Sheepski

Susanoh, on 19 May 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

That would be preferable to the current situation as it would atleast mean we have a guild with entierly loyal members who like playing with eachother instead of these "I'm just strolling through and don't really care about any of you" players.

As an officer and a very active member of a medium sized, 100+, members guild I just wanna say I hate the multiple guild system so much.

On an average night we have between 25-40 members online. And on that same Average night at least 10 of them are not representing. This means when we do things like Guild Bounties and we only have 15-20 people show up there's 10 people who not only are not actively engaging with the guild, they are not even there to help it out when the guild needs its members to step it up.

And that is THE biggest problem with this system. It puts all the freedom in the hands with the players, and the players don't take responsibility to show loyalty to the guilds they are in. This has been a persistent issue in all the guilds I have been in.

Yes from a players perspective this is great. Complete freedom, can go wherever you want, hang out with whoever you want. From a guild perspective it destroys any kind of sense of responsibility, community, loyalty. And managing a guild like this is a pain in the ass. Because we have core members, and a lot of them, who never represent another guild. All they want is to come on to our guild, have fun with their friends and know that there are people online to do dungeons, leveling, exploring, WvW or whatever tickles their fancy. And when they ask in guild chat if anyone's up for something like this, they get little or no response and then see there's 10-15 people not even representing the guild they love. Well that's just disheartening.

I know what you're gonna say. Just don't allow people to be in multiple guilds. Well it's not that simple, we have about 6-8 people constantly recruiting and we're still barely above the 100 members mark. There's no way we can compete with guilds that have 300-400 members, and if we disallow representing multiple guilds those members who play occasionally with us will simply go somewhere else.

I personally find multiple guilds far more efficient than limiting the player to one only. Guilds are created with different purposes in mind, and not all of them are good at fulfilling every purpose. I have a guild for my family and friends who like to level up together and do dungeons together. If any of us want to try a guild for, say, coordinated WvW tactics, we have that option. If we were limited to one guild only, this would be impossible. Yes, we could settle and attempt to find ways around this issue if we're limited to one guild, but it's much more efficient to have to option of creating or joining more than one guild if your current one does not fit all of your needs.

The most annoying thing about this silly system where you can be in multiple guilds is that you meet those people who tell you that you MUST rep their guild at all times.

I like one guild system better, because it means just that. That you don't go around repping 4 guilds a day. I do however very much like that I can keep track of my personal guild which I saved for the name. And wont have to buy a new account to move it to another character.

But then I don't like that it means(by experience) that you have certain players that never rep your guild cause they gotta rep someone elses, but just stays there. Or that only reps when they want to join you because you're organizing a guild mission. It allows people to not take a part in your guild or develop relationships cause all in all they really ONLY have to be there for that one specific thing they want from your guild or another guild for that matter. There's a few people who do this, which kinda bothers me. But perhaps their view of a guild is different than mine. I see a guild as almost an extended friend list which (sometimes) grow bigger and I want to stay in all the time as a group. I pick one and I always leave the other ones.

Wouldn't it be great if when you had gotten to his corpse, there was a little pop-up on the right side of your screen that said "F: Loot"?

Kaaboose, on 11 May 2013 - 02:11 AM, said:

Assistance for what? The walls are easy to knock down. If someone completes the quest, we kill the bat guys that come after, then beat the stuffing out of Lyssa and then leave (need to work off that diminishing returns). Perhaps you need to adress the way you interact with people; you seem quite toxic. Work on helping people because you are nice, not because doing so ruins a large groups fun (and satisfies your need to feel righteous and important - seriously, check your attitude and motives, they are not the way to make friends and influence people).

By the way, just because some people support you acting like a jerk, doesn't make you right, it just means there are other jerks out there.

Thank you for this extremely well-written piece. This is one of the best explainations of why this practice is so short-sighted and completely rediculous. I often get flack for posting on the official forums from defenders of this practice and it's all quite silly.

I can whole-hearted say i will not participate in this type of content and hope more people step up and do the same. It's about time to speak with your wallets against this type of practice.

I would love to see more players united against the lockboxes. They are predatory and manipulative in the very same way that combining a gear treadmill and a subscription fee is... Yet ArenaNet cheerfully waxed poetic on how unscrupulous the P2P market is. GW1 had an "honest" cash shop based on flat fees and a fair amount of my anticipation for GW2 was partly based on the assurance that the cash shop would mirror its predecessor. GW1 did just fine with an honest cash-for-(digital) goods system, why are we now tolerating anything different?

I have yet to buy a key or lockbox, though I've otherwise purchased gems and gem store items. I want Arena Net to do well, I want to support them, I want them to have the funds to pay happy, healthy workers and flood the game with polish and content. I don't want them to employ shady marketing practices.

Ship Crystin Cox back to NCSoft (edit: Nexon? whatever - MapleStory) where she belongs.

It's smart psychology by ArenaNet to pad their own pockets. I mean, let's face it, no matter how many people here want to disagree, the accumulation of in game "gear" as it represents a status symbol, especially in a socially focused game like an MMO, is perhaps the biggest competition between PvE players.

So now take the psychological DESIRE for status and couple that with the psychological aspect of gambling, both as it relates to behaviorism (see: Skinner Box) and the fact that gambling addiction is a disease - and you have what amounts to a full fledged ethical dilemma.

Yes, people don't have to buy the boxes. But, that is not the question. The question is whether it is ethical to incorporate two giant psychological attractions to basically take advantage of the weak willed players in the game merely for profit.

Also, let's not assume that just because a company needs to profit, that is the answer to that question. There are plenty of ways to create profit without lowering oneself to exploiting your player base.

I just imagine the developers thinking "a fool and his money are soon parted" right as they hit the button to launch the new update.

Posted to GW2 Forums, I don't expect it to last.  Please comment there as well.

TLDR: Points are boiled down here, but I encourage you to ready the body.

The Right to Make Money

No one is arguing against any individual or company’s right to make money.  What is generally a point of contention is how that money is made.  If oil was a clean, safe resource to produce, with absolutely no environmental impacts and operated in more of an open market than say, OPEC, there would be very few people who could complain about how they do business.  If the market crash had not occurred due to irresponsible lending and selling of securities, no one would have an issue with how much money the banking industry makes.

What this piece attempts to do is describe how poorly these practices are for consumers (ie: you) not just in terms of yourself, but for the game as a whole, and your fellow players.

More Money than a Flat Rate?

The product could in theory be sold on the  Cash Shop for a flat rate, especially if they are already being offered for a limited time.  The question becomes, why not?

There are various reasons.  The return on investment (ROI) of the lottery boxes is higher than that of a flat rate.  The cost of a flat rate in order to equal the return that the lottery boxes provide, a flat rate would appear to be too expensive, with too large of a price tag to pay in one expense.  This goes towards the wedge of individual experience, further below.

If it were a flat rate, you could determine whether you liked the product enough for it to be worth the flat rate quoted.  Or you could consider the product to be worth no money at all, at which point the company has lost your sale and has to make up the difference from a user who wants the product.

The drop rates are unknown until someone bothers to invest and do the research, either by grinding a lot of boxes or buying them outright, the latter of which is a net-positive for the company.  And by the time the results are recorded and posted, the company has already seen sales from consumers assuming that the drop rate cannot be that bad.

The Wedges of "Individual Experience" and "Personal Responsibility"

Divisiveness is the greatest weapon of any entity against a collective to shield from its greatest weakness. You want the populace to be split on issues because if a high percentage of the body every aligns itself against you, you will feel its effects.

The randomness of these boxes creates a variable experience.  However unlikely it is, it is possible for a lucky person to get the products he needs by opening a mere ten boxes.  Suddenly, his experience is “this is the best thing EVER.”  For another individual, they could open box upon box upon box and spend a large amount of money without getting a single claim ticket.

Since experiences vary, its harder to reach a consensus on drop rates.  There will be people satisfied with their experience and others who feel as if its unfair.  Some will be accused of merely being “unlucky.”  Some will engage ad hominem, attacking other consumers for buying so many boxes irresponsibly, despite that being the intent of the company.  Strife ensues and its much harder to direct blame against one specific entity as the customers squabble amongst one another.

It is therefore much harder to get consensus on implementation than if the product had a flat rate.

They benefit from these wedges to keep their customer-base from coming to a consensus on anything, even as far as debate the value of the implementation instead of the value of the product being offered for the price.

Instilling Urgency Artificially: Limited-Time Offers

If you could just grind these out through normal activity (gameplay), there are always going to be those who stick with the grind over the shortcut of buying the product outright.  So to convert even a tiny percentage of those people (a net positive for the company), the company has a limited time offer on the product.  That is greed.  The limited time offer on the product is nothing more than a trick, to artificially give a sense of urgency.

In games like Tribes: Ascend everyone can get access to everything.  If just takes time.  You can choose to grind it out or you can buy it outright.  There is no limited time offer.  There are sales to incentivize a period where you would like to see more income, but a gun in Tribes: Ascend is never going to disappear because you did not buy it this month. It is a psychological trick meant to make you spend more money, and is an anti-consumer practice.

This operates much like the Disney Vault, in which Disney only releases a movie for a limited time every seven years or so on home media.  This increases the scarcity of the movie and instills urgency to purchase the movie when it eventually becomes available.

Worse than Gambling

Gambling can be viewed as an experience. You play the game and the money is the barrier for playing the game, with more money as a reward for winning.  One usually goes in knowing that you will likely lose money, but there's also a chance you could come out of ahead.  It can get impersonal, such as with video poker machines or slot machines, but generally, it's an experience at playing a game of chance.

Common wisdom is that the results are stacked in the house's favor, and there is generally a poor outlook on people who think they can regularly come out ahead by playing, or in other words, playing to win.

Or going to a Dave & Buster’s (or Chuck E. Cheese’s).  Sure, you may be attempting to win tickets for a particular prize, but you are usually paying as much for the experience of playing the games themselves.  You get the experience.  It is a poor value and poor sense to play at these places just to win tickets and win prizes, especially without a particularly good run of luck, you would end up buying the prize outright than trying to win it with tickets.

But these lottery boxes are different.  You are not paying to gamble for the experience, generally.  There is actually no experience, or at least less of one.  The similarity is very much like buying a box of cereal you hate because it has an item you really want.  At that point, you are just ripping open the box, pouring out the cereal for the product and potentially getting nothing for your trouble.  Rinse and repeat ad nauseum until the limited time offer (artificially created sense of urgency) expires or you get the prize you want.

The Company’s Gamble

The company has its own gamble going.

It is relying on the obfuscated nature of its game of chance, with its accompanying ability to change the odds at their leisure, to keep its customer base arguing and speculating over the factual details as much as the subjective details.  If you knew all the details, it would be much easier to base an argument for (or against) purchasing the product outright and there would be less coloring and argument from individual experiences.

It is relying on the artificial sense of urgency to push people into buying the product without spending a lot of time thinking about it, as well as pushing those who attempted grind it out to ultimately buy into the lottery boxes from the Cash Shop at the eleventh hour.

It is relying on human nature.  There are people out there who are gullible, naive, have little foresight and in some cases, an addiction to gambling.  These people with a clinical lack of self-control who will hand over money to engage in this process in hopes of getting the rush of a win.

Defending the Indefensible

The fact of the matter is that there will always be people attempting to defend these practices.  Usually, the sum of the arguments is that the company has a right to make money.  But why?  Why are these practices worthy of money?  And why do these people, who can only benefit as a consumer if these practices were revised to be less abusive, defend them?  Why implement these practices over a flat rate, offered through the Cash Shop, unless this lottery box implementation makes more money.

I tend to look towards a rather quotable piece of TotalBiscuit:

What the hell happened to gamers looking out for each other?  When did that suddenly fall by the wayside in favor of being an unemployed PR representative for a company that has been milking you for money?  When did this happen? Was this with the advent of the Internet?  Is this a recent thing?  I can’t exactly pinpoint when it happened, but fanboy culture has gotten to the point of being actively detrimental to video games.  It benefits nobody whatsoever other than the companies in question.

It’s wonderful that they’ve got a small little army of people that are willing to actively suppress dissent.  Actively lie about the game.  Actively try to character assassinate people.  Engage in ad hominems.  Slam them over social networks.  Downvote videos.  Lie in the comments section.  It’s wonderful if they’re willing to do that, if you happen to be [the company] or any other company that has people like that.  It’s terrible for the rest of us.  It’s really really bad.

…

Gamers don’t look out for each other anymore.  And that’s really depressing.  The last thing that should be happening is gamers actively trying to mislead other gamers because they want to feel better about their purchase.  Or because they want more players in their game, even though the game is clearly not up to spec.  Where do you get off doing that?  That is morally bankrupt.  That is ethically unsound in the worst possible way.  It sucks, and you suck for doing it.

People who defend these practices want the games they play to succeed regardless of how the company in question behaves, because they have some investment.  They either want the game to have more players, be more successful so it will stick around for a long time, get more development, release expansions, etc, etc.

TLDR: Ultimately, it boils down to the idea that the lottery boxes offer a better return on investment than just simply slapping a flat rate on the product.  It adds nothing to the product itself and is just a method for increasing profits, without doing anything.  It is a form of predation on consumers, it should not be tolerated, but there will always be people willing to defend a company’s decision either out of apathy, a belief it does not nor will ever affect them or some other selfish reason.

Edit: I lost a ton of formatting moving from Google Docs, and I'm adding it back in.

Kaaboose, on 10 May 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

Do you listen to yourself? It's not your job to force your self-appointed handicaps on others. If Anet doesn't like it, they'll change it, if they're ok with it they won't. Either way, they don't need your help. Quit being a self-righteous jerk. No one likes those.

Kaaboose, on 10 May 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

I must say, after reading the thread, it's not exploiting the event considering you can still complete it at any time.  Lyssa is a pain to complete anyways, by far one of the harder temples to complete (balthazar being the only one harder imo), so why is it an issue that someone found out how to make money better than you?

Kaaboose, on 10 May 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Harassing people who harass people is still harassing. You recognize you are trolling, and you admit that your purpose is to stop others from doing what they want to do. You are harassing others. You are trolling. You are breaking the rules just like they are. You say you are not making excuses for your actions, yet that is exactly what you are doing. Your word choice, what you talk about in your video, and how you are portraying yourself shows that your goal is to stop these people from doing what they are doing. You just proved my point. I also never said that trolling is the only reason you are doing this. The fact that it IS a reason at all is what matters.

I am not saying anything bad about your person. I am not disagreeing with your actions. I am just letting you know, that what you are doing is 100% bannable.

Playing an event to completion is not harassment, and I have never said it was. Going to a location specifically (or even largely) because it pisses other people off is harassment even if those other people might be breaking the rules. I am positive your parents told you that "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Normally I don't do this but... I watched your video and you sir are FAR FAR FAR FAR worse then any of these "exploiters".

Seriously who gives you the right to decide what is and is not an exploit? If you want to do the event you are surely free to complete the event. However in my mind completing the event PURELY because you don't like how people who paid the same money you did for this game choose to spend their time in it is simply acting like a huge ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. This is the in game equivalent of road rage. Seriously I don't get people like you. For someone who portends to "care about the community" you are acting an awful lot like a butthurt troll.

Even if this IS an "exploit" your role is to report it (as you did) and go back to playing your game. Anything else is up to Arenanet and not you. If anyone should be reported or banned it is YOU, because you are actively playing the game with the goal of bothering other people.

In GW2 farming = exploiting.
Good to know.

Surely all CoF/FoTM farmers should be banned because they're much more richer than you are doing your low level events for "fun".