Gambling is illegal

[Imhotep]

I don't want to get into a thing here, but this is NOT what happened to Hostess. Getting people to buy that narrative was a major PR score for the company, though.

 

While not the sole reason it is a definite contributing factor. I'm not talking the Bakers union but the Teamsters that were very much part of the issue .

[Andryah]

The OP has one general valid point...that gambling packs are a greedy practice, and I think that argument can be made, though I may not agree with it completely or stand against the practice.

 

Just like the words "gambling" and "illegal" have been grossly misused in this discussion.. so is the term "greedy".

 

To be truly greedy with something.. a company has to be able to present a product that is a must have and do so at inflated prices. Neither is true in this case. Why?

 

1) Because none of the pack contents are in any way required.

2) they can in fact be acquired without spending any real life currency, from other players

3) there is at any given time ~ a 300-400 Million FREE Cartel Coin float in the subscriber base.. and that does not count hoarding by some players.. which easily is 2 to 3 times that. In other words.. while there is a player demand for buying CCs (which is personal choice by each player) that demand is actually NOT required in order to inject thousands of cartel packs into the player economy on each server each week.

 

"Greed" does not apply in the context of this discussion. It's just another pejorative use of a term for presentation of personal bias.

[Hazed]

Off topic from your own thread by a wide margin. Now you are just ranting mindless talking points.

 

If you want to return to a pre-world economy era....sell all your stuff and move to a cabin in the woods. Don't forget to get rid of your computer and all internet connections as well.

 

You might get it, but a large % of the population does not. I don't think everyone sees eye to eye on this issue as you would have people believe by that statement.

[LordArtemis]

"Greed" does not apply in the context of this discussion. It's just another pejorative use of a term for presentation of personal bias.

 

I get your point naturally, but I was using the term in a general sense. The basis of capitalism is greed. It is an actual requirement of the mantra IMO.

 

One can look at greed as something that is negative or positive...I tend to support capitalism.

 

Where I draw the line is calling something "exploitative" simply because it is based on greed. I don't think the packs are exploitative in nature....any more than anything else is in a capital market.

 

I do, however, find them a bit greedy in a higher sense than what most folks would probably find acceptable. I accept them only because they provide the content I desire IMO and positive growth....so for me greed is not a bad word.

 

It is a simplification naturally for the sake of the discussion. But I do think it applies to all capital methods and ventures.

Edited October 4, 2013 by LordArtemis

[PhilD]

While not the sole reason it is a definite contributing factor. I'm not talking the Bakers union but the Teamsters that were very much part of the issue .

 

They really weren't. The Teamsters could have agreed to work for free and it wouldn't have solved any of the problems in the C-suite, the debt problems, the repeated bankruptcies, the failure to diversify products for a changing market, the extraction of value at the executive level while crying poor, etc., etc.

[Andryah]

I get your point naturally, but I was using the term in a general sense. The basis of capitalism is greed. It is an actual requirement of the mantra IMO.

 

One can look at greed as something that is negative or positive...I tend to support capitalism.

 

Where I draw the line is calling something "exploitative" simply because it is based on greed. I don't think the packs are exploitative in nature....any more than anything else is in a capital market.

 

I do, however, find them a bit greedy in a higher sense than what most folks would probably find acceptable. I accept them only because they provide the content I desire IMO and positive growth....so for me greed is not a bad word.

 

It is a simplification naturally for the sake of the discussion. But I do think it applies to all capital methods and ventures.

 

Got it.

 

Thing is.. I do not see free market capitalism as "greed" by definition. Why? Because the competitive nature of capitalism tends to mitigate greed quite well. In fact free markets are predatory towards greed based practices in general. And we cannot confuse "greed" with "value pricing". Value pricing is about determining what the market will pay and then charging as close to that value point as you can.

 

Of course greed can be and is a tactic in free market capitalism.....WHEN the market is imbalanced and it is allowed to do so. But then again.. that is human nature for the most part.. exploit if you can. It has nothing to do with companies, but rather human nature as a whole.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Andryah

[Imhotep]

They really weren't. The Teamsters could have agreed to work for free and it wouldn't have solved any of the problems in the C-suite, the debt problems, the repeated bankruptcies, the failure to diversify products for a changing market, the extraction of value at the executive level while crying poor, etc., etc.

 

Teamsters were involved directly in the acquisition during the second bankruptcy. Like I said not the only issue but definitely a contributor. You maybe pro union and thats fine we can run this in circles all day.

 

Actually not all day, I have a job where performance actually matters and I don't have a union to save my slacker *** so off I go.

Edited October 4, 2013 by Imhotep

[Andryah]

we can run this in circles all day.

 

Please don't. It's so far off topic as to be fluttering in the farside moons of Saturn.

[LordArtemis]

Got it.

 

Thing is.. I do not see free market capitalism as "greed" by definition. Why? Because the competitive nature of capitalism tends to mitigate greed quite well. In fact free markets are predatory towards greed based practices in general. And we cannot confuse "greed" with "value pricing". Value pricing is about determining what the market will pay and then charging as close to that value point as you can.

 

Of course greed can be and is a tactic in free market capitalism.....WHEN the market is imbalanced and it is allowed to do so. But then again.. that is human nature for the most part.. exploit if you can. It has nothing to do with companies, but rather human nature as a whole.

 

It's a good point. See, for me, greed is a driving force, exploitation is a dark practice perhaps some folks engage in based on motivational greed...and greed will be blamed as a result.

 

I think greed gets a bad rap. The desire to reach for bigger and better profits does not have to be exploitative in the dark sense, but rather "opportunistic"...seeing what the market wants and providing it in a way the market will accept.

 

That is what the packs represent here IMO.

[Imhotep]

Please don't. It's so far off topic as to be fluttering in the farside moons of Saturn.

 

Yeah yeah I just edited my post. Happy now?

[branmakmuffin]

I personally disagree. The OP has one general valid point...that gambling packs are a greedy practice, and I think that argument can be made, though I may not agree with it completely or stand against the practice.

Every company is greedy. So sure, we can have a discussion about corporate greed in general, but in this context and regarding the specific topic of cartel packs, to what end?

[Hazed]

Just like the words "gambling" and "illegal" have been grossly misused in this discussion.. so is the term "greedy".

 

To be truly greedy with something.. a company has to be able to present a product that is a must have and do so at inflated prices. Neither is true in this case. Why?

 

1) Because none of the pack contents are in any way required.

2) they can in fact be acquired without spending any real life currency, from other players

3) there is at any given time ~ a 300-400 Million FREE Cartel Coin float in the subscriber base.. and that does not count hoarding by some players.. which easily is 2 to 3 times that. In other words.. while there is a player demand for buying CCs (which is personal choice by each player) that demand is actually NOT required in order to inject thousands of cartel packs into the player economy on each server each week.

 

"Greed" does not apply in the context of this discussion. It's just another pejorative use of a term for presentation of personal bias.

 

If what you say is true then why don't all business run with grab bag options.. By your logic (since it is more profitable) then we should all be buying all merchandise through games of chance. This way companies can make more money and people have fun seeing if they win or lose at getting things. Walmart could make a grab box and you can guarantee at least 1 kind of shampoo, 1 kind of toothpaste and a chance for a new t.v. - how many people would keep buying those boxes trying to get a t.v.? Walmart would be discredited, but there would still be people trying to get that t.v. after the fact.

hell the fact that things like RENT A CENTER still exist is a testament to how braindead our society is.. sure the easy route is to just say "personal responsibility" but guess what, some of those people will probably be in charge 10-20 years down the line.. do you want your kids growing up in something similar to Idiocracy

 

 

Its like the commercial for that allied bank.. even kids know its wrong.

[branmakmuffin]

Yes, almost all business is exploitative in some way and in most cases needs to be based on a healthy growth model. Again, as long as that profit provides the content I enjoy and positive growth I would give any company a pass on it.

 

I only speak to the obvious nature of the packs. Whether or not someone finds that honorable is up to them. For me it may not be honorable but it is acceptable at this time. The game was in trouble, and this is one way to provide the kind of content I enjoy.

It's a business. "Honor" has nothing to do with it..

 

But I think the amount of disdain for the practice of providing gambling packs in games is pretty obvious industry wide.

If the disdain were that high, TOR players would not be doing it.

[LordArtemis]

Every company is greedy. So sure, we can have a discussion about corporate greed in general, but in this context and regarding the specific topic of cartel packs, to what end?

 

Well, the discussion would be whether or not the value of the product justifies that greed with the majority of the playerbase.

 

I can only speak for myself....the value is there, as it provides content and upward movement IMO. So for me it is justified...for now. As long as the content and upward movement continues, the greed of gambling packs is justified IMO.

 

But some folks may not find that value, and that is where the discussion can be had IMO.

[branmakmuffin]

If what you say is true then why don't all business run with grab bag options.. By your logic (since it is more profitable) then we should all be buying all merchandise through games of chance.

Because that won't work with most products. When you go to a restaurant, you want a pizza. You don't want "random food."

 

Your attempts at analogies get worse and worse every time.

 

Well, the discussion would be whether or not the value of the product justifies that greed with the majority of the playerbase.

And clearly the majority is OK with cartel packs.

 

But some folks may not find that value, and that is where the discussaion can be had IMO.

Then the discussion just boils down to "I like it," "I don't like it" or "I'm indifferent to it."

Edited October 4, 2013 by branmakmuffin

[LordArtemis]

It's a business. "Honor" has nothing to do with it..

 

Frankly bran, it has everything to do with it for folks that have a disdain for what they perceive as exploitative practices based on greed. That does not mean their view is correct, but it does mean they have an argument to pose.

 

Some folks demand an element of fairness in business. Honor then comes into play.

 

If the disdain were that high, TOR players would not be doing it.

 

I might argue that what people find acceptable here may not be acceptable to the industry as a whole. I'm not sure I would use this game as an industry benchmark.

Edited October 4, 2013 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

And clearly the majority is OK with cartel packs.

 

That does seem to be the case, as an outside observer. Time will tell if that continues to be the case. I expect it will.

 

Then the discussion just boils down to "I like it," "I don't like it" or "I'm indifferent to it."

 

That is, in fact, the very crux of the discussion IMO.

[branmakmuffin]

That does seem to be the case, as an outside observer. Time will tell if that continues to be the case. I expect it will.

 

That is, in fact, the very crux of the discussion IMO.

That's a pretty uninteresting discussion.

[LordArtemis]

That's a pretty uninteresting discussion.

 

Fair enough...but I found it reasonably engaging lol....besides, isnt it a good day when we get to debate something between us? I always feel that is a good day hehe.

Edited October 4, 2013 by LordArtemis

[branmakmuffin]

Frankly bran, it has everything to do with it for folks that have a disdain for what they perceive as exploitative practices based on greed. That does not mean their view is correct, but it does mean they have an argument to pose.

 

Some folks demand an element of fairness in business. Honor then comes into play.

We can't really have this discussion without breaking forum rules.

[Arkerus]

If what you say is true then why don't all business run with grab bag options.. By your logic (since it is more profitable) then we should all be buying all merchandise through games of chance. This way companies can make more money and people have fun seeing if they win or lose at getting things. Walmart could make a grab box and you can guarantee at least 1 kind of shampoo, 1 kind of toothpaste and a chance for a new t.v. - how many people would keep buying those boxes trying to get a t.v.? Walmart would be discredited, but there would still be people trying to get that t.v. after the fact.

hell the fact that things like RENT A CENTER still exist is a testament to how braindead our society is.. sure the easy route is to just say "personal responsibility" but guess what, some of those people will probably be in charge 10-20 years down the line.. do you want your kids growing up in something similar to Idiocracy

 

 

Its like the commercial for that allied bank.. even kids know its wrong.

 

Because not every company MAKES VIDEO GAMES.

 

Our kids are fine growing up in a video game world with EA. I don't fear EA at all. I have more fear that I'll be hit by a car driving down the street. I have zero fear our kids are being brainwashed or affected by grab bags on a video game.

 

Exaggeration much?

 

After the engine thread, you would have thought you learned something...

Edited October 4, 2013 by Arkerus

[Arkerus]

I get your point naturally, but I was using the term in a general sense. The basis of capitalism is greed. It is an actual requirement of the mantra IMO.

 

One can look at greed as something that is negative or positive...I tend to support capitalism.

 

Where I draw the line is calling something "exploitative" simply because it is based on greed. I don't think the packs are exploitative in nature....any more than anything else is in a capital market.

 

I do, however, find them a bit greedy in a higher sense than what most folks would probably find acceptable. I accept them only because they provide the content I desire IMO and positive growth....so for me greed is not a bad word.

 

It is a simplification naturally for the sake of the discussion. But I do think it applies to all capital methods and ventures.

 

Then you should be clear when you say its a greedy practice that the context is not the same as the typical context of "greed" as a bad word.

 

I'm greedy. I love getting bigger paychecks. OF course EA is greedy, their intention is to make money...and to make money they need a product that consumers want.

 

The power is all on the consumer. If you don't like it, don't buy it and make sure that company doesn't make any money off you.

[CosmicKat]

Then you should be clear when you say its a greedy practice that the context is not the same as the typical context of "greed" as a bad word.

 

I'm greedy. I love getting bigger paychecks. OF course EA is greedy, their intention is to make money...and to make money they need a product that consumers want.

 

The power is all on the consumer. If you don't like it, don't buy it and make sure that company doesn't make any money off you.

 

I think you are confusing ambition with greed.

 

Wanting to better yourself or your finances is not greedy. Wanting to do so at the expense of others is greed.

 

For those who believe in such things, greed is actually one of the big no-no's from the Invisible Sky Wizard.

[TheNahash]

I think you are confusing ambition with greed.

 

Wanting to better yourself or your finances is not greedy. Wanting to do so at the expense of others is greed.

 

For those who believe in such things, greed is actually one of the big no-no's from the Invisible Sky Wizard.

 

Are they making your life worse by giving you the option to buy packs that contain random, unimportant (both in-game and, obviously, real life) items in a video game?

[Arkerus]

I think you are confusing ambition with greed.

 

Wanting to better yourself or your finances is not greedy. Wanting to do so at the expense of others is greed.

 

For those who believe in such things, greed is actually one of the big no-no's from the Invisible Sky Wizard.

 

Lord Artemis's premise was that greed was not the "evil" intention you are referring to. What you are referring to would be the typical context of the word.

 

Greed is not always on the expense of others. Generally, greed is just "greed":

 

Definition via the interwebs:

intense and selfish desire for something, esp. wealth, power, or food.

 

Its has nothing to do with "at the expense of others".