Nico Okarr's Coat - What a disappointment

[branmakmuffin]

Well, if you want to attempt to define it to fit your argument, free is 'without cost or payment'. I made no payment to get the coat, and getting it didn't change my costs. That came out of BW's cost. They paid for it, not I. So for me, it was free.

So you also have the elusive $0/month subscription plan. How can I get in on that?

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, if you want to attempt to define it to fit your argument, free is 'without cost or payment'. I made no payment to get the coat, and getting it didn't change my costs. That came out of BW's cost. They paid for it, not I. So for me, it was free.

 

Were there conditions on receiving it? Sure, but my sub didn't increase in price, nothing was taken from it to 'pay' for the coat. If you want to be super technical, you don't pay for anything from the cartel either. It's all free, you merely have to buy the currency to use it. The problem here is that cash flow is not a linear thing, which is why some people can almost grasp it, but actually don't and then just annoy the rest of us.

 

Would you have received the coat if you had not paid the $15 subscription?

 

That's the only question that matters.

 

It doesn't matter how it's spun, it doesn't matter what part of Bioware's budget the costs came out of, and it doesn't matter how much you want to buy into the nonsense of the marketing culture.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Max_Killjoy

[EnkiduNineEight]

Would you have received the coat if you had not paid the $15 subscription?

 

That's the only question that matters.

 

It doesn't matter how it's spun, it doesn't matter what part of Bioware's budget the costs came out of, and it doesn't matter how much you want to buy into the nonsense of the marketing culture.

 

It also does not matter that you had or were already going to spend the money for the subscription.

 

If Sub By Date X then Sub Benefits + Coat.

Sub = 12-15$ US Currency

If NO Sub, then no benefits, no coat.

No Cost, Free

 

Fact remains that the ONLY method to obtain the coat is to purchase a subscription on a date _prior_ to the release of the content. It is immaterial if you had or were already going to spend that money. You still have to pay for the sub to get the coat. It is a special/timed feature of subscribing prior to the release date of the items/new content in order to induce people who are not already subscribers to subscribe prior to the release when there is really no other economic reason for them to subscribe. Without the inducement, they would likely wait until the release of the new content to subscribe as access is gated only through an active subscription.

 

In this way EA/BioWare can convert non-subscribers into paying subs during a time period where these non-paying players did not normally feel they would need a sub and thus increase EA/BioWare's bottom line prior to the release.

 

It is a simple inducement, but it is not free. No cash transaction, no receipt of goods.

 

It is also immaterial that the cost of a subscription did not change. The subscription + item is essentially being offered as a discount in order to _again_ induce NON-Subscribers to convert into subscribers to benefit BioWare/EA's income. It is likely no mistake that the timing of the release is what it is because it also likely coincides with a Quarterly financial report for the company. Thus, it is of more benefit to the company to increase their sales/revenue figures prior to the end of the Fiscal Quarter and again, they see the benefit of including an inducement to subscription.

 

In fact, considering the 'items' received as an inducement, I am surprised they did not put the Speeder sooner, but this is of course hindsight after finding out the other items ended up just being cheap re-skins of existing assets.

 

The fact remains, if no cash provided to BioWare then no inducement(s) received.

 

They are part of a purchase transaction and can only be obtained through a purchase transaction.

Edited September 16, 2015 by EnkiduNineEight

[Alanbra]

My biggest problem with the coat and blasters is that these were the hooks, the shiny things, to get people's attention and to keep people subbing in anticipation of the expansion. If the shiny's look this shabby, what will the expansion look like?

[OddballEasyEight]

Would you have received the coat if you had not paid the $15 subscription?

 

That's the only question that matters.

 

No, it's not.

 

Because by that definition, my very silly analogy of how air isn't really free is perfectly valid by your reasoning.

 

I have to buy food to survive. If I didn't buy food, I'd stop breathing, thus I'm paying for the privelege of breating.

 

The same reasoning could apply to tons of stuff that is actually free.

 

You're paying for the subscription to get the subscription benefits.

Anything beyond that is free. You are not paying for it, it has no intrinsic cost.

 

Also, I think you misunderstood my example with the posters.

There wasn't a "buy 6 get one free" event. I just got one free because I bought many and the salesman liked me.

So yeah, I got it for free.

Sure, I got it because I bought the 6 posters, but it certainly wasn't included in the price in any way.

[ikinai]

It also does not matter that you had or were already going to spend the money for the subscription.

 

If Sub By Date X then Sub Benefits + Coat.

Sub = 12-15$ US Currency

If NO Sub, then no benefits, no coat.

No Cost, Free

 

Fact remains that the ONLY method to obtain the coat is to purchase a subscription on a date _prior_ to the release of the content. It is immaterial if you had or were already going to spend that money. You still have to pay for the sub to get the coat. It is a special/timed feature of subscribing prior to the release date of the items/new content in order to induce people who are not already subscribers to subscribe prior to the release when there is really no other economic reason for them to subscribe. Without the inducement, they would likely wait until the release of the new content to subscribe as access is gated only through an active subscription.

 

In this way EA/BioWare can convert non-subscribers into paying subs during a time period where these non-paying players did not normally feel they would need a sub and thus increase EA/BioWare's bottom line prior to the release.

 

It is a simple inducement, but it is not free. No cash transaction, no receipt of goods.

 

It is also immaterial that the cost of a subscription did not change. The subscription + item is essentially being offered as a discount in order to _again_ induce NON-Subscribers to convert into subscribers to benefit BioWare/EA's income. It is likely no mistake that the timing of the release is what it is because it also likely coincides with a Quarterly financial report for the company. Thus, it is of more benefit to the company to increase their sales/revenue figures prior to the end of the Fiscal Quarter and again, they see the benefit of including an inducement to subscription.

 

In fact, considering the 'items' received as an inducement, I am surprised they did not put the Speeder sooner, but this is of course hindsight after finding out the other items ended up just being cheap re-skins of existing assets.

 

The fact remains, if no cash provided to BioWare then no inducement(s) received.

 

They are part of a purchase transaction and can only be obtained through a purchase transaction.

 

Did they charge you more for your subscription?

[DOHboy]

Did they charge you more for your subscription?

 

is the entertainment I'm getting from watching the flogging of this topic (again) free?

[ikinai]

is the entertainment I'm getting from watching the flogging of this topic (again) free?

 

Nope, you have to pay extra for forum access. Not monetarily, but you pay with mental degradation. Someday you'll be a blithering idiot just like me

[DOHboy]

Nope, you have to pay extra for forum access. Not monetarily, but you pay with mental degradation. Someday you'll be a blithering idiot just like me

 

pretty sure i beat you to that a while ago...maybe its a prerequisite like forum name or something.

 

don't need to be crazy to be here, but it sure helps.

[Reno_Tarshil]

pretty sure i beat you to that a while ago...maybe its a prerequisite like forum name or something.

 

don't need to be crazy to be here, but it sure helps.

 

It's a free bonus perk.

[DOHboy]

It's a free bonus perk.

 

oh NOW you've done it.

 

you can't simply toss around free, bonus, and free bonus in this thread and not expect it to just implode.

[Qouivandes]

oh NOW you've done it.

 

you can't simply toss around free, bonus, and free bonus in this thread and not expect it to just implode.

 

or the word Perk. they are already in a tiffy...

[branmakmuffin]

You're paying for the subscription to get the subscription benefits.

Anything beyond that is free. You are not paying for it, it has no intrinsic cost.

Except you are wrong. The coat does have a cost (it didn't just create itself) and it does have value.

Edited September 16, 2015 by branmakmuffin

[ouev]

My jimmies are officially rustled.

[Max_Killjoy]

It also does not matter that you had or were already going to spend the money for the subscription.

 

If Sub By Date X then Sub Benefits + Coat.

Sub = 12-15$ US Currency

If NO Sub, then no benefits, no coat.

No Cost, Free

 

Fact remains that the ONLY method to obtain the coat is to purchase a subscription on a date _prior_ to the release of the content. It is immaterial if you had or were already going to spend that money. You still have to pay for the sub to get the coat. It is a special/timed feature of subscribing prior to the release date of the items/new content in order to induce people who are not already subscribers to subscribe prior to the release when there is really no other economic reason for them to subscribe. Without the inducement, they would likely wait until the release of the new content to subscribe as access is gated only through an active subscription.

 

In this way EA/BioWare can convert non-subscribers into paying subs during a time period where these non-paying players did not normally feel they would need a sub and thus increase EA/BioWare's bottom line prior to the release.

 

It is a simple inducement, but it is not free. No cash transaction, no receipt of goods.

 

It is also immaterial that the cost of a subscription did not change. The subscription + item is essentially being offered as a discount in order to _again_ induce NON-Subscribers to convert into subscribers to benefit BioWare/EA's income. It is likely no mistake that the timing of the release is what it is because it also likely coincides with a Quarterly financial report for the company. Thus, it is of more benefit to the company to increase their sales/revenue figures prior to the end of the Fiscal Quarter and again, they see the benefit of including an inducement to subscription.

 

In fact, considering the 'items' received as an inducement, I am surprised they did not put the Speeder sooner, but this is of course hindsight after finding out the other items ended up just being cheap re-skins of existing assets.

 

The fact remains, if no cash provided to BioWare then no inducement(s) received.

 

They are part of a purchase transaction and can only be obtained through a purchase transaction.

 

I think we're agreeing here, actually.

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it's not.

 

Because by that definition, my very silly analogy of how air isn't really free is perfectly valid by your reasoning.

 

I have to buy food to survive. If I didn't buy food, I'd stop breathing, thus I'm paying for the privelege of breating.

 

The same reasoning could apply to tons of stuff that is actually free.

 

You're paying for the subscription to get the subscription benefits.

Anything beyond that is free. You are not paying for it, it has no intrinsic cost.

 

Also, I think you misunderstood my example with the posters.

There wasn't a "buy 6 get one free" event. I just got one free because I bought many and the salesman liked me.

So yeah, I got it for free.

Sure, I got it because I bought the 6 posters, but it certainly wasn't included in the price in any way.

 

I don't have to pay for food, either. There are other ways to get it.

 

I can't get the coat in question for free, I can only get it as part of a bundled purchase.

 

As for the posters -- would you have received "#7" without paying for 1-6? Again, the only factor that matters.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Max_Killjoy

[TravelersWay]

I don't have to pay for food, either. There are other ways to get it.

 

I can't get the coat in question for free, I can only get it as part of a bundled purchase.

 

As for the posters -- would you have received "#7" without paying for 1-6? Again, the only factor that matters.

 

Yeah, what seems to confuse people is the concept of "No additional cost."

 

NAC =/= Free

 

We need to pay for a subscription in order to get things like the coat and the expansion itself. By default, that makes them not free, but provided to us at no additional charge to the cost we paid with the subscription. However, we still must pay money out of pocket in order to receive those things - there is a monetary stipulation that comes with the item, whereas a truly free item comes with no stipulations at all.

Edited September 17, 2015 by TravelersWay

[DarthDymond]

Yeah, what seems to confuse people is the concept of "No additional cost."

 

NAC =/= Free

 

We need to pay for a subscription in order to get things like the coat and the expansion itself. By default, that makes them not free, but provided to us at no additional charge to the cost we paid with the subscription. However, we still must pay money out of pocket in order to receive those things - there is a monetary stipulation that comes with the item, whereas a truly free item comes with no stipulations at all.

No one is confused about the fact that you, Max, bran, and others are using the term "free" in that way - but the definition you guys are using is neither the only valid definition, nor is it the way the term is frequently used in actual commercial transactions.

 

The US's FTC, the Better Business Bureau, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the UK's CAP and BCAP codes, and plenty of other regulators all allow promotions to be advertised as "free" even when they are contingent on purchasing another product or service, so long as the price for the product / service isn't marked up (e.g. you can't double the price of a t-shirt then have advertise a "buy one, get one free" sale to effectively charge the same price). In commerce, the term "free" often does equal "no cost added" - that is the way it is communicated and the way it is understood.

 

Your definition of "free" is not the only one, and plenty of people are okay with the term being used in the context we're seeing with this promotion (which is the way it is often used in real-life situations).

Edited September 17, 2015 by DarthDymond

[Max_Killjoy]

Tangent:

 

Those regulators allow businesses to get away with a lot that they shouldn't in terms of advertising and promotion, terminology, etc. For false or misleading advertising to actually be legally nailed as False Advertising is a much higher bar than it should be.

[TravelersWay]

No one is confused about the fact that you, Max, bran, and others are using the term "free" in that way - but the definition you guys are using is neither the only valid definition, nor is it the way the term is frequently used in actual commercial transactions.

 

The US's FTC, the Better Business Bureau, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the UK's CAP and BCAP codes, and plenty of other regulators all allow promotions to be advertised as "free" even when they are contingent on purchasing another product or service, so long as the price for the product / service isn't marked up (e.g. you can't double the price of a t-shirt then have advertise a "buy one, get one free" sale to effectively charge the same price). In commerce, the term "free" often does equal "no cost added" - that is the way it is communicated and the way it is understood.

 

Your definition of "free" is not the only one, and plenty of people are okay with the term being used in the context we're seeing with this promotion (which is the way it is often used in real-life situations).

 

And as I said way back when, that's because of marketing and PR (just like using 99 cents instead of whole number rounding - and tacking on 9/10 of a cent to the cost of a gallon of gas). It is far easier to market and appeal to the human psyche by using the word "Free" instead of marketing what the sale actually is. That still does not change the root concept of "Free" being without any stipulation or provisions.

 

Tangent:

 

Those regulators allow businesses to get away with a lot that they shouldn't in terms of advertising and promotion, terminology, etc. For false or misleading advertising to actually be legally nailed as False Advertising is a much higher bar than it should be.

Like anything in politics, it all comes down to money. None of those agencies created the definition of the word "Free" they simply made it easier for marketing departments to target their audiences.

Edited September 17, 2015 by TravelersWay

[DarthDymond]

And as I said way back when, that's because of marketing and PR. It is far easier to market and appeal to the human psyche by using the word "Free" instead of marketing what the sale actually is. That still does not change the root concept of "Free" being without any stipulation or provisions.

I do not dispute that marketing and PR are probably the origin of using the word "free" to mean "no cost added", but I don't think that origin negates the fact that it is now an actual definition.

 

If countless promotions use the word "free" to communicate the concept of "no cost added", millions of customers understand the word "free" in that context to mean "no cost added", and the preeminent legal and regulatory authorities across the English-speaking world endorse the use of the word "free" to mean "no cost added", then I'm really not sure what more we need to grant that "no cost added" is one valid definition of the word "free" (I am not saying it is the only definition).

 

If I use the word "torch" to describe a flashlight and you use it to describe a burning piece of wood, that doesn't mean either one of us is using the word incorrectly, we just use context to come to an understanding about how the word is being used, even though "burning piece of wood" was probably the 'root concept' of the word and applying it to a flashlight came later. Same deal here - we use context to determine whether "free" is being used to mean "no cost added" or to mean "no cost at all".

Edited September 17, 2015 by DarthDymond

[Reno_Tarshil]

I do not dispute that marketing and PR are probably the origin of using the word "free" to mean "no cost added", but I don't think that origin negates the fact that it is now an actual definition.

 

If countless promotions use the word "free" to communicate the concept of "no cost added", millions of customers understand the word "free" in that context to mean "no cost added", and the preeminent legal and regulatory authorities across the English-speaking world endorse the use of the word "free" to mean "no cost added", then I'm really not sure what more we need to grant that "no cost added" is one valid definition of the word "free" (I am not saying it is the only definition).

 

If I use the word "torch" to describe a flashlight and you use it to describe a burning piece of wood, that doesn't mean either one of us is using the word incorrectly, we just use context to come to an understanding about how the word is being used, even though "burning piece of wood" was probably the 'root concept' of the word and applying it to a flashlight came later. Same deal here - we use context to determine whether "free" is being used to mean "no cost added" or to mean "no cost at all".

 

This.

[Max_Killjoy]

I do not dispute that marketing and PR are probably the origin of using the word "free" to mean "no cost added", but I don't think that origin negates the fact that it is now an actual definition.

 

If countless promotions use the word "free" to communicate the concept of "no cost added", millions of customers understand the word "free" in that context to mean "no cost added", and the preeminent legal and regulatory authorities across the English-speaking world endorse the use of the word "free" to mean "no cost added", then I'm really not sure what more we need to grant that "no cost added" is one valid definition of the word "free" (I am not saying it is the only definition).

 

If I use the word "torch" to describe a flashlight and you use it to describe a burning piece of wood, that doesn't mean either one of us is using the word incorrectly, we just use context to come to an understanding about how the word is being used, even though "burning piece of wood" was probably the 'root concept' of the word and applying it to a flashlight came later. Same deal here - we use context to determine whether "free" is being used to mean "no cost added" or to mean "no cost at all".

 

Are you using the word "torch" to be deceptive, manipulative, or evasive?

[DarthDymond]

Are you using the word "torch" to be deceptive, manipulative, or evasive?

No, but I also agree with the FTC, et al, that using the word "free" in a promotion only rises to the level of "deceptive, manipulative, or evasive" if there's some cost-shifting slight of hand going on, such as in the example of doubling the price of a type of merchandise and then holding a "buy one, get one free" sale on it. Otherwise it's just using the term, accurately, in the "no cost added" context.

 

(That's just one stark example, of course, I don't mean to imply that a promotion is only fraudulent if reduces the effective savings to zero. Marking the hypothetical merchandise up by a single dollar in that context would still mean that "free" isn't accurate in that promotion, same if there were hidden fees, etc, etc.)

 

The cost of a subscription before this promotion is the exact same as the cost during it, so I don't see any such slight of hand going on here.

Edited September 17, 2015 by DarthDymond

[dwillyjpox]

My biggest problem with the coat and blasters is that these were the hooks, the shiny things, to get people's attention and to keep people subbing in anticipation of the expansion. If the shiny's look this shabby, what will the expansion look like?

 

My belief this is why it does not have a cost fixed to it like previous expansion.

Do the best they can with the market funds they were allotted. With the chapters released monthly and your subscription fee they will double their income per customer? ( maybe not quite) verse one 60$ console or single player game per year.