Beware: Dye Modules, TOTAL RIPOFF

[DarthTHC]

My problem is that they are not Legally gambling.

 

And calling them gambling, to me, implies that legally they are gambling -- which they are not.

 

If they were legally gambling, the game would have to be 21+, not legal in 99% of the areas people play from, and have to follow an incredible list of laws and regulations. Or, it would've been shut down the day it was implemented.

 

There is a difference between "legal gambling" and "illegal gambling" and just "gambling". Whether or not a particular type of gambling is legal is controlled by the various statutes (at the international, national, regional, and local level) in your jurisdiction.

 

"Legal" is a qualifier.

 

"Gambling" is a word with a meaning irrespective of the "legal" qualifier. Using the meaning of the word, "gambling" to analyze what the cartel packs and dye packs are, the only rational conclusion is that they are, indeed, gambling.

 

Here, I'll bring in the definition again just to keep things clear. It's not MY definition. If you don't like the definition, go argue with the English language or at least dictionary.com.

 

gam·bling [gam-bling]

noun

1. the activity or practice of playing at a game of chance for money or other stakes.

 

Notice I'm not arguing whether or not they're "legal". Obviously they are or they wouldn't have been implemented. I don't think EA is in any rush to break any laws. Way too smart for that.

 

I'm also not saying whether or not they're "moral" or its converse, "unethical". I submit that each individual has his or her own code of morals/ethics and can only make that determination for him- or herself.

 

They're a game of chance, simplistic as it might be, like rolling dice. The stakes are the contents of the packs which you don't discover or get until those dice are rolled. Gambling.

Edited May 23, 2013 by DarthTHC

[Anzel]

They enraged the 7 customers who just can't let go of the fact that an off-cycle patch introduced new options upon which they might choose to spend cartel coins. They made the other approximately 999,993 customers something between happy and neutral.

 

Wow, they really screwed the pooch on that one.

 

And now you have challenged my Link-Fu

 

SWTOR Game Update 2.1 Points to an Awful New Direction

Hyperspace Beacon: SWTOR's customization cash kitty

Star Wars: The Old Republic 2.1 update released

SWTOR customization update goes live

SWTOR's Bad Dy Job

 

WORST COMPANY IN AMERICA - SOURCE: FORBES

EA Voted Worst Company in America, Again

 

The forums, the Interwebs, their Facebook page have all been flooded with negative feedback RE: 2.1. So much so that even the developers had commented on it. Should I link all of that for you as well? All of the comments here in this thread. All of the "I Quit" threads. All of the other threads complaining about this patch?

 

Seven you say?

[DarthTHC]

And now you have challenged my Link-Fu

 

SWTOR Game Update 2.1 Points to an Awful New Direction

Hyperspace Beacon: SWTOR's customization cash kitty

Star Wars: The Old Republic 2.1 update released

SWTOR customization update goes live

SWTOR's Bad Dy Job

 

WORST COMPANY IN AMERICA - SOURCE: FORBES

EA Voted Worst Company in America, Again

 

The forums, the Interwebs, their Facebook page have all been flooded with negative feedback RE: 2.1. So much so that even the developers had commented on it. Should I link all of that for you as well? All of the comments here in this thread. All of the "I Quit" threads. All of the other threads complaining about this patch?

 

Seven you say?

 

I think this more than proves how irrational people are. Probably a good cross-section of the fools who voted EA the worst company in America two years running.

 

People are complaining that an off-cycle (read: one they shouldn't have expected) patch gave them features and toys on which they can choose to use part of their subscription happened.

 

The irrationality of human beings is staggering. The death-grip with which they cling to their irrationality is frightening.

Edited May 23, 2013 by DarthTHC

[Anzel]

Again, you assert it's just your opinion, then you break out the bombast. Calling them "unethical" is particularly hyperbolic. It's unethical to charge $10 for a liter of bottled water after a disaster (and many jurisdictions in the U.S. have laws against that sort of thing). It's not unethical to give people the choice to spend money on virtual junk for a computer game.

 

It is absolutely unethical and I'm neither the first or the only person to point this out. Go ahead. Challenge my Link-Fu on this one. I dare you. Their customers HATE this patch. They hate the gambling packs. They hate the new design philosophy that EA is forcing upon this game.

 

Just like when we had to wait until level 25 for the first speeder license

Just like when we didn't have sprint until level 14-16

Just like when respecs costs were exponentially ridiculous

Just like SWG when they had "Encumberence"

Just like in SWG when they had 10 minute shuttle times LOL

Just like when you couldn't call vehicles in SWG unless you were outside of a city

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

Forums trolls will always try to lobby for making things arbitrarily difficult or expensive. It's terrible for the game. It's terrible for the community. People want to log in, have fun, log out. Period.

 

EA better get with the program sooner than later. Don't wait until right before the game shuts down and go, "OH CRAP THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING. We better give people what they want". Like SWG did LOL.

 

But you already know all of this don't you.

 

Also, your subscription is due.

[DarthTHC]

It is absolutely unethical and I'm neither the first or the only person to point this out. Go ahead. Challenge my Link-Fu on this one. I dare you. Their customers HATE this patch. They hate the gambling packs. They hate the new design philosophy that EA is forcing upon this game.

 

YOU may consider them unethical per YOUR moral code. Others may too.

 

The problem comes in when you or anyone tries to declare something unethical on SOMEONE ELSE'S BEHALF. That ain't necessarily so. Some of us have different ethical codes than you might. And that's all OK as long as nobody's breaking any laws over it.

 

So you can bandy that word, "unethical", about until your fingers bleed from typing it so much. Just realize that the rest of us are putting "IMO" next to it when we read it and don't necessarily agree with your opinion in this case.

Edited May 23, 2013 by DarthTHC

[maxetius]

people are fixated on black/black, yet it offers very little incremental esthetics IMO

 

How the bloody hell do you see anyone from that horse you're on.

 

 

According to you, the problem is players needing to adjust their taste.

 

you sicken me.

Edited May 23, 2013 by maxetius

[Andryah]

Of course that's not my position on that word. I'm fine with the gambling packs and have never called them unethical.

 

But they're still gambling, by the definition of the word found in most or maybe even all English language dictionaries.

 

LOL.. don't make me come over there now and take your dictionary away.

[Andryah]

How the bloody hell do you see anyone from that horse you're on.

 

 

According to you, the problem is players needing to adjust their taste.

 

you sicken me.

 

Feel better now?

 

You do not seem to be tolerant of other peoples opinions. In a gaming forum, opinions are all we have really.

 

Well, ok.. for people like you.. personal attacks + opinions.

[DarthTHC]

LOL.. don't make me come over there now and take your dictionary away.

 

Hey, Maxy up there says you're on a horse. What kind of horse are you riding?

 

I was big into horses for a while, especially while my daughter was riding. Would like to retire at some point and get a Gypsy Vanner or three. Those are really big, and fairly calm (for a horse) horses. Plus they have the word, "Gypsy" in their name which is a word near & dear to my heart.

 

I think Maxy implied your horse is high. Don't suppose it's a big ol' Gypsy Vanner?

Edited May 23, 2013 by DarthTHC

[Andryah]

It is absolutely unethical

 

There are no absolutes in the context of ethics.

 

Please stop misusing your weapon of choice.

[Andryah]

Hey, Maxy up there says you're on a horse. What kind of horse are you riding?

 

Why.. Shetland Pony of course.

[DarthTHC]

Why.. Shetland Pony of course.

 

Now that right there is gold. You impress me. And that isn't easy to do. Well played, Andryah. Well played.

[Kilora]

Notice I'm not arguing whether or not they're "legal". Obviously they are or they wouldn't have been implemented. I don't think EA is in any rush to break any laws. Way too smart for that.

 

I'm also not saying whether or not they're "moral" or its converse, "unethical". I submit that each individual has his or her own code of morals/ethics and can only make that determination for him- or herself.

 

They're a game of chance, simplistic as it might be, like rolling dice. The stakes are the contents of the packs which you don't discover or get until those dice are rolled. Gambling.

 

I agree -- and I understand my argument is leaning towards semantics. . .

 

But, societal norms come into play here. If you asked 30 people what "gambling" means, how many of those people would say "Casinos"? If you said "lets go gambling" in a state where it is illegal -- how many would point that out?

 

I'm aware of what the word is supposed to mean. But, the first reaction to the word is gambling in the sense of Casinos and legality and so on. And I'm fairly certain that is exactly what Anzel is getting at with his useage -- based on context. I could be wrong, but gambling is being used to try and paint this as a shady extra-legal addition to the game.

 

As far as ethics -- oh dear, I hated ethics. And morality. My philosophy courses were more than enough for a lifetime. Some people cannot separate logic from emotion -- so when I say, "Throw the sick old man off of the boat to save the other 15 people," I'm apparently a monster. . .

[DarthTHC]

I agree -- and I understand my argument is leaning towards semantics. . .

 

But, societal norms come into play here. If you asked 30 people what "gambling" means, how many of those people would say "Casinos"? If you said "lets go gambling" in a state where it is illegal -- how many would point that out?

 

I'm aware of what the word is supposed to mean. But, the first reaction to the word is gambling in the sense of Casinos and legality and so on. And I'm fairly certain that is exactly what Anzel is getting at with his useage -- based on context. I could be wrong, but gambling is being used to try and paint this as a shady extra-legal addition to the game.

 

As far as ethics -- oh dear, I hated ethics. And morality. My philosophy courses were more than enough for a lifetime. Some people cannot separate logic from emotion -- so when I say, "Throw the sick old man off of the boat to save the other 15 people," I'm apparently a monster. . .

 

It's hardly my fault or problem if 30 out of 30 people are unable to correctly define a word in the English language. That's their problem. It's going to be society's problem. But it's not MY problem.

 

It's also not my problem that Anzel is placing unsaid qualifiers on the term while at the same time seeming to insist that his personal code of ethics is the only one that should apply. If we all expect everyone to adhere to our personal code of ethics, things gonna get ugly.

 

More likely Anzel continues to express his rectal discomfort over whatever is really bothering him by fixating on an optional aspect of an off-cycle patch because that's what he thinks he can fixate on.

 

The packs are gambling.

 

The packs are legal.

 

The packs are both moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, and neither, as each person viewing them discerns for themselves. They have this wonderful thing called "choice" in the matter that in many cases in not only games but lives they don't have.

 

They can choose to spend part of their subscription called cartel coins and play the game of chance.

 

They can choose to go to the GTN and spend a portion of their subscription called credits, not play the game of chance, and get what they want.

 

They can choose to forego the whole thing entirely and be no worse off in the game than they were the day before this off-cycle, completely optional patch dropped.

 

They can do any of those things as their own personal preferences and ethical codes dictate.

 

It's really not a big deal, even if it is, by definition, "gambling".

[Kilora]

Oh, cmon! You didn't even chuckle at the last part of that post?!

 

My point was -- what I'm talking about is probably 100% pointless to discuss. Of course it woulnd't be your problem directly. I'm more aiming at the reasoning that words like gay and retarted and f*ggo* are unacceptible now -- because the actual definition has changed over time.

 

I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, friend. I was trying to explain where I was coming from in my post, and why I also probably shouldn't have bothered arguing with him about it.

 

And -- would you call me a monster for throwing a sick old man off of a boat and saving 15 other lives?

[DarthTHC]

Oh, cmon! You didn't even chuckle at the last part of that post?!

 

My point was -- what I'm talking about is probably 100% pointless to discuss. Of course it woulnd't be your problem directly. I'm more aiming at the reasoning that words like gay and retarted and f*ggo* are unacceptible now -- because the actual definition has changed over time.

 

I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, friend. I was trying to explain where I was coming from in my post, and why I also probably shouldn't have bothered arguing with him about it.

 

And -- would you call me a monster for throwing a sick old man off of a boat and saving 15 other lives?

 

I wouldn't call you a monster over that, no. But assuming all other options have been exhausted and the old man knows where things stand, he should have jumped off of his own volition. That seems a completely hypothetical moral puzzle though. It seems really hard to find a real-life dilemma that's so restrictive.

[Kilora]

I wouldn't call you a monster over that, no. But assuming all other options have been exhausted and the old man knows where things stand, he should have jumped off of his own volition. That seems a completely hypothetical moral puzzle though. It seems really hard to find a real-life dilemma that's so restrictive.

 

That is exactly what it was :-D

 

Last part of my post, I was alluding to an ethics/morality class I took. The question posed to the group:

 

"You're on a lifeboat, with 16 people. You don't have much food or water, don't know how long it'll take until you are rescued.

One elderly man is extremely ill, and everyone is afraid he will make the others sick.

 

Would you sacrifice his life to save the other 15?

Would you personally throw him off the boat?

What if this were a 5-year-old child?

What is this were YOUR 5-year-old child?"

 

Really interesting -- but the second I started explaining the pros and cons of sacrificing a life -- I was attacked for being a monster >.<

 

At the very least, I love using it as an example now to get people to think about how differently each situation is. Most people ended up being ok with someone else throwing the old man overboard -- but not the child. Not a single person was willing to risk their own child.

[branmakmuffin]

It is absolutely unethical and I'm neither the first or the only person to point this out. Go ahead. Challenge my Link-Fu on this one. I dare you. Their customers HATE this patch. They hate the gambling packs. They hate the new design philosophy that EA is forcing upon this game

You need to learn to relax. And would you mind revealing the secret of your ESP powers? The ones which allow you to know with such certainty what people hate.

 

How the bloody hell do you see anyone from that horse you're on. According to you, the problem is players needing to adjust their taste.

They don't need to adjust their taste. They do, however, need to accept that BWEA knows everyone thinks black and white are the "coolest" colors and they're gonna take advantage of that.

Edited May 23, 2013 by branmakmuffin

[Anzel]

YOU may consider them unethical per YOUR moral code. Others may too.

 

I do because it is. Others do too. I'm so glad we agree on this

 

The problem comes in when you or anyone tries to declare something unethical on SOMEONE ELSE'S BEHALF. That ain't necessarily so. Some of us have different ethical codes than you might. And that's all OK as long as nobody's breaking any laws over it.

 

So you can bandy that word, "unethical", about until your fingers bleed from typing it so much. Just realize that the rest of us are putting "IMO" next to it when we read it and don't necessarily agree with your opinion in this case.

 

I'll probably go ahead and word my opinions however I choose to. I may also misspeel stuff and use grammar however I feel. I'm not seeking your acceptance or permission for anything here.

 

The gambling packs are unethical and people hate them. See?

[DarthTHC]

I do because it is. Others do too. I'm so glad we agree on this

 

I'll probably go ahead and word my opinions however I choose to. I may also misspeel stuff and use grammar however I feel. I'm not seeking your acceptance or permission for anything here.

 

The gambling packs are unethical and people hate them. See?

 

The gambling packs are ethical and people buy them in droves.

 

The first half is opinion. The second half is fact, else we'd see no pack-sourced dye on GTN.

 

See how that works?

[Anzel]

The gambling packs are UNethical and people buy them in droves, even though they hate them and would all prefer an alternative.

 

Fixed!!!!!

Edited May 23, 2013 by Anzel

[DarthTHC]

Fixed!!!!!

 

That's pretty insulting to the game's players, don't you think? You're saying they're burning money on things they HATE in a GAME.

 

I mean, I get if they hate that they have to buy food or pay the rent but do that anyway...

 

But you're saying they're so dumb and/or out of control that they're blowing money on stuff they hate in a completely optional form of entertainment?

 

That's a low blow, man.

[Talsalus]

That's pretty insulting to the game's players, don't you think? You're saying they're burning money on things they HATE in a GAME.

 

I mean, I get if they hate that they have to buy food or pay the rent but do that anyway...

 

But you're saying they're so dumb and/or out of control that they're blowing money on stuff they hate in a completely optional form of entertainment?

 

That's a low blow, man.

 

People would much rather have the individual items available for purchase on the CC. Almost all the cool stuff is released in these gambling packs. I realize you can purchase them from the GTN, but they are usually the most pricey items on there. I don't really care about the cartel packs too much, but I do care about the dye packs. 2.1 offers little to no actual customization (unless you actually enjoy predetermined color combos) for players without spending cartel coins to do so.

 

I understand charging CC for appearance change (body size, face structure, race etc), but changing your hair should not cost CC. If they really wish to charge us for future features, I hope they use credits instead of CC.

[Repman]

I do because it is. Others do too. I'm so glad we agree on this

 

 

 

 

 

I'll probably go ahead and word my opinions however I choose to. I may also misspeel stuff and use grammar however I feel. I'm not seeking your acceptance or permission for anything here.

 

The gambling packs are unethical and people hate them. See?

 

I believe they are, its perfectly alright for BioWare to add the dyes in the cash shop, they do need to make $$ but to have them "random" is pushing unethical.

 

I mean that's like ordering a pizza and hoping you get your favorite toppings but 9 times out of ten getting anchovies, pineapples and play-dough as toppings.

 

I wonder if EA/BioWare would like it if we subscribed and just give them ONE number from our credit card and made them guess the rest? lol

 

And hey! Someone in Florida learned its easier to win 600 million dollars then it is getting your favorite dye color in SWTOR

[DarthTHC]

People would much rather have the individual items available for purchase on the CC. Almost all the cool stuff is released in these gambling packs. I realize you can purchase them from the GTN, but they are usually the most pricey items on there. I don't really care about the cartel packs too much, but I do care about the dye packs. 2.1 offers little to no actual customization (unless you actually enjoy predetermined color combos) for players without spending cartel coins to do so.

 

I understand charging CC for appearance change (body size, face structure, race etc), but changing your hair should not cost CC. If they really wish to charge us for future features, I hope they use credits instead of CC.

 

It's all perfectly in line with the expectations they've set WRT the Cartel Market. If it's appearance, expect the Cartel Market to be involved. Dyes are appearance. Hair is appearance. Armor that looks good is, apparently, appearance.

 

Looking at the kiosk implementation, I'm rather glad they went the gambling pack / can sell on the GTN route for the dyes rather than forcing us to burn cartel coins on them. And, let's face it, for anyone with a bit of intelligence (or the ability to read stickies) and time, credits are nothing.