Teratus.2859 Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > I can't accurately put into words how utterly repulsive and unethical I find business models that works like that. > > If I stop paying my rent, is it unethical for the owner of the property to ask me to leave? Should Linda, my landlady who rents out this home in order to provide for herself in her old age, be expected to go hungry, forgo her medications, etc because it is, "unethical," for someone to charge for access to their property? Wrong example man, You don't own your home. A better example would be if you bought your home for it's full price and the previous landlord decided that you also have to pay them an additional monthly fee forever to have access to that house.. and if you stopped paying he would have the right to lock you out of your house and hold all your possessions hostage until you paid him again. Or another example, one day your landlord decided you had to pay them an additional fee to use the internert in your home.. despite the fact that you were already paying for said internet connection. Or say Valve one day came out and said.. hey you with 2000 games on your Steam account that you bought with you own money.. give us $20 a month forever or we'll take them all away from you.. Those examples are far more in line with how subfees are used. In my eyes you can either buy a product, or you rent a product.. not both. Any company that uses a buy to rent model ergo exactly what subfees are.. they are the very definition of a greedy, predatory company by my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim.1758 Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 > @"Solanum.6983" said: > RNG is fine in game, It doesn't class as gambling but Black lion chests most definitely do. > Honestly, I'd be happy to see them go, I'm not a fan of these kind of money grabbing tactics. Just have the new things put straight into the gem store. Correct RNG (Random Number Generator) has always been part of MMO's . The predatory aka gambling part comes in to play with the sales of keys to open loot chests to receive random items. That is why most governments frown upon games that exploit gambling due to key sales especially to minors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashen.2907 Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > I can't accurately put into words how utterly repulsive and unethical I find business models that works like that. > > > > If I stop paying my rent, is it unethical for the owner of the property to ask me to leave? Should Linda, my landlady who rents out this home in order to provide for herself in her old age, be expected to go hungry, forgo her medications, etc because it is, "unethical," for someone to charge for access to their property? > > Wrong example man, You don't own your home. > > A better example would be if you bought your home for it's full price and the previous landlord decided that you also have to pay them an additional monthly fee forever to have access to that house.. and if you stopped paying he would have the right to lock you out of your house and hold all your possessions hostage until you paid him again. > > Or another example, one day your landlord decided you had to pay them an additional fee to use the internert in your home.. despite the fact that you were already paying for said internet connection. > > Or say Valve one day came out and said.. hey you with 2000 games on your Steam account that you bought with you own money.. give us $20 a month forever or we'll take them all away from you.. > > Those examples are far more in line with how subfees are used. > In my eyes you can either buy a product, or you rent a product.. not both. > Any company that uses a buy to rent model ergo exactly what subfees are.. they are the very definition of a greedy, predatory company by my book. Subscription fees are rent paid to access someone else's property. At no point do you, or have you ever, owned the sub fee based game...just as you do not own the home you are renting. If I paint the walls in the house I am renting. If I put in rose bushes, if I spend my own money and time in any way improving the home....once I stop paying to stay there I am expected to leave. The documentation in your rental agreement, just as the EULA for a game, makes it clear that you do not get to take ownership of the property away from its owner just because you paid your rent once upon a time. On the other hand you do have an option to actually take ownership of your account in a game you are paying to access....cough up the tens of millions of dollars to buy the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teratus.2859 Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > @"Ashen.2907" said: > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > I can't accurately put into words how utterly repulsive and unethical I find business models that works like that. > > > > > > If I stop paying my rent, is it unethical for the owner of the property to ask me to leave? Should Linda, my landlady who rents out this home in order to provide for herself in her old age, be expected to go hungry, forgo her medications, etc because it is, "unethical," for someone to charge for access to their property? > > > > Wrong example man, You don't own your home. > > > > A better example would be if you bought your home for it's full price and the previous landlord decided that you also have to pay them an additional monthly fee forever to have access to that house.. and if you stopped paying he would have the right to lock you out of your house and hold all your possessions hostage until you paid him again. > > > > Or another example, one day your landlord decided you had to pay them an additional fee to use the internert in your home.. despite the fact that you were already paying for said internet connection. > > > > Or say Valve one day came out and said.. hey you with 2000 games on your Steam account that you bought with you own money.. give us $20 a month forever or we'll take them all away from you.. > > > > Those examples are far more in line with how subfees are used. > > In my eyes you can either buy a product, or you rent a product.. not both. > > Any company that uses a buy to rent model ergo exactly what subfees are.. they are the very definition of a greedy, predatory company by my book. > > Subscription fees are rent paid to access someone else's property. At no point do you, or have you ever, owned the sub fee based game...just as you do not own the home you are renting. If I paint the walls in the house I am renting. If I put in rose bushes, if I spend my own money and time in any way improving the home....once I stop paying to stay there I am expected to leave. The documentation in your rental agreement, just as the EULA for a game, makes it clear that you do not get to take ownership of the property away from its owner just because you paid your rent once upon a time. > > On the other hand you do have an option to actually take ownership of your account in a game you are paying to access....cough up the tens of millions of dollars to buy the company. There's a big difference between a house you rent and a house you buy. Just as there is with games you pay upfront for and free games you pay a sub for. The issue comes from the combination of the two.. ergo you're not buying a game anymore, you're buying to pay a subscription to play it. The initial purchase of the game being a straight up lie.. a scam, because you are not getting the game you paid for when you bought that box. Imagine buying a car for 20 grand it gets delivered to your home, but when you try to drive it the company you bought it from says hold up.. no see you paid for the car and the car is yours but you don't have the right to drive it.. if you want to drive it you have to pay us 100 bucks a month forever, if you don't well you can see the car everyday you just cant use it. Most people would cry foul and scream con! if that happened. Video games on the other hand get a free pass because the sub costs are so small, but it's still the same kind of subtle greedy extortion. Just look at consoles these days, 2 of them had free online access a generation ago.. but since one company proved people are foolish enough to pay for something others get for free, now they all rip you off with a pointless mandatory sub because it was just free money for the taking. I warned that one was coming well over a decade ago.. and nobody believed me. Now I warn people again, carelessly accepting subs as the norm only leads us like cattle to the slaughter, sooner or later you'll be paying them for pretty much everything companies can justify slapping them on. How many apps do you have and use regularly on your phone btw? how much a month do you think it would cost if all of them demanded a sub? Just some food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swagger.1459 Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 > @"CazzT.1870" said: > > @"Swagger.1459" said: > > > @"tomshreds.1745" said: > > > I wish all items, mounts and skins would be unlockable via gameplay. > > > WoW's endgame is all about unlocking everything. GW2's shouldn't force people to pay gems. > > > Let people try their luck on a dungeon/boss to get items. > > > > > > Those who wants to pay will pay but at least give us a way of achieving those via gameplay. > > > RnG chests are also a very bad idea that will eventually get killed by law so hopefully games will see brighter days... soon. > > > > Are you also willing to pay a mandatory monthly subscription fee to play gw2? > > > > Anet doesn’t “force” anyone to buy anything off the gemstore. And you don’t have to spend a dime on items either, you can convert game gold into gems to get anything for $0. Also, nothing in bl chests gives you a combat advantage over another player. > > > > Some rng chests in other games aren’t great, but not in gw2. But if things change, then we better get ready to have exclusively gem priced items on the gem store for direct purchase. So those certain cosmetic items will have a much higher sticker price. > > I would be willing to pay a monthly sub if it gave access to all the LW chapters. ESO does something like this. You can play for free, but if you sub, you get access to all the expansions without having to buy them. I'm not asking ANET to get access to HoT/PoF with a sub, I'm fine with purchasing the expansions. But they clearly don't want new and returning players to experience this content which has a price tag of an expansion to get it all. And with a third actual expansion rumored to be coming, GW2 is about to get some fresh attention. But the way they're doing LW content is going to roadblock and scare off a lot of new and returning players. It's already got me questioning if I wanna stay. Lords know I'm not eager to pay for another expansion on top of what I just bought. Especially since I was given no heads up that I wouldn't be able to experience that content without paying more. "But they clearly don't want new and returning players to experience this content which has a price tag of an expansion to get it all." Well, as of forever, Anet doesn't charge players a monthly fee. Player's can't get everything for free. Just because it's a video game company doesn't mean they need to give everything, or anything for that matter, for free. Anet is a business, not a charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tukaram.8256 Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 > @"Trise.2865" said: > > @"Kodama.6453" said: > > > @"Tukaram.8256" said: > > > I have never seen loot boxes as gambling. To me gambling implies some chance to win something of value. Pixels have no value. But, if buying something and not knowing what is inside is gambling... then sure we can call it gambling. But then buying a pack of Pokemon cards is also gambling? > > > > > > Then again I would never pay real money for a lootbox. I may buy an item outright, but I would never buy a chance at an item. That is idiotic - who would buy them? > > > > Or the biggest evil humankind knows to this day: Kinder Surprise Eggs > > False equivalency. Those were banned because children were choking on the tiny, plastic tat inside. Kinder eggs were banned? Where? What an idiotic thing... As for 'owning' the game, you really only have access to GW while the servers are maintained. None of us own it, like we did with an old CD based single player game. I can play Dungeon Siege 2 anytime I want. I can only play GW/GW2/UO/WoW et al if they keep their servers running. We never own any of it. So the rental comparison is spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battledrone.8315 Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > > > > > > > It is gambling. You might notice that in threads like these, people always come to defend it, every time. You might ask, why? Because if the addicts pay anets bills, they don't have to and as long as anet makes money, the game will propably continue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a defender I take offense to that statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I own all of GW1's campaigns as well as a reasonable amount of account upgrades in that game. > > > > > > > Likewise I preordered a collectors edition of Gw2 and own both expansion Ultimate editions. > > > > > > > I will be buying Expansion 3's collectors/Ultimate editions as well and I have invested god knows how much money in the gemstore over the years. > > > > > > > Not to mention I bought a friend both expansions as well a few years back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've paid more than my fair share into this game and I am no addict. > > > > > > > I support this franchse because I love this franchise. > > > > > > > Plus if you give me the option to support something I care about of my own free will then I will. > > > > > > > But if you try to force me to keep throwing money into something under the threat you'll take that thing away from me regardless of how much i've already invested in it.. ergo the entire premise of mandatory subscription fees!! then I will walk the hell away faster than you can say Wait!! > > > > > > > Hell that is the main reason I've straight up quit supporting consoles after 30 years of collecting them, mandatory online subfees.. to hell with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For all the hate Lootboxes are getting here I am amazed that Subscription fees are not being brought up more.. > > > > > > > Mandatory Subfees are by far the most predatory and greedy practice in this industry.. far worse than any lootboxes i've ever seen.. and yet they are far more accepted despite how much they deserve to be utterly despised by gamers. > > > > > > > > > > > > if i dont like a game, then i prolly wont pay a sub for it, how is that PREDATORY? > > > > > > lootboxes OTOH, they are manifestations of pure GREED. the desirable objects always have a astronomically low droprate. > > > > > > and then they just fill the rest with low grade junk. > > > > > > sub fees requires a thing, that has become rather scarce in the mmo business : TRUST > > > > > > > > > > I won't pay a sub even for something I like. > > > > > As far as I am concerned when I buy a game that game is mine to play as I see fit. > > > > > > > > > > If a company tells me "oh no.. actually you're just renting the game and that initial price was nothing more than a downpayment and if you stop paying us we'll take the game away from you" then im pretty much going to tell said company to go straight to hell. > > > > > > > > > > Sub based games are predatory in the sense that their price tag/cost is unlimited. > > > > > You'll be paying to play them forever without the possibility of ever owning the game. > > > > > Just look at those who've been playing Wow non stop for the past 16 years, they've put almost 3 grand into that game just on sub costs with nothing to show for it.. Everything goes away if they decide they don't want to pay for it anymore. > > > > > > > > > > Oh and Wow of course also has a cash shop and lootboxes as well.. because ripping people off with a subfee just wasn't greedy enough. > > > > > That's why pro sub arguments don't make any sense when criticizing alternative monetization methods like cash shops and lootboxes. > > > > > > > > 16 years of gaming for 3 grand sounds like a good deal to me. have you seen the price of new games, and how many hours they last? > > > > i would take a good sub game over any F2P model, but sadly there arent many left > > > > > > Yes, because the model realistically doesn't work on a market wide scale. > > > It creates a market where only X amount of games can even survive due to the nature of subscription fees, a problem that we are eventually going to run into with TV at some point as well, especially with more focus being pushed on service exclusive shows. > > > > > > Too many services means excessive amounts of subfees needed to access them and that ultimately limits peoples options pretty significantly. > > > This is exactly the reason why so many MMO's have gone free 2 play over the years, while many others have straight up died and vanished from the world entirely. > > > As much as I love Gw1, if the game had launched with a mandatory sub fee then I would place a hard bet that Gw2 would never have existed. > > > > > > For me it's not about the money, I'll gladly pay more to avoid being forced to pay a mandatory sub with the added penalty of having my games and movies etc taken away if I stop paying. > > > I'd rather have a large physical game and movie collection that gives me total freedom and control over what entertainment I consume than pay a subscription for something like like Playstation now or Netflix. > > > > > > You can argue the experience is what you get when you pay for sub services and you're not entirely wrong.. but it's an expreience you can only enjoy while you're paying.. > > > When you stop paying you loose everything.. you are back to square one with absolutely nothing to show for all that money you spent. > > > And even then your options were always limited by the service you're paying for, you have no control over what movies and shows and games come and go on the platform and there's always a risk something you are half way through will be gone the next day and no longer available to you even though you are paying for it. > > > > > > At least with physical games, movies, tv shows etc you will always have access to them and you can enjoy them at any time you wish without ever having to pay for them again. > > > That is something I will gladly pay for and have gladly paid for since I was old enough to earn an income. > > > But I will never support a mandatory subfee service, no chance in hell. > > > > > wrong, if i let my sub lapse for a month, all my toons dont get wiped to level 1. do you even know, how mmos work? > > I never said they did, I said they get taken away from you.. ergo you can no longer access them or interact with them in any way until you pay a specific party money again. > Essentially it works the exact same way as ransom does.. a bit like blackmail too, and the longer you play for and the more time and money you invest, the more value that account has to you ergo the more likely you are to keep paying just so the company that does own it doesn't strip away your access to it and hold it for ransom until you pay up again. > > What it means is that you don't own the game you paid for. > You don't own any of the paid DLC's you paid for. > You don't own any of the additional cash shop items that you also paid an additional fee for either. > You don't own the account you made. > You don't own the characters you made. > You don't own any of the items you have aquired. > You don't own anything associated with that game or account at all no matter how much money you put into it. > > I can't accurately put into words how utterly repulsive and unethical I find business models that works like that. > Imagine if you spent a few grand on a brand new top of the line gaming PC, spent a few hundred more on a bunch of brand new games too and then Microsoft come along and say you gotta give them another 30 bucks a month forever or they'll lock you out of accessing your own computer so you cant use it at all even to use other things that you have paid for.. until you pay Microsofts monthly "ransom" fee. > That's exactly what the subfee model is and does.. and that's why I'll never support anything that forces a mandatory one. > > > i still have a huge box with all of my old albums...useless, because i dont have a record player anymore. same with my box of old VHS tapes. and i was one of the smart ones, who didnt buy a betamax player, those guys were screwed. when you have your OWN collection, you just have to pay the fee in hardware > > PS my collection of DVDs are already on the way out too, it is getting hard to find a player WITHOUT blu ray kitten > > Blu-rays play DvD's though I can understand if you're more of a purist with that. > Old tech does have a certain kind of charm to it doesn't it. > > I take care of my stuff pretty well, my old tech is in good condition despite it's age. > I keep an old TV around for the old AV consoles since a lot of new HD TV's no longer support that format, same for SCART as well which is also being pushed out nowdays. > The N64 being the problem child as it is a pain in the rear getting that thing to work on newer TV's even with a signal converter. > It's a very stubbon console but I can't help but love it ^^ > > I'd argue old consoles and games look better on old TV's anyway, new TV are just so clean and colourful that they don't do old games justice at all.. expose far too many imperfections that were not visible on old TV's thanks largely to the quality the screens were capable of back then. > If you keep/collect old consoles and games then keeping an old CRT about is absolutely worth it imo, or at the very least a 90's era flatscreen if you can find one. without the servers and other players, they are totally useless, "owning" them wont change much from your perspective microsoft is already DOING that, i have to pay an EXTRA subscription if i want to use the windows DVD player AFTER i paid 180$ for the windows disc blu ray players suck, they are very slow and prone to errors, compared to the older DVD players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury ranique.2170 Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 Most lootboxes in GW2 are not really gambling. The purpose of gambling is to invest wealth to have a change to gain something more valueable then the investment. Obviously, as most lootboxes are available for gold and as you can convert gems to gold and gems can be bought with real life money, this can be considered gambling, but it is farfetched, it requires a lot of investment and gives very little valuable loot, while these lootboxes are easy to come by. The main exception are black lion shop lootboxes. The content is better, it requires luck and the main source to acquire them is real money. The question however remains the value these items represent. The content is not tradable for real life money. So the investment made can not be returned to the same currency. When you spent 50 bucks on keys you know you'll never get those 50 bucks back, let alone receive something more then 50 bucks. In the end, with the upcoming laws around the world, it depends on the fine details AND the interpretation of the fine details. I know that after the Belgium rules about lootboxes, these items where disabled in GW2, while to me the fine details of the law didn't require this. But apparently Arenanet decided to not take any risk. Tl;Dr lootboxes in general are not truly gambling. Some are, but not in GW2. Laws that pop up around the world require arenanet to block certain items in the store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teratus.2859 Posted August 10, 2020 Share Posted August 10, 2020 > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > > @"battledrone.8315" said: > > > > > > > > @"Teratus.2859" said: > > > > > > > > > @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > > > > > > > > It is gambling. You might notice that in threads like these, people always come to defend it, every time. You might ask, why? Because if the addicts pay anets bills, they don't have to and as long as anet makes money, the game will propably continue. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As a defender I take offense to that statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I own all of GW1's campaigns as well as a reasonable amount of account upgrades in that game. > > > > > > > > Likewise I preordered a collectors edition of Gw2 and own both expansion Ultimate editions. > > > > > > > > I will be buying Expansion 3's collectors/Ultimate editions as well and I have invested god knows how much money in the gemstore over the years. > > > > > > > > Not to mention I bought a friend both expansions as well a few years back. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've paid more than my fair share into this game and I am no addict. > > > > > > > > I support this franchse because I love this franchise. > > > > > > > > Plus if you give me the option to support something I care about of my own free will then I will. > > > > > > > > But if you try to force me to keep throwing money into something under the threat you'll take that thing away from me regardless of how much i've already invested in it.. ergo the entire premise of mandatory subscription fees!! then I will walk the hell away faster than you can say Wait!! > > > > > > > > Hell that is the main reason I've straight up quit supporting consoles after 30 years of collecting them, mandatory online subfees.. to hell with that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For all the hate Lootboxes are getting here I am amazed that Subscription fees are not being brought up more.. > > > > > > > > Mandatory Subfees are by far the most predatory and greedy practice in this industry.. far worse than any lootboxes i've ever seen.. and yet they are far more accepted despite how much they deserve to be utterly despised by gamers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > if i dont like a game, then i prolly wont pay a sub for it, how is that PREDATORY? > > > > > > > lootboxes OTOH, they are manifestations of pure GREED. the desirable objects always have a astronomically low droprate. > > > > > > > and then they just fill the rest with low grade junk. > > > > > > > sub fees requires a thing, that has become rather scarce in the mmo business : TRUST > > > > > > > > > > > > I won't pay a sub even for something I like. > > > > > > As far as I am concerned when I buy a game that game is mine to play as I see fit. > > > > > > > > > > > > If a company tells me "oh no.. actually you're just renting the game and that initial price was nothing more than a downpayment and if you stop paying us we'll take the game away from you" then im pretty much going to tell said company to go straight to hell. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sub based games are predatory in the sense that their price tag/cost is unlimited. > > > > > > You'll be paying to play them forever without the possibility of ever owning the game. > > > > > > Just look at those who've been playing Wow non stop for the past 16 years, they've put almost 3 grand into that game just on sub costs with nothing to show for it.. Everything goes away if they decide they don't want to pay for it anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh and Wow of course also has a cash shop and lootboxes as well.. because ripping people off with a subfee just wasn't greedy enough. > > > > > > That's why pro sub arguments don't make any sense when criticizing alternative monetization methods like cash shops and lootboxes. > > > > > > > > > > 16 years of gaming for 3 grand sounds like a good deal to me. have you seen the price of new games, and how many hours they last? > > > > > i would take a good sub game over any F2P model, but sadly there arent many left > > > > > > > > Yes, because the model realistically doesn't work on a market wide scale. > > > > It creates a market where only X amount of games can even survive due to the nature of subscription fees, a problem that we are eventually going to run into with TV at some point as well, especially with more focus being pushed on service exclusive shows. > > > > > > > > Too many services means excessive amounts of subfees needed to access them and that ultimately limits peoples options pretty significantly. > > > > This is exactly the reason why so many MMO's have gone free 2 play over the years, while many others have straight up died and vanished from the world entirely. > > > > As much as I love Gw1, if the game had launched with a mandatory sub fee then I would place a hard bet that Gw2 would never have existed. > > > > > > > > For me it's not about the money, I'll gladly pay more to avoid being forced to pay a mandatory sub with the added penalty of having my games and movies etc taken away if I stop paying. > > > > I'd rather have a large physical game and movie collection that gives me total freedom and control over what entertainment I consume than pay a subscription for something like like Playstation now or Netflix. > > > > > > > > You can argue the experience is what you get when you pay for sub services and you're not entirely wrong.. but it's an expreience you can only enjoy while you're paying.. > > > > When you stop paying you loose everything.. you are back to square one with absolutely nothing to show for all that money you spent. > > > > And even then your options were always limited by the service you're paying for, you have no control over what movies and shows and games come and go on the platform and there's always a risk something you are half way through will be gone the next day and no longer available to you even though you are paying for it. > > > > > > > > At least with physical games, movies, tv shows etc you will always have access to them and you can enjoy them at any time you wish without ever having to pay for them again. > > > > That is something I will gladly pay for and have gladly paid for since I was old enough to earn an income. > > > > But I will never support a mandatory subfee service, no chance in hell. > > > > > > > wrong, if i let my sub lapse for a month, all my toons dont get wiped to level 1. do you even know, how mmos work? > > > > I never said they did, I said they get taken away from you.. ergo you can no longer access them or interact with them in any way until you pay a specific party money again. > > Essentially it works the exact same way as ransom does.. a bit like blackmail too, and the longer you play for and the more time and money you invest, the more value that account has to you ergo the more likely you are to keep paying just so the company that does own it doesn't strip away your access to it and hold it for ransom until you pay up again. > > > > What it means is that you don't own the game you paid for. > > You don't own any of the paid DLC's you paid for. > > You don't own any of the additional cash shop items that you also paid an additional fee for either. > > You don't own the account you made. > > You don't own the characters you made. > > You don't own any of the items you have aquired. > > You don't own anything associated with that game or account at all no matter how much money you put into it. > > > > I can't accurately put into words how utterly repulsive and unethical I find business models that works like that. > > Imagine if you spent a few grand on a brand new top of the line gaming PC, spent a few hundred more on a bunch of brand new games too and then Microsoft come along and say you gotta give them another 30 bucks a month forever or they'll lock you out of accessing your own computer so you cant use it at all even to use other things that you have paid for.. until you pay Microsofts monthly "ransom" fee. > > That's exactly what the subfee model is and does.. and that's why I'll never support anything that forces a mandatory one. > > > > > i still have a huge box with all of my old albums...useless, because i dont have a record player anymore. same with my box of old VHS tapes. and i was one of the smart ones, who didnt buy a betamax player, those guys were screwed. when you have your OWN collection, you just have to pay the fee in hardware > > > PS my collection of DVDs are already on the way out too, it is getting hard to find a player WITHOUT blu ray kitten > > > > Blu-rays play DvD's though I can understand if you're more of a purist with that. > > Old tech does have a certain kind of charm to it doesn't it. > > > > I take care of my stuff pretty well, my old tech is in good condition despite it's age. > > I keep an old TV around for the old AV consoles since a lot of new HD TV's no longer support that format, same for SCART as well which is also being pushed out nowdays. > > The N64 being the problem child as it is a pain in the rear getting that thing to work on newer TV's even with a signal converter. > > It's a very stubbon console but I can't help but love it ^^ > > > > I'd argue old consoles and games look better on old TV's anyway, new TV are just so clean and colourful that they don't do old games justice at all.. expose far too many imperfections that were not visible on old TV's thanks largely to the quality the screens were capable of back then. > > If you keep/collect old consoles and games then keeping an old CRT about is absolutely worth it imo, or at the very least a 90's era flatscreen if you can find one. > > without the servers and other players, they are totally useless, "owning" them wont change much from your perspective That could be argued for some but not all, I've played a number of MMO's myself over the years, but never ones with mandatory subs (A good few of them used to have them at one point though.. and they all nearly died because of it and had to go free2play to survive) I've always played them essentially as single player games though so if they did go offline one day but remained playable as single player games it would hardly change much for me. Mostly i'd miss the chat lol > microsoft is already DOING that, i have to pay an EXTRA subscription if i want to use the windows DVD player AFTER i paid 180$ > for the windows disc Out of curiosity, How does that make you feel? Personally I'd feel ripped off if I were in your position. I wasn't aware Windows DVD had a sub, i've never used it personally. I tend to avoid as many microsoft products/apps as I can on my PC because I hate the company. One day I hope to have Windows software purged from my PC as well, I hate being forced to use it but atm I have no choice.. there just isn't a decent OS alternative in the market for gaming PC's. I was hoping Steam OS would take on that role but sadly that didn't happen. As soon as there is I will take great pleasure in getting rid of Windows XD > blu ray players suck, they are very slow and prone to errors, compared to the older DVD players > I don't really have a preference on that one. I have many movies and games on DVD's and BluRays, I like both formats though bluray is certainly slower. That said i've never had any issues with errors on Bluray.. I have on DvD's but admittedly that was on older hardware so I don't count it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coeruleum.9164 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 I don't think loot boxes are always gambling, but I think they can be gambling. All the loot box prizes have a value in real-world money. If you buy $20 worth of loot boxes, you should get $20 worth of stuff. It would also help if you could trade all the stuff you got, because it needs to be stuff that's worth $20 to you, and the best way to do that without driving down the rarity of items would be allowing someone to trade something that's worth $20 that they don't want but someone else does for something that's worth $20 that they want that someone else got but doesn't want. That type of scenario is actually identical to trading card games, Kinder eggs, cereal boxes, etc. The trading is more of a social activity and lets you enjoy the element of surprise without trying to use the element of chance to make a profit being the point of the activity. If you see loot boxes where you always get something out of them and it's worth about what that number of keys is worth, that's not gambling, but if there's a rare chance to win valuable prizes, that is gambling. The Black Lion Statuettes that are tradeable really help the cause of black lion chests, but they don't make the activity not gambling because you can't actually get everything that drops from the loot boxes with the statuettes. If you look at China, they haven't banned loot boxes, but they regulate the chances of getting different items out of them. I don't think loot boxes should be banned, just regulated, and for now, Asian countries are probably going to take the lead in doing that since Asian countries probably play even more MMOs than Western countries and have huge governments with a lot of power to regulate things. It's a good thing the next expansion for GW2 will be Cantha (Tyrian Asia.) I think the most ideal thing for BLCs would be to make absolutely everything that can drop from them be buyable with statues, but there's also a chance at winning the thing you want to buy or other additional things. A lot of stores have raffles if you fill out a survey on their receipts, but I've never heard anyone call doing these surveys gambling and try to ban them because you're really just going to the store to buy things and the raffle is for fun and to incentivize people to fill out the surveys. If the black lion statuettes are going to be the main point of buying the chests, they should probably be changed to black lion tokens instead so it's like you're buying the chest for the treasure within to trade and anything else in it is a bonus. Making all the prizes tradeable like trading cards and other comparable real-world items would also help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrostSpectre.4198 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 It is gambling when the lootbox is withholding game experiences, as in forcing you to buy them just to play the game. Though I do fear the effing governments goes too far, watering down the lootbox to include more than just harmful gambling mechanics that withhold gameplay. There are always some busy bodies who should never have power, who just want to ban everything because "superior morality" or to benefit themselves and their morally questionable benefactors. (Ultimately, I side only with those who do the right thing, once they don't do the right, my allegiances goes to the one who does the right thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yggranya.5201 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 > @"FrostSpectre.4198" said: > It is gambling when the lootbox is withholding game experiences, as in forcing you to buy them just to play the game. > > Though I do fear the effing governments goes too far, watering down the lootbox to include more than just harmful gambling mechanics that withhold gameplay. > There are always some busy bodies who should never have power, who just want to ban everything because "superior morality" or to benefit themselves and their morally questionable benefactors. > (Ultimately, I side only with those who do the right thing, once they don't do the right, my allegiances goes to the one who does the right thing) So, what is the "right thing"? Or more accurately, your personal view on the "right thing"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castlemanic.3198 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 Black lion chest keys, knife tail hunting bonds and the randomized mount licenses all constitute gambling. The very moment you CAN pay for rng items with real world money, it becomes gambling. It doesn't matter that you can pay for gems with gold, the fact that you CAN pay with real world money means that it must be taken as real world gambling, because eventually the pull to pay real world cash for rng things is a psychological pull to gambling, it feeds on the minds of children and gambling addicts that have no sense of control. Anet NEEDS to remove anything rng from the gem store because it all constitutes as gambling. Otherwise this game should have an age rating that is equal to gambling law restrictions. rng that can be paid for with real world money are, by their very definition, gambling. As soon as the thing that you want is NOT a 100% guaranteed product of your purchase, it constitutes gambling and is, by its very existence, predatory and exploiting the gaming community. Anet can survive on guaranteed purchases alone, there wont be any need for a subscription fee if all rng items are removed from the gem store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naiasonod.9265 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 They put those black lion statuettes in there on purpose, and it wasn't because they're just that magnanimous. Now they've got the legal defense that you're buying keys to open chests to get black lion statuettes. Everything else is just random rewards they're giving you for free, but what you're actually buying isn't technically gambling at all now. You're buying black lion statuettes. Ain't that slick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kratan.4619 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castlemanic.3198 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 > @"kratan.4619" said: > Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not. It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 > @"castlemanic.3198" said: > > @"kratan.4619" said: > > Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not. > > It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it. I disagree. [nanny state](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state) noun a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective. Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castlemanic.3198 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"castlemanic.3198" said: > > > @"kratan.4619" said: > > > Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not. > > > > It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it. > > I disagree. > > [nanny state](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state) > noun > a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective. > > Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government. Governments put laws in place to protect people, it's not authoritarian to prevent children from easily accessing gambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigur.9453 Posted September 5, 2020 Share Posted September 5, 2020 > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > @"castlemanic.3198" said: > > > @"kratan.4619" said: > > > Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not. > > > > It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it. > > I disagree. > > [nanny state](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state) > noun > a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective. > > Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government. Parents ARE still responsible for their children. Gov. Just makes the guidelines. Alcohol laws. Tabac laws. Minimum driving ages. Sexual consent minimum age. Generell abuse/beating Would you prefer to live without them since it’s parents job anyway? Without these laws some companies would sell a minor alcohol/tabac... no questions asked, without legal consequences. You can’t Lock up your kids at home till they are 18/21, neither should you. **** These laws are rather „I will protect your children from....“ then „you have to protect your children from...“ **** Your nanny state opinion always baffles me, and I am really wondering where it’s coming from. In EU you would be quite the minority, and I never spoke to someone with that mindset, so it would be really interesting to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astralporing.1957 Posted September 6, 2020 Share Posted September 6, 2020 > @"naiasonod.9265" said: > They put those black lion statuettes in there on purpose, and it wasn't because they're just that magnanimous. > > Now they've got the legal defense that you're buying keys to open chests to get black lion statuettes. Everything else is just random rewards they're giving you for free, but what you're actually buying isn't technically gambling at all now. > > You're buying black lion statuettes. > > Ain't that slick? Similar approaches have already been tried with real world gambling (and with online gambling sites), but have long ago been recognized for what they were - an attempt to circumvent the law. That's why you don't see casinos (neither real world nor online ones) trying to pull that kind of stuff anymore - nobody got fooled then. I don't see why this case suddenly should be treated differently. It's nothing more than an attempt to fool everyone into thinking that something that is clearly a gambling is not a gambling anymore just because we changed some small, inconsequential detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kichwas.7152 Posted September 7, 2020 Share Posted September 7, 2020 > @"hugo.4705" said: > > @"Taril.8619" said: > > > @"hugo.4705" said: > > > your choice to be addict or not > > > > That's literally not how addiction works. > > Your choice, ofc I can have a predisposition to be addict to casino or drug BUT if I never go there for my entire life, I will never be addict. > > I am cunscious that there are cases that can't live without their cannabis or smoking. But it is due to the addictive substances. I am in no way defending lootboxes, but if the player IS aware that the droprates are trapped, and that the player will lose, why playing the game? Sure companies are culprits but players doing gambling or opening lootboxes too. > > > I know precisely how addiction works, my brother can't stop smoking. But what I think about it? If he never had touched a cigarette, he wouldn't had an addiction. It's that simple, avoid things that can cause addiction. > > Need money to have a chance to earn something permit many things? Say NO. > Just say no? That didn't exactly work all that well when it was the mantra in the 1980s... Given manipulative tactics used, it's not that simple. That noted I can think to some extremes. My mother and all of her siblings were force fed LSD in the 60s by their stepfather. Of them, my mother is the only one that did not become an addict, thus sparing me and my siblings the horrific experiences my cousins went through. Now... that's a bizarre extreme and I know it. But we have had plenty of people in minority communities who were experimented on with those same said psychedelics through to Crack in the 50s through 90s, and after that many people were prescribed opiates after medical procedures not because they needed them, but to increase sales... leading to drug addiction now also hitting white communities (which thankfully means it's rightly and finally seen as a medical issue and not a criminal one)... Gambling addiction has been known about for centuries, if not longer. Pretty sure I've heard of it being discussed in Roman era writings... You trick someone in with the promise of an outsided reward, and then convince them to try again a few times, and it only takes a shockingly few attempts to get an addict. If you visit a modern Casino (easy to do if you simply even land in Nevada for a fly over, as slot machines are in the airports right as you exit the plane - you can also see them in Tahoe in one town that exits halfway in Cali and halfway in Nevada, on the Nevada side of the street the casinos have open doors facing Cali with slot machines in view)... anyway if you visit such a locale you will notice the machines now resemble video games more than slot machines. They use something very similar to a loot box system to get people to play a game on repeat until the money drains out... Because it works... some flashy graphics and a simple reward designed to trigger the 'id' and you can bilk people of their life savings in a matter of minutes. Also... willpower... no. Not for most people. Very few people have the ability to turn off parts of their brains. My mother actually did manage to quit cigarettes on a one time just 'now I will quit' moment, but that is an extremely rare trait and something even the person in question can rarely repeat. That all noted... I'm going with the experts. If professionals who study the psychology of addiction are saying this stuff is a problem, I'm going to trust them. Especially given how the recent mass distrust of experts over the last decade has essentially led to 2020 being such a global mess - I think it's high time we started believing people who are more trained in subjects than ourselves, to actually know their specific subject matter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted September 7, 2020 Share Posted September 7, 2020 > @"sigur.9453" said: > > @"kharmin.7683" said: > > > @"castlemanic.3198" said: > > > > @"kratan.4619" said: > > > > Nothing said on this forum is going to be taken into account when the nanny state will decide for us if they are illegal or not. > > > > > > It's not a 'nanny state', it's a government body looking out for its citizens. It's their job to make sure that gambling isn't in video games that are easily accessible to children. Nothing 'nanny state' about it. > > > > I disagree. > > > > [nanny state](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nanny-state) > > noun > > a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective. > > > > Parents should be responsible for their children. Not the government. > > Parents ARE still responsible for their children. > Gov. Just makes the guidelines. > > Alcohol laws. > Tabac laws. > Minimum driving ages. > Sexual consent minimum age. > Generell abuse/beating And yet, despite those laws, these things happen anyway. A deviant person will, by definition, go against his/her society's morals and rules. Fortunately, for many societies, these deviants represent a very small minority. Should those societies continue to make rules and laws that oppress the majority's freedoms while the deviants would continue to go against them anyway? > Would you prefer to live without them since it’s parents job anyway? I would prefer that society agree on a set of morals and/or laws and then punish those who decide to oppose them. Parents ought to be a child's first arbiter of moral and ethical guidelines. Sadly, many parents lack in this responsibility. > Without these laws some companies would sell a minor alcohol/tabac... no questions asked, without legal consequences. Again, laws that are for the benefit of the majority of the society in which they are written should be enforced. > You can’t Lock up your kids at home till they are 18/21, neither should you. I never suggested that kids be locked up. I am advocating for parents to take their responsibilities seriously and teach right and wrong and to know and understand what their children are doing. If their kids are deviating from what should be expected of them, then the parents should be the first ones to discipline them and not abdicate that responsibility to the government. > **** These laws are rather „I will protect your children from....“ then „you have to protect your children from...“ **** Sorry, i'm not understanding what you're trying to say here. > Your nanny state opinion always baffles me, and I am really wondering where it’s coming from. In EU you would be quite the minority, and I never spoke to someone with that mindset, so it would be really interesting to hear. I'm not so sure that I have had a "nanny state" opinion? As for where my opinion does derive, it is based on the freedom that all persons were given at creation. The rules, morals, ethics, laws ... whatever one wants to call them should be established by the majority of the society in which they are founded. You and I certainly have a different take on what this means; many EU countries appear to be more socialist driven than here in the US. It may be that you are more used to stricter laws and governmental control over your decisions and actions than I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yggranya.5201 Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 > @"sigur.9453" said: > Your nanny state opinion always baffles me, and I am really wondering where it’s coming from. In EU you would be quite the minority, and I never spoke to someone with that mindset, so it would be really interesting to hear. Probably Alex Jones. I admit i haven't watched that clowns show in any form except in YTP, but it gives you a pretty good idea of what he is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazer.2157 Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 I think the government should stay out and not tell us how to use our money while they waste taxpayers money on bs programs. Restricting gambling for kids is something I agree with, but it’s ridiculous when they tell fully grown adults on what they can and cannot do with their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kharmin.7683 Posted September 8, 2020 Share Posted September 8, 2020 > @"Yggranya.5201" said: > > @"sigur.9453" said: > > Your nanny state opinion always baffles me, and I am really wondering where it’s coming from. In EU you would be quite the minority, and I never spoke to someone with that mindset, so it would be really interesting to hear. > > Probably Alex Jones. I admit i haven't watched that clowns show in any form except in YTP, but it gives you a pretty good idea of what he is about. > Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now