Is it ethically right to play SwTOR?

[ghoul_drool]

The discussion about this has gone on way too far and long.

 

I agree, but in my defense, I just woke up

[Macetheace]

OP, its just a game, it is not unethical at all. In the end, NO ONE IS BEING FORCED TO USE THE CM. I only occasionally go through the cm (and that's with my monthly cartel grant plus the occasional lucky hit on my referral link) and I just buy stuff for fun, and, well, because got to use them for something (like the first Galactic Ace pack I ever bought which contained a dewback!!). But on a serious note, we are not being exploited, its a game companies right as a business to promote what makes them money, but again we are not forced to do or buy anything, there are just people who buy stuff off the cartel market OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL ( I once knew this guy who, since he is very rich, literally spends a thousand dollars on cc's a month just because he could easily afford it!!). It would be like saying we are getting exploited just for subscribing, or exploited just for creating an account.

 

please tell me how this could be unethical if no one of their own free will is being forced to use the cartel market of which the makers of the game wisely promote as a business, its got a lot of cool stuff yes, but nothing truly important that you would need to use the cm in order to progress in game uninhibited.

I was considering if subscribing could also be perceived as such, but decided it couldn't because you were paying for services rendered. in the case of the CM, i have wondered, if it can be likened more to charging a diamond for an orange - in which case though i'm free to pay a diamond for it, its kind of exploitative and unfair even unreasonable. looking at dawingole's argument, it goes down to a suupply and demand, someone pointed that out earlier which i thought was a reasonable sounding counter argument to the quote, (not that i've told him yet), some items are rare and thus have perceived greater value, but real dollars is now involved in the matter, i think that changes it, because it's no longer simulated stuff for simulated stuff.. and his point I think is that they completely control the flow, supply and can determine what the demand is, so it's not fair. it wouldn't be an issue if it was just credits been traded in game, but it's real money now, this is different - or at least it feels different, this is what kinda got me alert. Now real money is involved in this specific market, there is a real cost to it - people spend their lives for this, feed their children with this, need this to live etc, because it involves real money is what raises teh ethical issue.

 

Can you say in good conscience there isn't an ethical issue? I'm not so sure any more. it's not the same as subscribing. - or is it? i'm feeling there is a difference i'm not quite able to articulate, but maybe it is no different than subscribing afterall either. But then there is real value if subscribing was the only way to access the game, there is real value, even good value in having a platform that people can socialise in and relax in whiles doing easy stuff. So maybe buying the video game in the first place is not unethical.. becuase i was thinking if subscribing was unethical, by that same logic would buying a video game be unethical? Then i would say it depended on what the video game did, and what its real value was and whether its price matched that. Some people put no value on entertainment, especially video games, a totally time consuming waste of the human life - that's another topic though, and I have often thought whether this is entirely that. But if it were so, it would mean it's a waste to buy them and I would be wrong to do so - but it won't be unethical because i wasn't forced to - unless undue coercion was used - which people are raising the question whether this is exactly what advertising does, or at least aggressive advertising.

 

if i'm not being forced or co-erced, it cannot be exploitation, but doesn't mean that it is right, then i must choose whether to do what is right or not which is a different argument. So if it's not unethical to buy the game, it cannot be unethical to subscribe to it, if it is not unethical to subscribe to it, but the question is whetehr it is unethical for the comapny to charge you to buy the game - no it isn't, they've worked for it, creating said platform costs, and maintaining it too, so if you want it there is a price to pay and you should pay them for it - if the price were too high then perhaps there is an ethical issue. Is it unethical for them to charge you a subscription for it too, no it isn't on that basis as it costs to maintain said service, but based on the price you pay what is that price for? just operational costs? are updateds included in that, future development? this must be stated or made plain, and if that's the case and now you offer the game for free, does it licence you to extract money from free loaders via the cartel market, is it wrong to try and get money off them for playing the game for free? are you intentionally constructing a underhanded way of payment by deception through this or jus tmerely earnestly finding an alternative revenue source to keep your project alive..what as the basis of offering the free play? a trap to entice or more like an over generous free experience? is this the payment for maintance costs seeing that free players are enjoying a service they are not paying for? or does the price of the initial game cover all their sum total experinee and the cartel market provides an alternative option for them to go beyond what the oriignal market pirce gave an d epxerience the stuff that the subscription fee pays for?? in which case the latter can't be exploitative nor unethical, but the former certianly so.

 

Then and therefore is it also unethical for them to charge you for items they place on a market they have created and totally control - unethical no, manipulative or potentially so, could be yes, exploitative perhaps too but is that based on the value of the items? it is kind, but value is entirely determined by the organisation, so it's not fair in the first place i think is Dawingole's point.

 

and if that's the case, then it is exploitative, and if it is then it makes indulging in any of that system unethical, and it is unethical to use/create such a system too and implement it. But, that is only the case if they are manipulating things like that, becuase the way they've done it, you can put things on the GTN and things are available, but Dawingole points out that means nothing when they hold all the cards and can arbitarily control it however they want - which must mean there is an ethical issue - doesn't it? His point doesn't factor in the intention of the market. The motive behind it and how it is managed and used. This directly affects and determines whether it is exploitative or not and cetainly would determine whether it is ethical or not either to play as a player or to provide as a company.

 

That's sorta what's going on in my head. now, not sure if any of it makes sense.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Macetheace

[Macetheace]

does this mean I've graduated to being finally accused of being employed by bioware?

 

weeeee

 

now where is my pay check and personal customer service response, instead of canned text accompanying my closed tickets that didn't have their issues solved and where text has nothing to do with actual problem described in a ticket?

 

oh, OP? I know a fabulous pattern for a tinfoil hat, if you'd like I could share with you

you were never accused, i've just wonder sometimes. As for the ticket, you'd have to probably create another ticket to ask them that question. apparently they read ALL of them

[Macetheace]

No, if you start a thread with a quote by someone else, you start the thread. What you're basically doing is saying : I've heard a friend say that Bioware does (horrible thing), can this be true?? And if it is, would you even play this game?

yep that's pretty much right, although tha'ts not how your first response came across, earlier.

...That's, in my opinion, just as bad as making the statement yourself. You've just tried to disguise it with quote that someone else did so you don't have to take the responibility for said quote, but it's still okay for you to slander. Which is what it is - slandering. Completely basesless statements followed by awful non sequiturs. It annoys me. That's why I respond. You'll also notice how quickly you point the 'employee!!!' finger my way. Can't I just honestly find your reasoning incredibly flawed and your post incredibly stupid?

and how can you say it's just as bad. I can see how you would if you honestly belived that it was a disguise, and that iw as hiding behind someone else, but what made you reach that conclusion? tha'ts awfully cyncial, and let me set the record straight I was not. As I pointed out later in the post , for those who thought this is what I was doing, and were responding to a perceived intent rather than the actual intent, i re-affirmed clearly what my position was, and I did so again earlier. Now you may not belive me, I have given you no cuase not to, and just because tha'ts how mdedia tends to work in this part of the world or the debate team does, doesn't mean this ist rue for everyone. It is not true for me, I was thought provoked by what Dawingole wrote, and wanted to see what everyone elses take was - a discussion i felt on the topic would help bring things more to focus perhaps things that his clever argument was not showing, it certainly wrarnted more discussion, nad id idnt' want to derail the other thread he made hte comment in by such a discussion so opened this one with it, and honestly gave the reason fro me raising the question in the first place.

 

I then have gone on to explain why I did it, and what i'm hoping to get from it. and you did the slandering, the veracity of my response to you was based on yours to me. you did come out as if attacking me. I perhaps over reacted, and apologise for that at least, I hope this helps.

[Macetheace]

Well... the question as it is posed is easy to answer by most. But, OP, if you are looking for a more thoughtful response here is mine.

Exactly

Basically, playing a game is not a moral imperative. And rarely, if ever, will it involve a moral imperative. What that means is that there is no huge moral decision to be made while playing. You do not kill anyone for real etc. etc.

 

What it boils down to is an individual ethical choice. And those, unlike moral imperatives are not black and white. They are not easy to discern. Those choices are based on your own individual experience and largely on what you believe is important.

 

So, is it ethically right to play this game if you believe that BW business practices are a detriment to a greater group? No. It really isn't. If you believe that, you shouldn't play the game. The opposite is true as well.

 

OP, I think you can't get a definitive answer on this because it is not a binary issue. Based on what I have seen and what I consider to be my own individual ethic. There is no ethical dilemma here. But that is my own personal view.

thank you for your thoughts on this. Some of my other responses atually have me address or consider whether it should be treated as such and reflect my stance on it. On the stand alone basis of what it is, yes, playing a video game has no moral imperative. however, how i do so, what time i spend on it, , my attachemnt to it all are. The motive behind it to, definitley make it a moral imperative. If i'm spending my time I should be studying or working or helping ohters, playing a video game instead, then there is a moral issue i have a responsibility to answer too for myself, so yes it does spill over based on how I use the product, to what means too, and my level of involvement. If i were using it to entrap my friends or a partner to stay clsoe to me, yes then there is morals invovled, if i were profiteering from it, gold selling, account selling etc, then yes there is a moral and legal line too crossed.

 

this is the case with anything you do, wrong doing has never been contained to just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law, Jesus Christ was the biggest advocate of this and to quote a wise man "Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."- Jacob [from James 4:17] our obligations extend beyond just the thing itself and everything we do, has a moral and ethical responsibility. Nothing wrong in having a knife, morally and legally wrong to use it to kill someone, not to cut up onions - but only if those onions were being used to feed your hungry self or family, and not to poison the animal or to torture a person for information.

 

So if i did believe bioware's business practices were detrimental and wrong, in the product of their's i was using, then I think I should stop using that product and not fund the wrong thing they're doing. IF i believed. now what this topic is about is exploring whether they actually are or they are not, some people have repsonded as if i have made or drawn the conclusion that they are, I haven't, although dawingole certainly appears that he has, at least wrt CM,

[Macetheace]

I would say that ethics plays a part in the SWTOR cartel market because buying cartel packs amounts to gambling. Some people become addicted to the "gambling" style of play and if you don't think this was purposeful on the part of EA/Bioware I'd say you're being delusional.

 

If everything on the Market was available for a fixed price then I wouldn't say ethics were involved or that Bioware/EA is trying to take advantage of some peoples weakness for profit.

 

interesitng, i never thought of it like that, but gambling is certainly an ethical concern, and like this is not one of the thigns you can side step by saying "well they choose to buy/pay their money on it, so ... " it's more than that isn't it. I'm not saying this was the original intention of BW all along, the person who came up with it may have thought it was a great idea and not considered the ramiffications or realize that the idea behind has been manipulated on him from extra scoietal effects whcih we now cover and accept as acceptable practices because we say "its business" ..just because a lot of business do certain things doens't mean they are right to do so and certainly doesn't mean it is ethical to either.

 

I never thought of the packs in that light, but that may just mean the packs, not the entire system, is this an over rection? can there be any such thing as an over reaction? it is either right or it is wrong, and we have the setting for this so we can make a determination, it is not based on perspective here.

 

Without wanting to start a debate about what technically is or isn't gambling, yes, the system is definitely designed to encourage people to buy more packs to get some item they want. But as long as people are not spending more than they can afford, and are getting enjoyment from opening the packs, I don't see anything unethical happening. If people start to feel like they are getting ripped off, they should stop buying the packs.

 

And I know that gambling addictions are a real thing. What I don't know is if any scientific study has actually been done to show that it applies to digital content packs as well.

 

you're right as well.. it becomes wrong because it is irresponsible if you are spending more than you can afford, but then think aboutthis yeah, even if you can afford it, should you be spending such a valuable resource in such a large amount? If you have it to spend, isn't it morally right to give it to a self less cause? seeing so many people around you need money, you could invest it to help start up business or even start a project of your own.

 

i thein ask myself am i doing the samething by folingout £8.99 as a part time worker/student that shouldn't be spent doing other things more useful and beneficial?

 

fofc the choice is mine, and i suppose what id o depends on what the strength of my committment to good is. it maybe that the peroson who can afford it does give lots to peole, does he? and in prorportion can spend this, his choice, he must determine what tod o, but whether he is right or wrong is based on his stiaution which God alone and himself knows. Is the company though exploiting him?

 

Let's call the ethics committee, this is why there is regulation it is to determine where and when a line has been crossed, and where the line is depends on the people you're catering too, if it is a bunch of addicts, then yes, a line is crossed certainly - think of it as alcohol and cigs, should the company stop making the alcohol and cigs? or should the person stop using the alcohol and cigs?

 

well i'm inclined to say the latter rather than the former, both have a responsibility - courts agree or they woudl not have ruled that Cigarrette companies and alcohol makes not state clearly how harmful this product can be, but the bulk of the repsonsibilty lies with the individual. Such is the nature of entertainemtn like any good thing.

 

So i woud conclude that Bioware are not ethically wrong to rpovide a service although if they notie a n addictive or harmful effect on their users they have a responsibility to do something about it, like waarn or acution, a person is morally and ethically obligated to make responsible decisions himself on usage. and if he is struggling and has issues, he must seek help.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Macetheace

[Macetheace]

I actually disagree with you here. In addition to the fact that gambling packs can exploit gambling addiction, or borderline tendencies towards the same, there's been a long history of analyzing whether MMOs in general are designed to exploit certain "triggers" for people with addictive tendencies.

 

The "gear treadmill" may simple be a tedious aspect of padding the game out for you and me, but for others it may psychologically trap people. There's a reason some countries impose specific internet blocks that prevent people from playing online games for extended periods of time.

 

This may not be anywhere near the severity of exploitation that comes into play with human trafficking or sweatshops, but I would say it's still a legitimate open question as to whether or not it is a genuine form of exploitation - even if it is a "first world problem" version of it.

 

(And before anyone says "it's just a self-control issue, those people need to grow the hell up and take responsibility!" I'm not taking a side on that debate here, I'm just saying it is a real debate worth recognizing.)

 

very well said Sir, very well said.

[bannsider]

Better question, why does this thread exist? its only a only game

[Darkwords]

Ethically no, morally...well you figure it out

[Macetheace]

Better question, why does this thread exist? its only a only game

 

because the question was importnat to me. I play this game and i like it, but the matter will directly affect whether i continue playing or not, at least on this basis, cos ethics are important.

 

although it's a video game, people are involved, and nothing concerning people, epseically something that people invest time and moeny in is ever just trivial, at all, both for the user and the producer, afterall libel suit could ruint his company cost its employees their jobs and their livelihood. Furthermore too, us playing or not playing also has an effect both on them and us, if the game is damaging to us, then it's a mass helth risk that is propagating unhealthy lifestyles and should stop. That would cost people that work here their livlihood but it would save you from a lot of harm, if you stop for the wrong reasons even though it's your choice it also affects them. You're not obligated to mind for them, they are providing a service you pay for, but stil i bing it up because it's never just a trivial matter.

 

as long as we (humans) are involved. Why do you think people get angry and voilent in game when people need on loot they don't need and deprive them, it's just a game, but it's real people behind those characters, and even if its over virtual stuff, no one likes cheats, hacks or people stealing or perceived as stealing what they've earned or unfairly taking what they've worked towards and thus get annoyed, even though it's just a game.

 

you interact and socialise wtih people how you respond what you say can affect their lives every bit as much as telling htem in schoo univestiy or the office or on the field/streets.

 

There are all those concerns. it's improtant not to exploit, but it is also important to know whether you are being or not, you don't want to accuse a company of exploitation if they are not. it is harmful to them and hurts/costs them business. You owe it to them and to yourself to find out, and notjust sweep it under the carpet becasue unethical and exploitative behaviour is dangerous, unhealthy and wrong, likewise branded as such when you are ot is also very damaging.

 

So issues lie these need be raised, debated, and people shoudl draw conclusions from it. Hopefully good and accurate ones.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Macetheace

[Alavastre]

Just have to point out...they named their cash shop the "Cartel Market".

 

I don't think they're hiding the fact that they are, in this sense of this game a complete monopoly on goods and services. Then again, they would be anyways.

 

Why do you think there are random drops? Just because?

No, the reason there are random drops is that they have scientific data that you'll repeat the same flashpoint over and over again trying to get your loot because it's a random drop.

 

Why are the packs random? Because they know you'll keep buying them just so you have the chance of getting what you want.

 

MMO's are created upon solid scientific findings to keep human beings playing the game as much as possible with the least amount of content.

[bannsider]

because the question was importnat to me. I play this game and i like it, .

 

sounds like you just answered your own thread'

[Grayseven]

It isn't a companies responsibility to cater to the various ethical beliefs that customers may have. It is ultimately and with certainty a personal choice.

 

I do not purchase goods or services from certain companies because I find certain practices of those companies to be irresponsible. Whether it be economical or social, their views and actions have clashed with my own beliefs.

 

If EA/BW clashes with your beliefs (regardless of form) then you and only you can make the decision to continue supporting the company or moving on.

 

As far as the CM is concerned, however, I have to point out that EA/BW does have certain limits in play to prevent "abuse" which prevents people from buying too many CC at once. One only need read the various posts about not being able to buy more CC to see this in effect. And as far as I'm concerned this isn't required of EA/BW but done as a safeguard for their customers, whether it is to curb addictive behavior or to prevent undue losses from possible credit card theft.

 

Companies exist to earn money (unless they are a non-profit, of course) and everything they do revolves around maintaining and increasing cash flow. For EA/BW it involves retaining current customers and enticing new customers in. While it is in a companies best interest to put in safeguards to ensure customer "safety" it is not their responsibility to hold the customers hand every step of the way.

 

If the business model of EA/BW bothers you, you should know it. Coming to the forums to ask the opinions of others on your own ethical dilemma will only get you answers based on THEIR ethics. If we could read minds we'd be too busy taking over the world to play a video game...

[Macetheace]

MMO's are created upon solid scientific findings to keep human beings playing the game as much as possible with the least amount of content.

 

that sounds awful.

 

what you reckon that $14.99 you pay does? and is it a fair price for what you get? what is a fair price? but do we agree an unfair price is wrong? if it's too high it's exploitative, if it's too low it's generous - but surely too low is good for us, or rather better. Their service, their price - if you play and pay you're agreeing this is not like state taxes, you don't need this service to live, lke the other guy pointed out.

 

 

a socilaist would say it is wrong and evil a captialist would say it is right and justifiable? what would Jesus say?

[Macetheace]

It isn't a companies responsibility to cater to the various ethical beliefs that customers may have. It is ultimately and with certainty a personal choice.

 

I do not purchase goods or services from certain companies because I find certain practices of those companies to be irresponsible. Whether it be economical or social, their views and actions have clashed with my own beliefs.

 

If EA/BW clashes with your beliefs (regardless of form) then you and only you can make the decision to continue supporting the company or moving on.

 

As far as the CM is concerned, however, I have to point out that EA/BW does have certain limits in play to prevent "abuse" which prevents people from buying too many CC at once. One only need read the various posts about not being able to buy more CC to see this in effect. And as far as I'm concerned this isn't required of EA/BW but done as a safeguard for their customers, whether it is to curb addictive behavior or to prevent undue losses from possible credit card theft.

 

Companies exist to earn money (unless they are a non-profit, of course) and everything they do revolves around maintaining and increasing cash flow. For EA/BW it involves retaining current customers and enticing new customers in. While it is in a companies best interest to put in safeguards to ensure customer "safety" it is not their responsibility to hold the customers hand every step of the way.

 

If the business model of EA/BW bothers you, you should know it. Coming to the forums to ask the opinions of others on your own ethical dilemma will only get you answers based on THEIR ethics. If we could read minds we'd be too busy taking over the world to play a video game...

i like that though, i want to know what their beliefs are, and what htey think, there is a right and a wrong, if i have determined what that is i am duty bound to fllow it, now others may not feel they are, and their ethical code determines whether they feel they shoudl follow what is right or no,t, but there is one and finding it is important to me though it may not be to others.

 

I didn't know bioware had a cap on how much you could spend on the cartel market.. obviously I haven't reached that yet. I do remember a guildie once compalinign that he couldn't buy more stuff, he had spent over $200 from the sound of it on cartel stuff, and he didn't seem to be getting a response from CMs, he stopped playing SwToR, and went back to wow, because of that he said. I don't get it though. maybe that really wasn't the reason and he was just using that as a jibe.

[Drox]

a socilaist would say it is wrong and evil a captialist would say it is right and justifiable? what would Jesus say?

 

If you're a troll, I applaud you sir. For making people write out well-thought out replies, only for this to be the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Granted, I think too many people took you seriously to begin with.

 

And no, I'm not a bioware "cultist" or an employee. So take off your tinfoil hat before accusing someone who disagrees with you as such. It makes you look like a crazy person (If you're not a troll of course lol).

Edited March 21, 2014 by Drox

[Alavastre]

that sounds awful.

 

what you reckon that $14.99 you pay does? and is it a fair price for what you get? what is a fair price? but do we agree an unfair price is wrong? if it's too high it's exploitative, if it's too low it's generous - but surely too low is good for us, or rather better. Their service, their price - if you play and pay you're agreeing this is not like state taxes, you don't need this service to live, lke the other guy pointed out.

 

 

a socilaist would say it is wrong and evil a captialist would say it is right and justifiable? what would Jesus say?

 

Totally sounds awful.

But it's the truth.

Doesn't make it wrong. I get my 15 dollar value from this game.

 

In the end, that's what counts. No matter what systems they employ, are you getting your monies worth? But that's not an ethical question.

[Malastare]

Wow. This thread has really gone off the deep end.

 

It stared out with the OP structuring his post as confirmation-bias bait. If someone supports him, he points out how intelligent they sound. If they criticize the basis of the question, he complains that its unfair to attack him because he didn't say anything, he just quoted it. This continued until he started proposing that anyone who insisted there wasn't an ethical problem was a paid representative of EA. And then closed the logical circle by saying that the fact that paid representatives are here disagreeing, that it means that there must be an ethical problem they are hiding.

 

But, of course, he never actually said that. He just suggested that either they were employees or fools. That's the only options he sees. Either you agree with him, you're a paid shill, or you're an idiot. Or not. He'll say he never stated that, just suggested it.

 

Now many comments have devolved into random strings of comments that don't necessarily make much sense together. Somehow, religion entered the topic, and most confusingly, it was used to justify the unreliability of an information source. Now, OP is stumbling around the idea that its unfair for a company to make a profit.

 

Let's try to be clear, here:

 

Who is being exploited? People playing a game? People who have chosen to play a game and pay for entertainment? Can you really call it exploitation when people actively choose to take part? What about when they actively support it? Is it exploitation just because one person can't figure out if some random religious figure would have liked it?

 

How are they being exploited? Because they are paying money for entertainment? MMOs have some of the lowest cost-per-hour in entertainment, even when you include micropayments. Are they being tricked into buying something they didn't want? How is this different from a lottery? Or going to a movie without reading all the reviews? Or any other game with microtransactions? Is it simply exploitation because they're not being given everything for free? It is exploitive for a company to make a product that people want to pay for?

 

Who is being hurt? Who is being unfair? Gamers buying stuff off the CM aren't hurt. They are paying for entertainment. That's what they came here for. One way or another EA is manipulating the rarity of items, and it almost certainly is being done to create rarity and drive the desire to get those rare items. That's not unfair because the rarity of items is actually desired by players. Again: Players want items to be difficult to obtain. Every MMO I've seen has set probability values on items to control item rarity. Do they serve to drive sales? Yes, and that is a required part of item rarity.

 

Finally: Complaining about gambling or how the game might feed a gambling or compulsive addiction is pretty pointless. The CM doesn't meet the legal definition of gambling in any jurisdiction I've heard of (and that is a long, boring debate that ends up drawing in loads of people who can't separate the idea of legally defined gambling and "it feels like gambling"). And it's silly to complain about compulsive addictions. It's not a game or a game studios responsibility to ensure that players do not have any psychological problems before using their games. At some point you need to take responsibility of your own life, and that includes avoiding video games if you have a compulsive addiction. Of course, you should also avoid collecting things. So, are we going to say that LEGO is exploitive because they keep on putting out new sets, forcing people with compulsive collecting addictions to pay money for each new set?

[BrintoSFJ]

I have no problem with CM prices, not at all. i don't like gambling packs at all, that is why i will never buy them but if someone wants to then that doesn't bother me and that should not bother me no matter how dishonest this gambling pack business seems to me. And also Bioware is not the 1st publisher/developer group to manipulate their own game's economy and frankly i don't see anything wrong with it, it is better than the gold seller controlling economy like other f2p mmorpg out in market.

But if you want to talk about ethics in playing swtor then there are some f2p restrictions that really bother me, i mentioned them in other threads too :

1. paying for quickbar

2. paying to accept quest items

3. paying for hide/show helmet option

3. paying for show/hide title and/or legacy name option

 

These are the things that ethically bothers me, these are simple UI options which are standard in mmorpg, even browser based mmorpg these days come out with 6-10 quickbar; a lot of achievement title and not to mention lots of head slot items and they never monetize these simple UI options. monetizing these options is just plain nasty.

[Eldrenath]

A fool and his money are soon parted. The sort of person that would drop hundreds of dollars on packs to get the stuff he wanted is almost certain to fall into one of two categories. 1) They have the disposable income to spare and are choosing to spend it on the cartel market. What's the harm here? Its their money and their choice on how they want to spend it to entertain themselves.

 

2) The person doesn't have the income to spare and spends it on SWTOR anyway. The sort of person that makes a decision this poor is quite likely to make similar poor decisions in other aspects of life. That is to say, if they weren't spending money they couldn't afford in SWTOR then they'd likely be doing it elsewhere.

 

There's nothing unethical about the CM. I almost never use it. I use my monthly sub coins, and have only VERY occasionally bought cartel coins. Why? Because no one makes me buy them. With my sub I get ALL the content: ops, FPs, classes, races, WZs, etc etc. The only things I can get from the CM are items to play Star Wars Barbie Dress-Up Dolls. Sure, sometimes I use my cartel coins to buy cosmetic items or packs, but it isn't make or break. If I REALLY needed my character to look a certain way I could spend the money, but I don't really need that. I never get ripped off in the CM because whether or not I spend money in the CM is 100% entirely my choice.

[Macetheace]

Wow. This thread has really gone off the deep end.

 

It stared out with the OP structuring his post as confirmation-bias bait. If someone supports him, he points out how intelligent they sound. If they criticize the basis of the question, he complains that its unfair to attack him because he didn't say anything, he just quoted it. This continued until he started proposing that anyone who insisted there wasn't an ethical problem was a paid representative of EA. And then closed the logical circle by saying that the fact that paid representatives are here disagreeing, that it means that there must be an ethical problem they are hiding.

 

But, of course, he never actually said that. He just suggested that either they were employees or fools. That's the only options he sees. Either you agree with him, you're a paid shill, or you're an idiot. Or not. He'll say he never stated that, just suggested it.

 

Now many comments have devolved into random strings of comments that don't necessarily make much sense together. Somehow, religion entered the topic, and most confusingly, it was used to justify the unreliability of an information source. Now, OP is stumbling around the idea that its unfair for a company to make a profit.

 

Let's try to be clear, here:

 

Who is being exploited? People playing a game? People who have chosen to play a game and pay for entertainment? Can you really call it exploitation when people actively choose to take part? What about when they actively support it? Is it exploitation just because one person can't figure out if some random religious figure would have liked it?

 

How are they being exploited? Because they are paying money for entertainment? MMOs have some of the lowest cost-per-hour in entertainment, even when you include micropayments. Are they being tricked into buying something they didn't want? How is this different from a lottery? Or going to a movie without reading all the reviews? Or any other game with microtransactions? Is it simply exploitation because they're not being given everything for free? It is exploitive for a company to make a product that people want to pay for?

 

Who is being hurt? Who is being unfair? Gamers buying stuff off the CM aren't hurt. They are paying for entertainment. That's what they came here for. One way or another EA is manipulating the rarity of items, and it almost certainly is being done to create rarity and drive the desire to get those rare items. That's not unfair because the rarity of items is actually desired by players. Again: Players want items to be difficult to obtain. Every MMO I've seen has set probability values on items to control item rarity. Do they serve to drive sales? Yes, and that is a required part of item rarity.

 

Finally: Complaining about gambling or how the game might feed a gambling or compulsive addiction is pretty pointless. The CM doesn't meet the legal definition of gambling in any jurisdiction I've heard of (and that is a long, boring debate that ends up drawing in loads of people who can't separate the idea of legally defined gambling and "it feels like gambling"). And it's silly to complain about compulsive addictions. It's not a game or a game studios responsibility to ensure that players do not have any psychological problems before using their games. At some point you need to take responsibility of your own life, and that includes avoiding video games if you have a compulsive addiction. Of course, you should also avoid collecting things. So, are we going to say that LEGO is exploitive because they keep on putting out new sets, forcing people with compulsive collecting addictions to pay money for each new set?

a very well explained answer, thank you, although your conclusions about me are off kilter, i really am just a guy who wanted to explore the topic and get an answer to help me make up my mind through discussions on the issue, which on the whole has served its purpose. not trying to bias bait, not intentionally anyway, and my earlier responses reflected my annoyance over people giving me a prognosis based on a perceived intent rather than my actual intent which i clearly stated and reminded them of. I got irritated by it because it was not focusing on the good arguments that later came.

 

The majority of my comments were responses to what people said, and later those became about the topic at hand following the natural course i had hoped the discussion would take - discussing the matter at hand, which you have also done thank you, albeit after giving your take on me. And I responded to people's comments not character assessment, if they said something foolish, i told them that, i didn't mean they were foolish, but what they said when i pointed that out, and not everyone was like that. I wondered if some were actually bw employees in disguise, and i set the context of this at the time I brought that up. It was not an accusation of any one person, but airing out a suscpision that was relevant to the context it was giving. I have wondered, and i said why, I can't tell whether it is or not, so saying that i am defintiively stating people are bw when they don't agree with me is mis-representing me. And the context of that was given in two long posts which was a digression off the main topic a little but you can follow the trail.

 

I think my responses clearly show, unlike someothers', that i am willing and very much want a discussion, part of airing views is that someone may agree or disagree, it's healthy to a discussion to explain why you disagree or where you differ from another persons point of view and why. it's important to me because I value what people think and feel and recoganise they may have knowledge and insight that I do not have and that would instructive and useful to me and to others persuing too.

 

I'm not trying to win arguments, maybe tha'ts how you handle discussions, but that is what i was trying to avoid, a fight mind set, as it really obscures things and people start responding to insults rather than to the topic, so i thought i got roped into dealing with that.

 

Exploring this and getting to the bottom of this was the goal, maybe there is no bottom, but let's explore to find out, and i'm actually quite happy with discussion and the tone of it now, and found your response to the topic (not me) logical and well laid out.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Macetheace

[Starglitter]

Mmm...

 

Ethics, quite a topic to itself, the worse part about ethics is that is it is subjective, what one culture consider proper another would consider it an outrage.

 

So lets take a look at your concerns over the Galactic Trade Market and Bioware's ability to manipulate said market to generate income for the company.

 

A concern to me as a player, is the concept of availability. That is the availability the game will be there for me to play tomorrow, next week, even next year. Now in order for the game to be "there" it would require the company to acquire sufficient revenue to pay for the expense to run the game, improve the game, and of course produce a profit to make the whole effort worthwhile to the stock owners of the company.

 

Given that we can agree, Bioware must make sufficient revenues to be able to provide this service and make sufficient profit to be disposed to provide said service, then the next consideration is how Bioware goes about acquiring such a revenue.

 

When I look at Bioware's current approach to revenue, I can only discern two ways of pursuit: 1) Subscription, 2) Bioware Store.

 

When I look at the subscription rate for SWTOR, I find it to be among the highest in the market, thus they are not price competitive. When I look at the breadth and depth of the offered product, they are also found wanting when compared to similar thematic competitors such as The Lord of The Rings. But the overall game execution is acceptable and their pricing is only modestly higher than their significant competitors.

 

My perception, which could be in error, is that SWTOR does not have sufficient subscribers to meet the revenue requirements for Bioware to afford to provide the service, much less find it worthwhile to provide the service.

 

So this alone, tells me that a second form of revenue is needed, thus the Cartel Market (company store) comes into play.

 

When I look at the Cartel Market, it has be definition to provide the revenues that subscribers alone can not meet. Failure to do so, would most likely result in the game not being offered for us to play anymore.

 

So after this lengthy 'setting of the table" we can address the ethics of the Cartel Market, and use a little bit of deductive logics. If the products provided by the Cartel Market are not appealing to have players participate in purchases in a repetitive manner, then Bioware would as expected discontinue providing the service. So it becomes obvious for us to be able to enjoy the game in the future with some degree of confidence, is that Bioware must make the Cartel Markket appealing.

 

Appeal once more is in the eye of the beholder, but it also can be manipulated through the capitalistic approach of supply and demand. That is Bioware chooses what to make rare or not, this way they have a means to regulate the potential amount of revenues through the Cartel market to meet the revenue requirements of the company discussed above. So far, from my vantage point, in theory this far, nothing unethical has occurred.

 

The potential ethical issue, as I see it, with the company store or Cartel Market is the nature of that what is being sold. If the items being sold are game changers, in other words: "Pay to win" we may have a moral issue, not an ethical issue, because anyone could buy the "I win" item thus fairness to an extent is alllowed for. When I look at what the cartel market does provide, I see no "I win" items, they are usually cosmetic in nature or quality of life type of items, which if they were to make freely available to acquire in the game, it would result as a failure for Bioware to gain the needed revenue to be able to provide the game and be willing to continue providing it.

 

I would think, that SWTOR is just fine, and would counter with another question:

 

"Is it ethical to play SWTOR and do not contribute in any real economic manner for payment of the expenses Bioware experiences, nor allow for them to pull a profit?"

 

Sue

[ItachiZaku]

I hated spending 2 mill credits on a white +41 level 10 hawkeye crystal, when only one toon was RPing to have white, but I did it anyways. At least with that, I can legacy it out for some CC and all my toons can at least use a +41 power crystal after leaving starter planet. On the flip side, spending 400K credits for black/black dye that is one use only... that was hella steep and wish was a collection item to justify that insane cost. Again, I did it. Why? I simply wanted to. No one was twisting my arm.

 

I think it is ethnically wrong to not play SWTOR.

[PhantomSheep]

I'm not sure what the point is of the quoted part in the OP.

 

Bioware determines the GTN value of an item? Well obviously. Rare things are more valuable. But why frame that as a conspiracy? "Oh, Bioware lines its pockets by keeping desirable items rare, which inflates the GTN, so people have to use the Cartel Market." You could just say "Bioware offers rare items through the Cartel Market, so people have to use the Cartel Market."

 

GTN inflation doesn't help Bioware get your money. In fact, if Bioware wanted to screw you for your cash through the GTN, they'd prevent Cartel Market items from being trade-able. That way you'd have to try to get everything you wanted through the Cartel Market yourself, instead of having the option to use in-game credits.

 

But if your point, OP, is just that Bioware intentionally makes some items rare so the population has to buy more packs to try and get them, then yes, obviously. I hope you're not just figuring that out.

[AlrikFassbauer]

On Gamasutra there has already been an article on the ethics of in-game "gambling" : http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php

 

Another highly interesting article : http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/213636/Nobody_wants_your_****_and_other_highlights_from_the_Rant_Apocalypse.php

Edited March 21, 2014 by AlrikFassbauer