Guaranteed special mount in 24 pack

[Heat-Wave]

Morally right? Really that your arguement? It isnt morally right? ITS. A GAME. Not some massive corruption of society.

 

When it involves getting people to spend real money on it, it moves beyond "just a game" and into real life...

[Ratajack]

When it involves getting people to spend real money on it, it moves beyond "just a game" and into real life...

 

I guess it's a good thing t hat no one is forced to spend any money to play this game, then. If someone spends money to play this game, it is by THEIR CHOICE.

[Orizuru]

No, you're mistaken... You haven't read the thread, or if you had, you aren't reading it closely enough...

 

I'm taking a moral stance against the system as it stands. You (and others) keep thinking that this has anything to do with me.

 

It doesn't. I already have both the Rancor and the Walker, my toons in the game are wealthy, so I can buy anything I want off the GTN.

 

That doesn't make the system morally right.

 

Your moral objection doesn't make the system wrong for anyone other than you. In fact, your moral objection just makes you look like a hypocrite in my opinion because you are posting on forums that require a subscription to a product you claim to find morally objectionable.

 

If the system is as morally corrupt as you claim, then speak with the only voice BioWare listens to and cancel your sub and stop feeding a product you find morally objectionable.

 

You're like the guy who went through the drive-thru at Chick-Fil-A and made the viral video of him ranting and raving with the girl working the window because of the CEO's politics.

 

There are a lot of people who enjoy buying and opening or buying and selling the CM Packs. It's been a successful business model for BioWare and a successful source of entertainment for many of their customers. If you choose to find the system morally objectionable, then by all means do not use it, but please stop trying to shove your foolish morality down the throats of people who disagree.

 

 

To be perfectly honest though, I find this whole moral objection argument to be less than sincere. We're all billionaires on the internet.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Orizuru

[Dasem]

^ And everyone's girlfriend is super hot and has a ripped body. Don't forget that part.

[Heat-Wave]

I guess it's a good thing t hat no one is forced to spend any money to play this game, then. If someone spends money to play this game, it is by THEIR CHOICE.

 

Question...

 

Do the people scammed by those Nigerian email scams bother you? Do you think it is 100% the victims fault, or do the scammers share any blame?

 

What about payday lenders who keep people forever in 25% debt that rolls over every 30 days that they can never get out of?

 

Does EA have any responsibility to socity to consider the welfare of its customers? Or is money and profit the only concern, everyone else be dammed?

[Heat-Wave]

Your moral objection doesn't make the system wrong for anyone other than you. In fact, your moral objection just makes you look like a hypocrite in my opinion because you are posting on forums that require a subscription to a product you claim to find morally objectionable.

 

If the system is as morally corrupt as you claim, then speak with the only voice BioWare listens to and cancel your sub and stop feeding a product you find morally objectionable. politics.

 

I find many things in life morally objectionable, I can't do anything about most of them, other than to share my viewpoint.

 

I would suggest that subbing and posting here about it may have more effect than walking away and washing my hands of it.

 

It is also possible that neither action will have any effect.

 

I believe that in return for the right to form a company and make profits, a company should also consider the socity in which it exists. Every man and woman for themselves is a rather hollow and shallow socity.

 

If that is what we have become, then I think that is very sad. I look at my kids and understand that money isn't everything, the world that I help build for them for their future, does matter.

[Calsetes]

Question...

 

Do the people scammed by those Nigerian email scams bother you? Do you think it is 100% the victims fault, or do the scammers share any blame?

 

What about payday lenders who keep people forever in 25% debt that rolls over every 30 days that they can never get out of?

 

Does EA have any responsibility to socity to consider the welfare of its customers? Or is money and profit the only concern, everyone else be dammed?

 

The difference between buying Hypercrates / Cartel Packs and your example of a Nigerian scammer is as follows:

 

-You pay money to a Nigerian scam artist. You see nothing as an end result. You have given something and received nothing in return.

 

-You pay money for a hypercrate on the game. You are guaranteed 24 Cartel Packs, which each have... what, like 5 regular items, 2 rare items, a higher chance of a super-rare item, a boost item, and a companion gift or crafting material? You are guaranteed "stuff." It may not be the stuff you want, but it's randomized - your total results all said and done will be at least 24 boost items, 120 items, at least 48 rare items, and at least 24 companion gifts or crafting materials. You may not get that Rancor you really want, but you may get those Satele Shan's Boots that someone else really wanted. Likewise, someone else might get the rancor but not care about it, and might be dying for the boots you got.

 

One person is taking your money and giving you nothing. The other is giving you random (random) items for that money with a guaranteed total number of items that fit certain criteria.

[Heat-Wave]

Good job replying to the part you like and ignore the remaining 2/3 of what I posted.

[Calsetes]

Good job replying to the part you like and ignore the remaining 2/3 of what I posted.

 

Alright, I'll respond to the other 2/3rds, then.

 

EA has lent you no money. You do not owe EA any money, nor does EA owe you any money. Your "money lender" aspect makes no sense.

 

Does EA have a responsibility to consider the welfare of their customers? No, they don't. If I have $50 to spend this week, and I can buy either food or games, and I choose to spend it on games, does that mean the game company has a responsibility to make sure I spent my money on food and not their products? The responsibility on how to spend that money lies entirely with the individual spending the money. EA is a business, they do what any other business does in its shoes - maximize profits. Steps to maximizing those profits cover customer service and reception, but those are only pieces of the puzzle. EA is not a nonprofit. They are not here to make sure you spend your money well - they are here to make sure if you have $5 you want to give them, you have options to give them your $5. Period.

 

If you want someone to care about the responsibilities of customers who might spend their money foolishly if given the chance, I highly encourage you to be an advocate of a representative payee organization - these places, for a fee, will handle your money for you and ensure you have enough for food, bills, utilities, rent, and whatever's left over, you get access to as needed.

[azudelphi]

I find many things in life morally objectionable, I can't do anything about most of them, other than to share my viewpoint.

 

I would suggest that subbing and posting here about it may have more effect than walking away and washing my hands of it.

 

It is also possible that neither action will have any effect.

 

I believe that in return for the right to form a company and make profits, a company should also consider the socity in which it exists. Every man and woman for themselves is a rather hollow and shallow socity.

 

If that is what we have become, then I think that is very sad. I look at my kids and understand that money isn't everything, the world that I help build for them for their future, does matter.

 

EA is strictly in the entertainment industry.

 

As long as what they give you is exactly what they say they are going to give you, then they have done nothing morally wrong.

 

If the pack says, "Gives 2 Rare Items, 1 Reputation Item, 1 Boost" and you get 2 items in the rare database, 1 reputation token, and 1 boost item... they've fulfilled their end of the bargain. If you only got 4 items, then you need to do a screenshot and report it as a bug / glitch.

Edited August 27, 2014 by azudelphi

[Ratajack]

Question...

 

Do the people scammed by those Nigerian email scams bother you? Do you think it is 100% the victims fault, or do the scammers share any blame?

 

What about payday lenders who keep people forever in 25% debt that rolls over every 30 days that they can never get out of?

 

Does EA have any responsibility to socity to consider the welfare of its customers? Or is money and profit the only concern, everyone else be dammed?

 

Do the Nigerian scammers deliver what they "advertised" or "promised"? If not, then that analogy is not a valid one, as BW DOES deliver exactly what is advertised. Any assumptions made by those who purchase the CM packs are only assumptions.

 

Do those who utilize payday lenders get exactly what they are told they will get and what the terms to which they are agreeing are? If yes, then the blame does not fall on the payday lenders, IMO.

 

Are credit card companies to blame for people running up debt so high they will never be able to get out with minimum payments? In my opinion, they are not.

 

It seems to me that most people want to blame someone else for their "mistakes" or poor judgement, rather than accept responsibility for their own actions.

 

I think it is possible that your "morality compass" could use some adjustment.

[Isaacone]

What point is even trying to be proved here anymore? You can argue it many different ways but the thing stands that the packs description in the cartel market says whats in each pack. States a chance at a super rare. They don't state the odds of getting the super rare items but lets assume the chance is 1/100. That doesn't mean buy 100 packs and you're guaranteed a win. You would have to open the same single pack 100 different times and one of those times you'll get a rancor but putting that aside and back to whatever the hell we're arguing anymore. When you have a subscription you get 500 with a bonus depending on how big of a sub you pay for. For me I have the 180 day one so I get a 100 extra credit bonus giving me 600 cartel coins to buy whatever my heart desires. And you have the option to buy coins as well. So the op decided to exchange his 50 american dollars for the in game currency called cartel coins. With those he decided to buy a super deluxe mega crate holding 24 small packs with random goodies. They don't say whats in them they just say what can be in them. So by paying for the cartel coins and in turn buying the super deluxe mega pack of packs you re guaranteed to get 24 packs of random goodies. You get what you pay for. A mega pack holding 24 smaller packs. The same goes for the aquisition packs. The grand one when its being sold contains some items and a full armor set. It doesnt say which armor set all it says is an armor set. Some people got the revan one whiles others like myself lucked out and got republic hutball pads. Sure I can complain all I want about how unfair it is that someone got the full revan set and I got a pos set but I got what I paid for. A pack containing some boosts and other goodies and a full armor set. The weapon pack and pet pack and dye pack and crystal pack and mount pack all guarantee one item in them of what the pack is. The weapon pack does not say you will get a cathar honor sword. All it says is a weapon. So you have the chance of a cathar honor sword or a sniper rifle. Now I will can buy 1000 of those packs and all of them can drop a cathar honor sword or they can drop every weapon but an honor sword. Of course they wont drop a gree sniper because that is only available from the gree vender for gree helix components. And the op can be upset that he didnt get a rancor mount but its noones fault. he got what he paid for. He first exchanged the currency he had which could be american dollars, british pounds, euros, yen, pesos, francs or whatever other currency he could have used for cartel coins which is the currency accepted by the cartel market. On the cartel market he used the cartel coins to buy goods called a hypercrate containing 24 nightlife packs. And he was promised 24 packs. He got what he paid for. There is nothing morally wrong with it. He can complain to bioware all he wants but nothing will come out of it because he wasnt guaranteed what he wanted. end of story

Sure they can give a bonus item for buying a hypercrate such as a minipet or a xp boost as an incentive for buying a hypercrate but in the current ones its not something thats done.

[Shevaresh]

Actually I think Heatwave has a point, when he/she tries to argue that there's also a moral aspect to Bioware current business model for the Cartel Market.

 

Think of it this way: In various Casinos and other gambling enterprises such as matchmaking companies offering odds on various sporting events, there is transparency in which odds we're offered when we choose to gamble our money in hope of a return profit. We know the odds of winning, or will at the very least have the assurance that the odds of winning is regulated by state-law in terms of slot-machines and the like. Even if the proverb "the house always wins in the end" is absolutely true, we can go into a casino/matchmaker/lottery and gamble knowing that the games aren't "rigged" and we're offered a fair chance to actually win, so we can make an informed conscious decision of whether or not we want to risk it(for the legal companies atleast)

 

In the Cartel market we're subjected to the exact same mechanism. Here, however, there's neither transparency nor any third-party regulation of "drop-chances" of the items in various packs. We don't know the odds of winning, nor have any way to be sure that the odds of winning are "worth it" as a conscious choice prior to buying. We instead have to rely solely on a belief that Bioware offers a "fair" chance for us to get the more rare items in said packs. And while I firmly believe that Bioware wants to act in the interest of their consumers and offer fair odds, this will be solely down to a belief, as I have no way or chance of verifying that the proces is not "rigged".

 

Enter the moral aspect of Biowares business model. Bioware can easily and without the consumers knowledge "rig" the drop chances in packs, falsely inflating content value of unique items and such, and we, as consumers, are entirely reliant on them displaying a fair game towards their consumers. And while I personally believe that Bioware would want to remain a "consumer-friendly" cooperation, one cannot deny that the gaming industry(as a whole) as been displaying some "morally-borderlining" behavior over the last couple of years (with increasing DLC-content, exclusivity deals and so on) that would make taking such desire for being "consumer-friendly" at face-value seem like a rather naivé disposition.

 

So my suggestion would be as simple as this: Bioware should post a list of the exact dropchance of each item in the various packs, so that we as consumers have a fair chance of deciding whether or not we think the gamble is worth it. Instead of hiding the RNG behind ambigeous terminology such as "rare" and "super-rare", the consumer will actually have a honest chance of deciding if they want to spend their money on the product you offer. And you'll negate any suspicion of the proces being "rigged" to provide a false "content-value" inflation, by simply gating the content behind overly slim chances of acquiring desireable items in the pack, as well as actually provide a bit of "good-will" back to the gaming industry as a "morally-stoic" industry rather than just a greedy industry trying to exploit gamers.

[Turajin]

So my suggestion would be as simple as this: Bioware should post a list of the exact dropchance of each item in the various packs, so that we as consumers have a fair chance of deciding whether or not we think the gamble is worth it.

I guess it wouldn't change much - there would still be the same people complaining, because they don't understand mathematics. Let's assume there is a very, very user friendly 1 in 24 chance that there will be a rancor in a pack (I'm sure the odds are far worse, but it's just an example). I bet most people would assume something like "If I by a hypercrate (24 packs) i'll get that rancor for sure" - which is pretty wrong. With these numbers, there's is a 36% Chance you'll get no rancor. So 1 out of 3 People would still complain "Hey, I bought a hypercrate and there was no rancor inside, you suck" (while, in reality, it's them that suck - at math). It like those people in Vegas that bet on red on roulette, loose, and again bet on red and then are confused that tehy loose again. They then complain "it didn't come last time, so it had to come this time - unfair it didn't, something must be wrong!". Yeah, there is something wrong - their understanding of the concepts of math.

 

So, I'm quite sure that when BW would state the exact chances, things would get even worse, not better.

[Shevaresh]

I guess it wouldn't change much - there would still be the same people complaining, because they don't understand mathematics. Let's assume there is a very, very user friendly 1 in 24 chance that there will be a rancor in a pack (I'm sure the odds are far worse, but it's just an example). I bet most people would assume something like "If I by a hypercrate (24 packs) i'll get that rancor for sure" - which is pretty wrong. With these numbers, there's is a 36% Chance you'll get no rancor. So 1 out of 3 People would still complain "Hey, I bought a hypercrate and there was no rancor inside, you suck" (while, in reality, it's them that suck - at math). It like those people in Vegas that bet on red on roulette, loose, and again bet on red and then are confused that tehy loose again. They then complain "it didn't come last time, so it had to come this time - unfair it didn't, something must be wrong!". Yeah, there is something wrong - their understanding of the concepts of math.

 

So, I'm quite sure that when BW would state the exact chances, things would get even worse, not better.

 

Nothing would ever change people complaining about various things. As a CS(from WoW I believe) put it: "You could give people a magical hat that allowed them to play the game exactly the way they want to, and stil they'd complain about the colour of the hat".

 

But it doesn't change the fact there is much more at stake here, than simply people "not understanding math", as the "go-to" explanation seems to be for people on these forums. RNG isn't just a neutral mechanic based on some objective mathmatical basis, it is something that has a huge potential for exploitation by manipulations of the consumer, especially when the consumer is left with nothing other than faith in a companys business ethics as a mean of ascertaining the basic product purchased.

 

The whole issue which I'm trying to point out, is that we don't even have a chance of making a conscious, empirically-driven descision even if we have a doctorate in statiscal-mathmatics, as the chances are obscured by the lack of any transparency in the actual product. We can't discern whether buying cartel packs for 50 dollars will yield us any worthwhile chance of getting the desired products, leaving us simply to trust that Bioware is offering us a fair chance, rather than actually being able to make an informed decision ourselves.

 

So the whole "understand math" argument, which seems to be the "go-to" argument for allot of people when any debate of the fairness of this model is presented, is really rather misleading. Bioware has with the Cartel packs created a business model that leaves wide room for outright exploitation of the consumers, most of which could be negated by something as simple as creating transparency of the actual odds. That way we can all simply decide for ourselves if the odds are reasonable enough, aswell as see it clearly when Bioware decides to alter the odds of various items. In the current model we have nothing but faith in Bioware and ambigous terms to base our decision on, and no way of ascertaining whether or not they're actually delivering the product on fair grounds.

[Turajin]

Bioware has with the Cartel packs created a business model that leaves wide room for outright exploitation of the consumers, most of which could be negated by something as simple as creating transparency of the actual odds.

OK, you indirectly imply that BW exploits the custumer... so, when you assume that, how can you be sure that if they state "the odds to gex item X are 1 to 100", the odds aren't in reality 1 to 500?

 

Either you assume BW is doing a fair game, then it doesn't really matter wether they state the exact odds or not, or you assume they are treacherous bigots - in wich case they could write anything, and wether it's the truth or not, nobody will know. And noone can proove anything. No matter what the odds are, no matter how many packs or hypercrates someone buys, the chances to get Item X will never reach 100%, so it's always possible to say "well, you just had bad luck". Not getting the one item you want out of 1000 hypercrates will still be no proof that there is something manipulated. It can still be bad luck.

[Heat-Wave]

I guess it wouldn't change much - there would still be the same people complaining, because they don't understand mathematics. Let's assume there is a very, very user friendly 1 in 24 chance that there will be a rancor in a pack (I'm sure the odds are far worse, but it's just an example). I bet most people would assume something like "If I by a hypercrate (24 packs) i'll get that rancor for sure" - which is pretty wrong. With these numbers, there's is a 36% Chance you'll get no rancor. So 1 out of 3 People would still complain "Hey, I bought a hypercrate and there was no rancor inside, you suck" (while, in reality, it's them that suck - at math). It like those people in Vegas that bet on red on roulette, loose, and again bet on red and then are confused that tehy loose again. They then complain "it didn't come last time, so it had to come this time - unfair it didn't, something must be wrong!". Yeah, there is something wrong - their understanding of the concepts of math.

 

So, I'm quite sure that when BW would state the exact chances, things would get even worse, not better.

 

Actually, that could be helped by posting the odds for a single pack, and posting them again for 24 packs, with a short explanation as to why they don't add up.

 

It would be a good chance to provide knowledge to people, which is good for socity.

 

If Bioware posted the actual odds, it would soften my complaint about the system (life isn't black and white).

[azudelphi]

Actually, that could be helped by posting the odds for a single pack, and posting them again for 24 packs, with a short explanation as to why they don't add up.

 

The odds of a single pack are the same as the odds for 24 packs on a per pack basis...

 

Just going to put this here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Edited August 28, 2014 by azudelphi

[Shevaresh]

OK, you indirectly imply that BW exploits the custumer... so, when you assume that, how can you be sure that if they state "the odds to gex item X are 1 to 100", the odds aren't in reality 1 to 500?

 

Either you assume BW is doing a fair game, then it doesn't really matter wether they state the exact odds or not, or you assume they are treacherous bigots - in wich case they could write anything, and wether it's the truth or not, nobody will know. And noone can proove anything. No matter what the odds are, no matter how many packs or hypercrates someone buys, the chances to get Item X will never reach 100%, so it's always possible to say "well, you just had bad luck". Not getting the one item you want out of 1000 hypercrates will still be no proof that there is something manipulated. It can still be bad luck.

 

I imply nothing of this sort, so stop putting words in my mouth. There is a whole lot of grey between "not exploiting" and being "treacherous bigots" as you claim me to assume, so please stop trying to debunk my argument with such blatant strawman fallacies

 

I do state however that the moral aspects of their current business model is something that we should be discussing, as it leaves plenty of room for Bioware to exploit us by neither exposing the actual odds or give us the garantee of having proces subjected to third party review. Just like the various other industries offering up "chance-based" gambling is subjected to, by law, in the exact effort to prevent the consumer unknowingly being exploited. An exploitation that by no means needs to involve Bioware actually lying to us at any point in the proces, but can be done by simply offering unreasonable terms of sale by obscuring the actual saleproces and basic product we're buying. Such as offering chance-based packs without providing the actual odds for the content, but instead obscuring it behind ambigous terminology.

 

In the current model Bioware is left to freely turn the odds of any item appearing in packs up or down, as they please, without us as consumers being able to factor in such changes, or even the base chance, in our conscious decision of whether or not the purchase is worth it. By making these odds apperant, the consumer will have a chance to make a honest decision rather than simply "go by faith". As for Bioware also upholding these odds: Of course they will. They're a big name in the gaming industry with a global audience. Any attempt to post false odds would quickly be discerned and the backlash of doing so would bury the company in short order

[Heat-Wave]

The odds of a single pack are the same as the odds for 24 packs on a per pack basis...

 

Just going to put this here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

 

Yes, that is true, but people think the odds add up in a linear fashion, and they don't.

 

Ten attempts at something with a ten percent chance doesn't guarantee victory, but many people don't know that.

 

This would be a chance at some education.

 

The odds of winning in a single pack might be 1/24, but the odds of opening 24 packs is not 24/24.

[Heat-Wave]

I imply nothing of this sort, so stop putting words in my mouth. There is a whole lot of grey between "not exploiting" and being "treacherous bigots" as you claim me to assume, so please stop trying to debunk my argument with such blatant strawman fallacies

 

In the current model Bioware is left to freely turn the odds of any item appearing in packs up or down, as they please, without us as consumers being able to factor in such changes, or even the base chance, in our conscious decision of whether or not the purchase is worth it. By making these odds apperant, the consumer will have a chance to make a honest decision rather than simply "go by faith". As for Bioware also upholding these odds: Of course they will. They're a big name in the gaming industry with a global audience. Any attempt to post false odds would quickly be discerned and the backlash of doing so would bury the company in short order

 

This... Life is not black or white... But limitless shades of gray.

 

Also, under the current system, Bioware may well adjust the odds up or down from time or time, or even at different hours of the day.

 

What stops them from having the Rancor more common at 7pm and less common at 7am? What if the odds are different from person to person? Perhaps the RNG is set higher for newer players and those who don't open many packs, or set lower for someone who opens more than 24 of any given pack?

[MWidowmaker]

You gambled and lost. Never expect or assume anything when it comes to _RANDOM GENERATED CONTENT_ in a pack. It's absolutely inconceivable to me that so many of you believe you are entitled to anything from the packs just because you buy a hypercrate. The content is RANDOM. Once you purchase it, you've thrown the dice.

 

You lost. Deal with it.

 

this. should be tattoooed on every whiners forehead