth a click.
On the outside of the bottle, box or what have you, there are instructions on how you can participate in a promotional contest without purchasing the product. This is done to avoid setting up a gambling mechanic. The same is even done for promotions via commercials here (Ontario, Canada). You can buy beer for a chance to win a trip, or you can send a letter to become a participant in the promotion. The commentator on the commercials says clearly, "no purchase necessary," and the fine print on the commercial tells you what you need to do to participate without paying any money. The odds of winning a promotional contest are also printed on the product or are stated clearly in commercials.
Since we're an international community on this site, it was good of GrandAm to provide links to certain jurisdictions. Thanks for that.
As for the game being unregulated, I mean the loot card game odds are not monitored or verified by an independent party like they are in official gambling venues. If for example, someone claims that people have a 3/100 chance of winning a loot card, no one is monitoring SOE to ensure that this is truthful. No one is making sure that the odds aren't changed outside of the player's awareness, thereby giving him or her the "shaft."
Then at this point, it's a culture difference influencing opinions. This type of promotion is normal here in New Zealand so I personally can't see an issue with it.
Also, here in NZ, our laws/acts cover deceptive claims. If it were an NZ company and it was pretty obvious that the claim of "the chance of a loot card" was seen to be deceptive, then the company would be fined and reimbursement would be available to all involved.
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
The exact rules vary from state to state. Some reguire more some require less. Even though our cereal contests don't operate that way. I have seen other sweepstakes here and there that do. But generally there is always a NPN, prize odds, and even void where prohibited.
In the really long post I just wrote in another thread there are some links to indiviual states rules. California is probably the best one to read. It has the regulations and gives definitions for California. Because of its populace most other contests I have seen follow it, even from another state.
Might be worth a click.
On the outside of the bottle, box or what have you, there are instructions on how you can participate in a promotional contest without purchasing the product. This is done to avoid setting up a gambling mechanic. The same is even done for promotions via commercials here (Ontario, Canada). You can buy beer for a chance to win a trip, or you can send a letter to become a participant in the promotion. The commentator on the commercials says clearly, "no purchase necessary," and the fine print on the commercial tells you what you need to do to participate without paying any money. The odds of winning a promotional contest are also printed on the product or are stated clearly in commercials.
Since we're an international community on this site, it was good of GrandAm to provide links to certain jurisdictions. Thanks for that.
As for the game being unregulated, I mean the loot card game odds are not monitored or verified by an independent party like they are in official gambling venues. If for example, someone claims that people have a 3/100 chance of winning a loot card, no one is monitoring SOE to ensure that this is truthful. No one is making sure that the odds aren't changed outside of the player's awareness, thereby giving him or her the "shaft."
Then at this point, it's a culture difference influencing opinions. This type of promotion is normal here in New Zealand so I personally can't see an issue with it.
Also, here in NZ, our laws/acts cover deceptive claims. If it were an NZ company and it was pretty obvious that the claim of "the chance of a loot card" was seen to be deceptive, then the company would be fined and reimbursement would be available to all involved.
Agreed regarding cultural influence. Glad we got that sorted out Back in a bit for more discussion.
O.k. back. What I've been hoping to communicate is that if people pay rl dollars for a chance to get virtual items, they should know the odds, and someone should make sure that the published odds are accurate.
This happens in other settings (in Ontario) when people risk cash on a chance of reward, but not so in SWG. I think this should be addressed, particularly for gamers in jurisdictions with similar laws.
Also, because this is an MMO and because the EULA for this MMO allows SOE to change the game anytime they like, even publishing and monitoring the odds is a problem. If the EULA stays as it is, SOE can change the odds anytime they like. They can make the loot cards really easy to get one month, and then very difficult to obtain a month later. They can manipulate the math any way they like, any time they like, to their advantage financially. I also think this should be addressed.
Right now, the way the loot cards are set up, there are many pitfalls for gamers. SOE could get rid of these. I think it would be better if they did. My opinion of course.
I also happen to think that new vehicles could and should have been added to the game as part of the current subscription fee, and that schematics would have been the best way to give players a nice new perk and foster player interaction. Also my opinion, and I respect that yours may differ.
I'm not against the card game per se, and hope people enjoy it. I have some concerns about the loot cards and how they have been implemented.
Comments
How is taking business away from the crafting professions stimulating the economy? How is it better for the game as a whole to trick people into paying real money for in-game rewards and buffs? My understanding of the game is just fine, btw.
Must have linky for SOE TCG website only; showing actual odds for any and all (one) specific loot cards. Keep in mind every loot card gives a different reward. A buff may be the most important to one while another only cares about the podracer. Therefore they are not all the same even if they have "loot card" in their title.
And fan sites, forums, and third party sites do not count for a linky. Not even the SOE forums buy a dev. The rules of the game are on the TCG site so that is where the odds must be posted. Not "known." elswhere.
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
How is taking business away from the crafting professions stimulating the economy? How is it better for the game as a whole to trick people into paying real money for in-game rewards and buffs? My understanding of the game is just fine, btw.
Some people defend SOE and promote SWG by sharing helpful, accurate information. I started a thread in the vet refuge about this. There was a current player that explained some of the new crafting system and offered to help new players with it.
Others seem to use outright deception to suppress truthful consumer feedback. If this does't work, they then try to say that a consumer's opinion must in some way be dated and therefore invalid.
In actual fact, most veteran players that continue to comment on the game, have played the NGE in various stages of its development. Many have taken the free veteran trials offered to them. Others have even resubbed briefly to give the game another shot. We also keep in touch regularly with online and offline friends who currently play the game.
So, despite what some people might say, a lot of commentary from veteran SWG players is based on up to date information about the game.
With all that said, I agree that vehicle schematic drops instead of loot card vehicles would have been better for an ingame economy. Instead of this, people now interact with SOE's online store, paying rl dollars for the chance to get vehicles, and not interacting ingame with other players in the process. An economy is certainly being stimulated, but it is not a virtual one.
Gutboy I thought about the math and that works out 1/180 ratio. On average for every one loot card you have to go through 180 non loot cards. Plus this assumes all loot cards at the same value. A buff loot card may not be as valuble as the podracer and so rare and so since there is a higher demand because it is rare. SOE can change out the algorythim that gives the cards so the podracer drops far less to take advantage of some one that wants. Ultimately makeing it more rare because it decreases supply.
Plus those odds suck. Roulette in vegas pays out 36 to 1. true odds are 1/38. The difference represents the house advantage. Now if I spend that $100 on black 24 and it hits I win $3600. This on a game with a 1/38 chance to win. If I bet $100 on three loot cards I am betting on 3/540. 540 cards to a $100 dollar pack. 15cards to a pack, 36 packs in the $100 dollar case totaling 540. Reduce the 3/540 ratio =1/180.
So on ~5 time worse odds than roulette where I can make $3600 my reward for $100 are three loot cards, all of which I may not want. Can't even hold them in my hand. Use them to buy gas like I can with cash.
/scratches head ......Huh?.....
"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
The vast majority of players are not buying cards, the few that are actually play the game and use loot cards they get to trade for other things they want in game (think sith waistpack 4/5).
I sell swoops in game by your theory I should be "hurt" by the new speeders, I have not been my sales are steady as always.
The ingame economy is moving faster with more player interaction than before the card game was introduced simply because more goods are changing hands.
And you know GrandAm when I get that sith speeder or podracer I will have had 100% odds and paid exactly nothing for it. I will never pay 1 cent to get something that I will get for free in game by simply waiting for each month's 5 free booster packs of cards per account.
But imagine how much better your sales would be if you could sell Sith Speeders and Podracers. As usual you are intentionally ignoring my point to make SOE look better.
To claim that the "vast majority of players are not buying cards" you'd have to take a representative sample of the current population and survey them, asking how many have or have not bought cards.
I'm glad you haven't been "hurt" by the loot cards from your point of view. I'd say it's pretty early to form solid conclusions about the impact of the loot cards on crafting. I'd be interested to see over the next 4-6 months if more and more players are riding around on sith speeders, and crafters find themselves with less business since the vehicles they can make are no longer in demand.
I'd also expect that if you could in fact craft and sell the new speeders, your business would have gone up. Again, I think this was an opportunity missed by SOE to give crafters more of a role to play and increase player interaction.
You surely don't have 100% odds by any calculation that you will get the cards you want. I'm thinking you don't understand the mathematics of probability. It is kind of boring, but it really does help you out if you ever take a serious interest in gambling
A friend of mine is a statistician, and wow does he ever make a bag of loot at the casino lol.
If you're thinking to yourself, "I'll keep paying for my 5 accounts, and that way I'm sure to get the cards I want eventually," and you think you're not paying 1 cent to get those cards, I think you're kidding yourself. That's your perogative though.
I'm truly not paying 1 cent because (a) I"m not buying any booster packs, and (b) I'm not paying for one or more accounts in the hope that by doing so I'll obtain desirable loot cards. There's an important distinction here btw. Some people will have one or more accounts just because they like to play SWG. Cool. If they start making subscription decisions based around loot cards though, I'd say they've been hooked.
To claim that the "vast majority of players are not buying cards" you'd have to take a representative sample of the current population and survey them, asking how many have or have not bought cards.
I'm glad you haven't been "hurt" by the loot cards from your point of view. I'd say it's pretty early to form solid conclusions about the impact of the loot cards on crafting. I'd be interested to see over the next 4-6 months if more and more players are riding around on sith speeders, and crafters find themselves with less business since the vehicles they can make are no longer in demand.
I'd also expect that if you could in fact craft and sell the new speeders, your business would have gone up. Again, I think this was an opportunity missed by SOE to give crafters more of a role to play and increase player interaction.
I would submit when Gutboy said "vast majority" there is an implied concession of an existing "small minority". After all majority is not an absolute whole. What maters now since it was conceded there is a minority, we just need to define "vast". A very subjective term.
In terms of percentages vast can be set by different people. Such as governments may use 51% or 66% of a vote to define "vast." Mine would be 90% for gereal life use.
Using 90% lets say there are for the sake of easy math 10,000 SWG subbers that will engage in the free packs given monthly. 90% will not buy more than what is given free. 10% will buy at least one additional pack. My math puts it at 1000 people paying extra.
Of course SOE won't officially give out any real numbers on anything, subs exact numer of TCG cards, etc. so there is no way to quantiy exactly how many people are buying and how much.
Still on my simple example of 90% a 1000 people are paying extra.
Gutboy out of curiosity what percentage do you consider a "vast majority?"
"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
100% odds? No rules of probability says basically in a system of chance you can only expect to continally get closer to an expected conclussion but never reach it.you get 99.99repeat forever, but never hit one hundred. This is because each time an event occurs it has no idea what the last event's results were. In short the dice have no memory.
Also since I absolutley do not have better numbers I used the ones you gave and calculated how many $100 packs you would need to buy to ensure a 99.99% chance of receiving a loot card per 180 cards received (1/180) based on your 3/540 average. At 99.99% I got 1654 $100 card packs. I may be wrong; I don't have my math books and my notes with me. Also SOE keeps all the other relavent numbers hidden. So it was the best I could do using the formula found here.
http://saliu.com/Saliu2.htm
Now I do invite you to say my math sucks and I agree. I invite any math nuts that have kept up on probability and statistics to work the values given by Gutboy a try. In the end it doesn't matter any way because with out looking a SOE's values and algorithim used there is now way to tell RL accurately.
Also I never said you personally would pay for a chance to get the sith or pod thing. I said others may try. I have said it in other posts I respect you. I just disagree and that's OK.
"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
100% odds? No rules of probability says basically in a system of chance you can only expect to continally get closer to an expected conclussion but never reach it.you get 99.99repeat forever, but never hit one hundred. This is because each time an event occurs it has no idea what the last event's results were. In short the dice have no memory.
Also since I absolutley do not have better numbers I used the ones you gave and calculated how many $100 packs you would need to buy to ensure a 99.99% chance of receiving a loot card per 180 cards received (1/180) based on your 3/540 average. At 99.99% I got 1654 $100 card packs. I may be wrong; I don't have my math books and my notes with me. Also SOE keeps all the other relavent numbers hidden. So it was the best I could do using the formula found here.
http://saliu.com/Saliu2.htm
Now I do invite you to say my math sucks and I agree. I invite any math nuts that have kept up on probability and statistics to work the values given by Gutboy a try. In the end it doesn't matter any way because with out looking a SOE's values and algorithim used there is now way to tell RL accurately.
Also I never said you personally would pay for a chance to get the sith or pod thing. I said others may try. I have said it in other posts I respect you. I just disagree and that's OK.
The point is to approach a 99.9% chance of obtaiing a loot card, you're going to have to spend a whack of cash, and even still you never get the 100% chance that's being promoted via word of mouth marketting on this board. The best way to explain that 100% chance is impossible is to say that the dice have no memory. Great summary. You can sub for as long as the game exists (however long that may be) or spend thousands on card packs if you want, you never guarantee that you will get one single card that you're hoping for.
Also, the claim that the odds are known assumes that the information present (3 loot cards for every 100 cards) is accurate. If SOE makes this claim, then we have only their "word" on those figures because unlike other online gambling opportunities these odds are not monitored by a third party, and the game is subject to change at any time, at the sole discretion of SOE according to their EULA.
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
Out of about 75 people in my guild and another 100 or so friends in game about 98% of them will never spend a single penny for additional cards. Is that representive if the game as a whole, nope but it is a strong indication I think.
The only people who buy cards are people that want to get additional cards to actually play the game, not for frills like the loot cards give you in game.
coll, thanks for the update. I agree a number that small is difficult to get a reliable sample. But it is a start that can be observered as time goes on.
I don't know if Oforums have a poll tool like they do here. If they do any chance you would want to start one in the name of disscussion.
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
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
The exact rules vary from state to state. Some reguire more some require less. Even though our cereal contests don't operate that way. I have seen other sweepstakes here and there that do. But generally there is always a NPN, prize odds, and even void where prohibited.
In the really long post I just wrote in another thread there are some links to indiviual states rules. California is probably the best one to read. It has the regulations and gives definitions for California. Because of its populace most other contests I have seen follow it, even from another state.
Might be worth a click.
"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, 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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
The exact rules vary from state to state. Some reguire more some require less. Even though our cereal contests don't operate that way. I have seen other sweepstakes here and there that do. But generally there is always a NPN, prize odds, and even void where prohibited.
In the really long post I just wrote in another thread there are some links to indiviual states rules. California is probably the best one to read. It has the regulations and gives definitions for California. Because of its populace most other contests I have seen follow it, even from another state.
Might be worth a click.
On the outside of the bottle, box or what have you, there are instructions on how you can participate in a promotional contest without purchasing the product. This is done to avoid setting up a gambling mechanic. The same is even done for promotions via commercials here (Ontario, Canada). You can buy beer for a chance to win a trip, or you can send a letter to become a participant in the promotion. The commentator on the commercials says clearly, "no purchase necessary," and the fine print on the commercial tells you what you need to do to participate without paying any money. The odds of winning a promotional contest are also printed on the product or are stated clearly in commercials.
Since we're an international community on this site, it was good of GrandAm to provide links to certain jurisdictions. Thanks for that.
As for the game being unregulated, I mean the loot card game odds are not monitored or verified by an independent party like they are in official gambling venues. If for example, someone claims that people have a 3/100 chance of winning a loot card, no one is monitoring SOE to ensure that this is truthful. No one is making sure that the odds aren't changed outside of the player's awareness, thereby giving him or her the "shaft."
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
The exact rules vary from state to state. Some reguire more some require less. Even though our cereal contests don't operate that way. I have seen other sweepstakes here and there that do. But generally there is always a NPN, prize odds, and even void where prohibited.
In the really long post I just wrote in another thread there are some links to indiviual states rules. California is probably the best one to read. It has the regulations and gives definitions for California. Because of its populace most other contests I have seen follow it, even from another state.
Might be worth a click.
On the outside of the bottle, box or what have you, there are instructions on how you can participate in a promotional contest without purchasing the product. This is done to avoid setting up a gambling mechanic. The same is even done for promotions via commercials here (Ontario, Canada). You can buy beer for a chance to win a trip, or you can send a letter to become a participant in the promotion. The commentator on the commercials says clearly, "no purchase necessary," and the fine print on the commercial tells you what you need to do to participate without paying any money. The odds of winning a promotional contest are also printed on the product or are stated clearly in commercials.
Since we're an international community on this site, it was good of GrandAm to provide links to certain jurisdictions. Thanks for that.
As for the game being unregulated, I mean the loot card game odds are not monitored or verified by an independent party like they are in official gambling venues. If for example, someone claims that people have a 3/100 chance of winning a loot card, no one is monitoring SOE to ensure that this is truthful. No one is making sure that the odds aren't changed outside of the player's awareness, thereby giving him or her the "shaft."
Then at this point, it's a culture difference influencing opinions. This type of promotion is normal here in New Zealand so I personally can't see an issue with it.
Also, here in NZ, our laws/acts cover deceptive claims. If it were an NZ company and it was pretty obvious that the claim of "the chance of a loot card" was seen to be deceptive, then the company would be fined and reimbursement would be available to all involved.
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.
Not exactly sure how your cereal competitions and the like work over in the US, but here if you want to participate in a competition associated with the product then you need to fill out a form found inside the box, or enter a code that you find within the box into a website. You can't do that unless you buy the product. If you want the free toy reward from a cereal competition, you need to buy the cereal so you can open the box and get the toy out. It's not common practice here for you to be allowed to enter a competition for a product without actually buying the product.
How is the game unregulated? As I asked previously, does the US not have something that protects consumers against faulty/deceptive products or services they buy?
The exact rules vary from state to state. Some reguire more some require less. Even though our cereal contests don't operate that way. I have seen other sweepstakes here and there that do. But generally there is always a NPN, prize odds, and even void where prohibited.
In the really long post I just wrote in another thread there are some links to indiviual states rules. California is probably the best one to read. It has the regulations and gives definitions for California. Because of its populace most other contests I have seen follow it, even from another state.
Might be worth a click.
On the outside of the bottle, box or what have you, there are instructions on how you can participate in a promotional contest without purchasing the product. This is done to avoid setting up a gambling mechanic. The same is even done for promotions via commercials here (Ontario, Canada). You can buy beer for a chance to win a trip, or you can send a letter to become a participant in the promotion. The commentator on the commercials says clearly, "no purchase necessary," and the fine print on the commercial tells you what you need to do to participate without paying any money. The odds of winning a promotional contest are also printed on the product or are stated clearly in commercials.
Since we're an international community on this site, it was good of GrandAm to provide links to certain jurisdictions. Thanks for that.
As for the game being unregulated, I mean the loot card game odds are not monitored or verified by an independent party like they are in official gambling venues. If for example, someone claims that people have a 3/100 chance of winning a loot card, no one is monitoring SOE to ensure that this is truthful. No one is making sure that the odds aren't changed outside of the player's awareness, thereby giving him or her the "shaft."
Then at this point, it's a culture difference influencing opinions. This type of promotion is normal here in New Zealand so I personally can't see an issue with it.
Also, here in NZ, our laws/acts cover deceptive claims. If it were an NZ company and it was pretty obvious that the claim of "the chance of a loot card" was seen to be deceptive, then the company would be fined and reimbursement would be available to all involved.
Agreed regarding cultural influence. Glad we got that sorted out
Back in a bit for more discussion.
O.k. back. What I've been hoping to communicate is that if people pay rl dollars for a chance to get virtual items, they should know the odds, and someone should make sure that the published odds are accurate.
This happens in other settings (in Ontario) when people risk cash on a chance of reward, but not so in SWG. I think this should be addressed, particularly for gamers in jurisdictions with similar laws.
Also, because this is an MMO and because the EULA for this MMO allows SOE to change the game anytime they like, even publishing and monitoring the odds is a problem. If the EULA stays as it is, SOE can change the odds anytime they like. They can make the loot cards really easy to get one month, and then very difficult to obtain a month later. They can manipulate the math any way they like, any time they like, to their advantage financially. I also think this should be addressed.
Right now, the way the loot cards are set up, there are many pitfalls for gamers. SOE could get rid of these. I think it would be better if they did. My opinion of course.
I also happen to think that new vehicles could and should have been added to the game as part of the current subscription fee, and that schematics would have been the best way to give players a nice new perk and foster player interaction. Also my opinion, and I respect that yours may differ.
I'm not against the card game per se, and hope people enjoy it. I have some concerns about the loot cards and how they have been implemented.