Nico Okarr's Coat - What a disappointment

[Blackbird]

But you did not go into the restaurant and buy a restroom pass. That is the point. What services, offers, and promotions they offer in addition to what is guaranteed in the subscription comes out of their pocket. That money being repurposed after I send it to them is immaterial.

 

Just like you didn't purchase a dev to come answer your questions.

 

The underlined shows a complete lack of understanding of both business and economics. Nothing ever "comes out of [a business's] pocket", their customers always pay for it.

[KyaniteD]

This whole paid or not paid dispute is so utterly futile and beside the point.

 

It's a reward. You don't pay for rewards, but you don't get them for nothing, either.

.

• A reward is given in return for something done or achieved.
  
• People feel that this reward doesn't properly reflect the impact/importance of the action that is being rewarded, because
  
• it's advertised as unique/special but it can be recreated in the game without that action or its reward.

.

[Max_Killjoy]

If I buy a CD (ancient flat and round holocron) off you for 5$, and you give me two instead of one, I did not pay for the second one. It came out of your pocket.

 

You can insult the people who understand this all you want, it doesn't make you right.

 

How much money did you spend? $5

 

How many CDs did you receive? Two

 

How many CDs would you have received if you had spent nothing? Zero.

 

The second CD was not free.

 

 

But you did not go into the restaurant and buy a restroom pass. That is the point. What services, offers, and promotions they offer in addition to what is guaranteed in the subscription comes out of their pocket. That money being repurposed after I send it to them is immaterial.

 

Just like you didn't purchase a dev to come answer your questions.

 

Subscription and CC purchases pay for all of that as well -- the money for all of it comes from the customers.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Max_Killjoy

[SithKoriandr]

Let me guess, when stores offer "Buy 1 get 1 free" you complain to the managers that it's not free since you had to buy 1 to get 1 free in the first place.

[EnkiduNineEight]

It is incredibly amazing just how many people have no grasp of basic marketing and economics.

 

If the only means to get something is a cash transaction, then it is not 'free'. They can call it 'free' or they can call it a 'reward' or they can call it 'bibbledee-boo-bok-bok' but that is marketing speech and is intended purely to lie to you as legally as possible in order to induce you to make the purchase.

 

If you had _already_ made the purchase, this does not negate that a purchase was required to receive the 'free' item. The fact remains that there is in place a requirement that you enter into a contract with the seller for which they will give you X (or X+1) and you in return give them Y. X is a good or goods/service or services, etc. Y is generally currency.

 

The ONLY means to obtain the duster, it to have purchased a subscription. You can not obtain the duster in any other way. A subscription, which requires a purchase, that is performed before a specific date ( well in advance of the release, eg.. pay for something you DO NOT have to pay for in order to play the game that is out and exists at present) so each of these 'free' items comes at a cost. The cost is becoming a subscriber, and the cost for that varies but is most often 14.95 in the current market as most players choose to subscribe to games like this on a monthly basis so that they are not roped into paying for a game they aren't playing due to a lack of new content as they have already exhausted previously the current content.

 

This is a business transaction on Bioware/EA's part requesting you to PAY for something you do not need to play the game prior to the release of the KOTFE and the inducement for you is that in return you get not only the normal benefits of a subscription but they will also provide you with one or more 'unique' items that will not be available through any other means at present.

 

To receive the item, you have to either pay BioWare/EA or have already paid BioWare/EA by a specific date/time.

 

Simply put, do you have to have provided BioWare money in order to get the item?

The answer is yes? - Then it is not free. It may be attached to another good/service provided at a discount but it is not free.

The answer is no? - Then it is free.

 

So, if you choose NOT to purchase a subscription, will you get the item?

 

I think you can answer that, BioWare/EA already has by specifying their terms.

 

No, if you do not PAY for a subscription, you will not receive the item.

 

It is not free.

Edited September 14, 2015 by EnkiduNineEight

[branmakmuffin]

By the way.. what is the purchase price for that Duster..... for a subscriber??? That's right... it's $0.

Only if you have that elusive $0/month subscription plan. I'll note again, if the Nico swag were truly free, F2P players would get it, too.

Edited September 14, 2015 by branmakmuffin

[Eillack]

No sub, no "rewards."

Pay sub, get "rewards."

 

Are people THIS stupid....nothing in the world is "free." It's like everyone slept during their economics / marketing classes.....

[Danery]

Let me guess, when stores offer "Buy 1 get 1 free" you complain to the managers that it's not free since you had to buy 1 to get 1 free in the first place.

I've been in stores before that have the prepackaged items that either say "Buy 1 and get the 2 one free" or have a smaller similar item with "50% more for the price of 1" and seen those items as more expensive than purchasing the same item in a single package

[Andryah]

Only if you have that elusive $0/month subscription plan. I'll note again, if the Nico swag were truly free, F2P players would get it, too.

 

F2P has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. F2P, Preferred, and sub are simply three different business models which in the absence of a promotion..... define nothing more then what parts of the game you are allowed to play.

 

Context, and player motive, is important especially when some people are creating faux soapboxes on which to complain.

 

The person I was actually responding to.... I checked his post history and he has been actively posting all through 2015... both before and after the announcement of the KotFE incentive program. Hence said person had, and continues to have, a running subscription. In other words.. a personal choice to be subbed to the game regardless of this particular incentive program that is currently active.

 

In other words, this person has had a running subscription through all of 2015. Now, that is either to constantly complain in the forum (which is NOT confirmed by their post history) OR... OR... they like the game and are an active and ongoing customer subscriber regardless of any active incentive program.

 

Said person incurred no incremental financial expense to receive any of the promotions being currently offered. In other words... said promotional incentive are given to said person freely and without demand for payment.

 

NOW... IF... IF said person subscribed strictly to gain the Duster.... then said person might.. might.. have a semi reasonable case to make that they allegedly paid for the Duster. But this is not the case. Further, I have yet to see anyone state (and reasonably prove) that they purchased a subscription strictly in order to obtain the Duster.

 

This entire "it's not free!!" argument is simply nonsense. Nonsense in the context of this particular promotion AND nonsense by any reasonable commercial measure in commerce.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Andryah

[DOHboy]

F2P has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. F2P, Preferred, and sub are simply three different business models which in the absence of a promotion..... define nothing more then what parts of the game you are allowed to play.

 

Context, and player motive, is important especially when some people are creating faux soapboxes on which to complain.

 

The person I was actually responding to.... I checked his post history and he has been actively posting all through 2015... both before and after the announcement of the KotFE incentive program. Hence said person had, and continues to have, a running subscription. In other words.. a personal choice to be subbed to the game regardless of this particular incentive program that is currently active.

 

In other words, this person has had a running subscription through all of 2015. Now, that is either to constantly complain in the forum (which is NOT confirmed by their post history) OR... OR... they like the game and are an active and ongoing customer subscriber regardless of any active incentive program.

 

Said person incurred no incremental financial expense to receive any of the promotions being currently offered. In other words... said promotional incentive are given to said person freely and without demand for payment.

 

NOW... IF... IF said person subscribed strictly to gain the Duster.... then said person might.. might.. have a semi reasonable case to make that they allegedly paid for the Duster. But this is not the case. Further, I have yet to see anyone state (and reasonably prove) that they purchased a subscription strictly in order to obtain the Duster.

 

This entire "it's not free!!" argument is simply nonsense. Nonsense in the context of this particular promotion AND nonsense by any reasonable commercial measure in commerce.

 

are we having this argument again? Is it time for me to post the definition of free, or does that come later. I thought we had this conversation a few years ago on when game went "free' and if subs are actually getting "free" cartel coins. At least then the foreign language guys (french I do believe) had a semi reasonable excuse based on translation..even then it was a rather holey bucket.

[DarthDymond]

If I buy a CD (ancient flat and round holocron) off you for 5$, and you give me two instead of one, I did not pay for the second one.

The second CD was not free.

Simply put, do you have to have provided BioWare money in order to get the item?

The answer is yes? - Then it is not free. It may be attached to another good/service provided at a discount but it is not free.

The answer is no? - Then it is free.

Let me guess, when stores offer "Buy 1 get 1 free" you complain to the managers that it's not free since you had to buy 1 to get 1 free in the first place.

Only if you have that elusive $0/month subscription plan. I'll note again, if the Nico swag were truly free, F2P players would get it, too.

etc., etc., etc.

Ah, the wonders of working with a living, natural language. Can we skip ahead to the part where someone posts a random dictionary definition that supports their 'side' in all this? Or maybe dig up the FTC's "Free Guide" which says that "Free" can mean the offer is contingent on purchasing other services/merchandise?

 

Point is, some people are comfortable using "free" to describe a situation of "no additional cost" and some people are only comfortable using the word to describe a situation where no money changes hands at all - and both uses are prevalent enough in normal use that there's no butchering of the English language, so no one is going to come out as right or wrong here.

 

Okay, fine. Use context to determine which way the person is using the term, make a translation in your head if necessary, and move on. So whether or not you want to use "free" as a synonym for "no additional cost"... what are your thoughts on the actual subject at hand?

[Andryah]

are we having this argument again? Is it time for me to post the definition of free, or does that come later. I thought we had this conversation a few years ago on when game went "free' and if subs are actually getting "free" cartel coins. At least then the foreign language guys (french I do believe) had a semi reasonable excuse based on translation..even then it was a rather holey bucket.

 

It's like a tumbleweed rolling through the forum every so often.

 

The root cause IMO = people don't like something and when the something is free it disempowers their feelings of justified complaining. Hence, they create a personal world view where they make it appear that they actually paid for the free promotional item. Once they have that soapbox... then they feel empowered to complain about how their money is being misused.

 

And the people stating that everything about the game is not free because we pay a subscription is just a doubling down on rhetoric. Of course everything a game company does has a cost. But that cost is not directly passed on to customers of the game. How so? Easy... in large corporations... projects are given a planned operating budgets for the year (sometimes revised quarter to quarter). The budget is based on a top line plan for how much revenue they will receive. The coupling between cost and revenue takes place at the top level and there is simply no direct coupling at the operational level. In other words... subscriptions and other revenue DO NOT directly fall to the cost budget of the game. Nor is there any need to directly "cover or recover" the cost of any promotional digital content. The digital content has no actual value other then to reward players for subscribing. Nor is there any tangible opportunity cost either. People need to stop treating a corporation as though it were a small business. A small business has very direct coupling of cost and revenue. Whereas large corporations do not.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Andryah

[Andryah]

Ah, the wonders of working with a living, natural language. Can we skip ahead to the part where someone posts a random dictionary definition that supports their 'side' in all this? Or maybe dig up the FTC's "Free Guide" which says that "Free" can mean the offer is contingent on purchasing other services/merchandise?

 

Point is, some people are comfortable using "free" to describe a situation of "no additional cost" and some people are only comfortable using the word to describe a situation where no money changes hands at all - and both uses are prevalent enough in normal use that there's no butchering of the English language, so no one is going to come out as right or wrong here.

 

Okay, fine. Use context to determine which way the person is using the term, make a translation in your head if necessary, and move on. So whether or not you want to use "free" as a synonym for "no additional cost"... what are your thoughts on the actual subject at hand?

 

No disagreement.

 

"not free" is really just the banner flag of those wishing to protest cosmetic digital content that they don't like. It is a convenient bending of context for convenience. I bet they don't make the same case when the local fast food store gives them a free upgrade to "super size".... unless of course they hate the food.. but that brings us directly to... then why shop there? I would also bet money that they don't throw the extra portions on the floor and stomp on them either, whether they like the food or not.

 

Or maybe dig up the FTC's "Free Guide" which says that "Free" can mean the offer is contingent on purchasing other services/merchandise?

 

And.. we need the obligatory INB4 someone jumps on you and tries to invalidate what you shared by claiming that the FTC has no legal authority in the EU.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Andryah

[Reno_Tarshil]

Ah, the wonders of working with a living, natural language. Can we skip ahead to the part where someone posts a random dictionary definition that supports their 'side' in all this? Or maybe dig up the FTC's "Free Guide" which says that "Free" can mean the offer is contingent on purchasing other services/merchandise?

 

Point is, some people are comfortable using "free" to describe a situation of "no additional cost" and some people are only comfortable using the word to describe a situation where no money changes hands at all - and both uses are prevalent enough in normal use that there's no butchering of the English language, so no one is going to come out as right or wrong here.

 

Okay, fine. Use context to determine which way the person is using the term, make a translation in your head if necessary, and move on. So whether or not you want to use "free" as a synonym for "no additional cost"... what are your thoughts on the actual subject at hand?

 

I'm glad someone understood what I was trying to say all those pages way back before I gave up.

[talonmke]

More laziness on the dev's part. Man, what do they do all day.

Good thing your opinion doesn't really matter much, isn't it? I don't care if the duster's a "reskin" as the duster wasn't the sole reason why I am subscribing throughout the early access period for the expansion. If someone was doing that just for the coat, I don't pity them, they deserve no pity. It's their decision to do that, but to call the devs lazy, I suppose it's a thing to do when you dislike what's happening. Then again, who really cares what a few detractors say? They don't matter in the grand scheme of things anyway.

[branmakmuffin]

Okay, fine. Use context to determine which way the person is using the term, make a translation in your head if necessary, and move on. So whether or not you want to use "free" as a synonym for "no additional cost"... what are your thoughts on the actual subject at hand?

What are yours, given that your post did not address the topic, either?

[Blackbird]

"not free" is really just the banner flag of those wishing to protest cosmetic digital content that they don't like. It is a convenient bending of context for convenience. I bet they don't make the same case when the local fast food store gives them a free upgrade to "super size".... unless of course they hate the food.. but that brings us directly to... then why shop there? I would also bet money that they don't throw the extra portions on the floor and stomp on them either, whether they like the food or not.

 

 

I've never made any claims or statements about whether I like or dislike the "cosmetic digital content," as I frankly have no opinion on the items themselves one way or the other.

 

What I object to is the propagation of ignorance, and those spreading such false claims are doing just that. I don't know how many times I have repeated myself on this, but I'll say it again: anyone who believes these are "free" needs to take a basic economics course, and to learn and understand the concept of "opportunity cost".

 

By all means, like or dislike the bonuses as you will, but don't spread falsehoods about the nature of the offer. Like it or not, if you're getting these items, it is because you paid for them.

 

I've also seen several in these threads make claims such as "no one would have subscribed just to get these items." I don't have the data to prove or disprove this, but clearly Bioware disagrees with this thought, otherwise they would not have offered such bonus items. The entire purpose of a business offering promotional items contingent upon a purchase is to increase sales and attract more customers. If no one either subscribed or maintained a subscription that otherwise would have lapsed due to these items being offered, then the promotion was an utter failure. Assuming that BW (and/or EA) has at least some level of marketing acumen, I have to assume that they had data indicating that such items should drive a minimum level of subscriber activity to justify such a promotion, otherwise they would not have attempted such an offer. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that it is probable that there are at least some who paid a subscription in these months at least in part because of the items offered. How many, and whether or not it was enough to meet BW's expected targets is unknown, but to claim that no one at all would have subscribed to get these items is further ignorance.

[DarthDymond]

What are yours, given that your post did not address the topic, either?

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=8441552#post8441552.

Wow. If that is indeed the released version of this reward then, yeah, I agree that's pretty lackluster.

Edited September 14, 2015 by DarthDymond

[branmakmuffin]

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=8441552#post8441552.

Congratulations. Still doesn't alter the fact that you "wasted" a post complaining about people complaining then suggested they stay on topic.

[Andryah]

What I object to is the propagation of ignorance, and those spreading such false claims are doing just that. I don't know how many times I have repeated myself on this, but I'll say it again: anyone who believes these are "free" needs to take a basic economics course, and to learn and understand the concept of "opportunity cost".

 

I'm fine with the FTC legal definition of "free" in the context of consumer buying. If you are not.. that's your problem, not mine.

 

And yes.. promotion incentives are designed specifically to attract more business. Nice catch there captain obvious.

 

So what? That does not mean you had to pay for the promotional items. You did have to pay for the subscription though.. and nobody forced you to either.. it was your choice. The promotional incentives are just gravy on top of your running subscription UNLESS you subscribed just to get the incentives. So.. did you? If not.. get off the faux soapbox.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Andryah

[Gavin_Kelvar]

[*]it's advertised as unique/special but it can be recreated in the game without that action or its reward.

.

 

Personally I think this is the big disappointment with the duster. It'd be one thing if they tried to make it look like Nico's duster in the cinematic and didn't get it quite right, it's another when they didn't seem to even try to make it look like his duster and just slapped a dye onto an existing item.

[Andryah]

Personally I think this is the big disappointment with the duster. It'd be one thing if they tried to make it look like Nico's duster in the cinematic and didn't get it quite right, it's another when they didn't seem to even try to make it look like his duster and just slapped a dye onto an existing item.

 

What if Nico got it wrong and was wearing the wrong Duster in the cinematic?

 

Yeah.. that's it.. Nico screwed up. Silly Nico.

 

We need a petition now to fire Nico. :p:p

Edited September 14, 2015 by Andryah

[branmakmuffin]

So what? That does not mean you had to pay for the promotional items. You did have to pay for the subscription though.. and nobody forced you to either.. it was your choice. The promotional incentives are just gravy on top of your running subscription UNLESS you subscribed just to get the incentives. So.. did you? If not.. get off the faux soapbox.

No one started subscribing just for the swag. Some probably maintained their subscriptions, though. For me, and maybe you and lots of others, sure, the swag made no difference. But obviously thinks it makes a difference otherwise they would not have offered up the swag. And the swag has some value, thus effectively reducing our subscription cost for those months. If a vendor gives you a 10% on the cost of a dozen eggs, that does not mean that 1.2 of the of the eggs were free, it means you paid 90% of the regular price. If the vendor throws in an extra egg with the purchase of the dozen, that 13th egg is also not free. If it were free, I'd be able to just walk in the store and get my free egg.

[Aeristash]

No sub, no "rewards."

Pay sub, get "rewards."

 

Are people THIS stupid....nothing in the world is "free." It's like everyone slept during their economics / marketing classes.....

 

No, they aren't stupid. Their understanding of 'free' just happens to extend beyond a rudimentary concept of economics. They are arguing the intermediate & advanced course of the subject matter.

[PavSalco]

But I want this waistcoat under the coat Edited September 14, 2015 by PavSalco