Super Packs on the PMarket 2/14/12
By
Acroyear2,
Posted on: 2012-02-13 18:35 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
I could say the exact same thing about your posts about this. You want to shut down the discussion because you don't consider it gambling, and you started insulting people that didn't agree with you.|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
How very pedantic, engaging in a semantic argument like that. And then topping it off with a meme designed to short circuit any semblance of rational discourse or thought. How underhanded of you. Er, I mean clever. Yeah, it's clever. Golf clap.
|
Quote:
| I'm just saying that people who are calling this gambling are being quite silly |
Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters
Quote:
What's your rationale for calling Super Packs, well, whatever you're calling them? They don't count as gambling because the cards don't physically exist in a casino? Because Magic: The Gathering isn't regulated by the American Gaming Association? (n.b. They also avoid using the word "gambling" despite being the trade association for casinos.)|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
How very pedantic, engaging in a semantic argument like that.
|
The reaction from some quarters in these discussions when the general term gambling is legitimately used in this case tells a great deal about how contentious this issue really is, despite its virtual nature.
Quote:
What does MTX mean?
|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
the MTX-subscription hybrid that CoH Freedom was initially presented as.
|
Quote:
Micro-transaction
|
Originally Posted by warden_de_dios
What does MTX mean?
|
Triumph: White Succubus: 50 Ill/Emp/PF Snow Globe: 50 Ice/FF/Ice Strobe: 50 PB Shi Otomi: 50 Ninja/Ninjistu/GW Stalker My other characters
Quote:
No it's not. Go read up on the psychology of addiction and gambling. It's exactly the same.
|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
My point there is that the rush you get from getting a rare or very rare collectible item from a game is different from, say, the rush you get from winning $1,000.
|
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
I think that arguing the semantics of gambling versus non-gambling is sort of beside the point. If I buy a pack of baseball cards, I'm technically gambling, but I doubt anyone is going to close down the local sports card shop. A parent might come in and complain about the money his kid is spending on the attempt to get an autographed foil of the current big-name athlete and ask why he can't just buy a factory set. The dealer will, of course, tell him that factory sets suck and sell poorly compared to boxes of packs with random assortments in them.
This happens to be true. Packs are fun. Factory sets are boring, even if you do have a complete collection after you buy one. In fact, factory sets completely short circuit the whole business and point of the collecting. That's why completists may like the option but collectors who enjoy the activity of collecting really don't get much satisfaction from them.
The super packs are identical to baseball cards except that they are generated by a dice roll at the point of purchase instead of being pre-generated, or so I presume from the descriptions.
Yes, there's random chance involved. It's even fun to anticipate what you might get. Is it gambling? If gambling means any activity governed by random chance where you put up an ante and get a payout of some kind, then I suppose it is gambling. Is it bad? *shrug*
In the end, vote with your wallet. There are plenty of "factory sets" in the market already. This just gives players a different way to acquire game stuff. A mini-game, if you will.
Another non-superhero game I play just wrapped up a promotion they called "Packapalooza". They put all of their "super packs" (conceptually, packs of 7 cards with commons, uncommons and rares that occasionally would be ultra-rares) on sale. The newest packs were at a very minor discount of like 5% while the oldest pack was discounted a full 50%. They even brought back a seasonal pack that had been rotated out; the equivalent of opening the Chalet in the summer.
I mention this because it's reasonable to expect a similar marketing tactic in CoH. They're marketing the super packs like baseball cards or CCG cards. That necessarily means that they'll likely follow the sort of sales curve that trading cards have. A big spike at release, followed by a downward slope into almost nothing once most everyone has the stuff they want from it.
If the cards offer you too little value for the money at 80pp (am I the only person who always reads that as "plat"?) then wait 3-6 months for the popularity to decline and it's almost certain that they'll be available at a sale price when some marketing schlub decides to inject some life into them.
If the supposed "morality" of gambling had any real weight here, the Packs would not have hit the market.
The fact that posters who refused to buy the Packs on principle balked and spent points on them anyway... in this very thread even... speaks more loudly to the decision makers than anything else in this thread.
Quote:
Who cares if it is gambling? Doesn't change the fact that those that like it can go ahead and buy the packs to gamble for the costume pieces and those that don't don't have to.|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
How very pedantic, engaging in a semantic argument like that. And then topping it off with a meme designed to short circuit any semblance of rational discourse or thought. How underhanded of you. Er, I mean clever. Yeah, it's clever. Golf clap.
I might as well cut to the chase. Since we're gonna play the dictionary game, I might as well point out one part I put in bold. Did you know there's a chance you could get into a serious accident on your way to work every day? If you live where I do, there's a chance that a major earthquake might hit, and that might kill you. Perhaps you might get struck by lightning during a storm, and you might die. Why, there's a chance that a meteor could strike you right this very moment, or maybe tomorrow. Maybe never! I daresay that living in the universe is a "gamble" for each and every unit of time you exist in it. Looks like everything is a gamble, hmm? I guess the universe is just one great big duck then, eh? Quack! |
I never understood the fear of calling it gambling. You can call it rutebega, but it's still the paying money for the chance at whatever you consider a jackpot (black wolf, ATOs).
What you call it is actually irrelevant to the discussion of whether some folks want the chance to buy the rare items outright for a set price, and whether some folks don't care about rolling for a CHANCE at those items.
Never understood the irrational fear of calling it exactly what it is: gambling with your real life entertainment dollars for in-game virtual items.
EDIT: Also this isn't a moral issue in anyway shape or form. Outright calling it what is is (taking a chance to GAMBLE with REAL LIFE CASH for a chance at virtual items) has no moral or immoral connotation no matter what some of the more extreme among our posters might say.
The MAIN and ONLY issue is whether some folks like gambling for in-game items or some prefer buying the outright. That's it.
EDIT2: If folks have such DELICATE sensibilities, then fine call it: Rolling the dice for in-game virtual items with your REAL LIFE DOLLARS, or playing with the RNG for a chance at in-game virtual items with your REAL LIFE DOLLARS. It doesn't matter, it's the same damn thing.
LOL
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
Quote:
I want to point out this part of your post. You seem to be overlooking the exact aspect of "random roll" in the baseball card packs and this Superpack. |
Originally Posted by SlickRiptide
I think that arguing the semantics of gambling versus non-gambling is sort of beside the point. If I buy a pack of baseball cards, I'm technically gambling, but I doubt anyone is going to close down the local sports card shop. A parent might come in and complain about the money his kid is spending on the attempt to get an autographed foil of the current big-name athlete and ask why he can't just buy a factory set. The dealer will, of course, tell him that factory sets suck and sell poorly compared to boxes of packs with random assortments in them.
This happens to be true. Packs are fun. Factory sets are boring, even if you do have a complete collection after you buy one. In fact, factory sets completely short circuit the whole business and point of the collecting. That's why completists may like the option but collectors who enjoy the activity of collecting really don't get much satisfaction from them. The super packs are identical to baseball cards except that they are generated by a dice roll at the point of purchase instead of being pre-generated, or so I presume from the descriptions. Yes, there's random chance involved. It's even fun to anticipate what you might get. Is it gambling? If gambling means any activity governed by random chance where you put up an ante and get a payout of some kind, then I suppose it is gambling. Is it bad? *shrug* In the end, vote with your wallet. There are plenty of "factory sets" in the market already. This just gives players a different way to acquire game stuff. A mini-game, if you will. |
Psychological studies have determined that the single most powerful reward system people respond to is one of intermittent rewards. Working steadily towards certain reward doesn't thrill people, and even gambling with a guarantee of eventual success doesn't get people as excited as intermittent rewards. Which seems counter-intuitive, but it works. Gamers need only look around them to see examples of this: random drops on massive raids, CCG sets, baseball cards, etc.
If you want to train your kids to behave, then set ground rules for when they'll be punished, but reward them randomly. It's the most effective way of programming them to obedience. The dark side of this quirk of human psychology is when abused women stay with their abusers because often the guy will be nice to them, apologize and treat them to something. Intermittent rewards keep women in those situations for years. The abuser has to do it just often enough to trigger the response, but many of them learn at a young age where that sweet spot is.
As you just said, opening a pack of baseball cards is "fun." The reason why it's fun is because it is hooking directly into your compulsion to respond to intermittent rewards. It's the identical mechanism that makes slot machines, scratch-off tickets and other types of random gambling fun: every once in a while you get something worthwhile. And it happens just often enough to get you coming back.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Everything_Xen
If the supposed "morality" of gambling had any real weight here, the Packs would not have hit the market.
The fact that posters who refused to buy the Packs on principle balked and spent points on them anyway... in this very thread even... speaks more loudly to the decision makers than anything else in this thread. |
I can't stress this enough: intermittent rewards are the crack cocaine of your subconscious.
Just because they CAN do it doesn't mean they SHOULD do it.
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
I don't see any difference between Super Packs and buying cases of Magic cards back in the day so you could stack your deck with 4 of some rare. So you end up with a tub of commons so what, donate them to a elementary school and get the kids hooked on it. Very least it teaches them reading, math and logic.
As for costume exclusivity in Freedom? Try Tier 9 VIP costumes. How many points are they going to cost if you aren't close to that level? Do you already have a character or thinking of one that must have the super pack costume pieces or are you just being a clothes horse?
Father Xmas - Level 50 Ice/Ice Tanker - Victory
$725 and $1350 parts lists --- My guide to computer components
Tempus unum hominem manet
Quote:
Oh come on you can't seriously compare this to rutabaga, seriously? That's so alarmist!|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
You can call it rutebega, but it's still the paying money for the chance at whatever you consider a jackpot (black wolf, ATOs).
|
rutabaga
[roo-tuh-bey-guh, roo-tuh-bey-]
ru·ta·ba·ga
[roo-tuh-bey-guh, roo-tuh-bey-]
noun
1. a brassicaceous plant, Brassica napobrassica, having a yellow- or white-fleshed, edible tuber.
2. the edible tuber, a variety of turnip.
This is nothing like a rutabaga!
More like an overripe squash if you ask me.
@Quasadu
"We must prepare for DOOM and hope for FREEM." - SirFrederick
Quote:
For what it's worth, I'm still not willing to spend money on random chance. My opinion on that has not, in any way, changed.|
Originally Posted by Everything_Xen
If the supposed "morality" of gambling had any real weight here, the Packs would not have hit the market.
The fact that posters who refused to buy the Packs on principle balked and spent points on them anyway... in this very thread even... speaks more loudly to the decision makers than anything else in this thread. |
I used my left-over stipend points for mine. That's why I only opened six.
Now having the few things I wanted from the packs? I doubt I'll even spend any more of those. YMMV, of course, but I still hope the devs provide some other way to get the costume set and the wolf.
@Brightfires - @Talisander
That chick what plays the bird-things...
Quote:
If you believe all this (I do), and further that you believe it's a bad thing that should be avoided (I don't), why are you on an MMO to begin with? MMOs exist because of intermittent rewards.
|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Exactly. That's how powerful intermittent rewards are. Even people who are against gambling in general will often succumb to the siren call of maybe getting something cool.
I can't stress this enough: intermittent rewards are the crack cocaine of your subconscious. Just because they CAN do it doesn't mean they SHOULD do it. |
De minimis non curat Lex Luthor.
Quote:
Being that it's part of a videogame, I'm inclined to continue calling it that. Is there any a reason why a videogame should stop being called a videogame because it includes a CCG theme? Which, as far as I know, isn't even its main theme? We're all still playing hero and villain characters that defeat enemies and gain XP, right?|
Originally Posted by TrueGentleman
What's your rationale for calling Super Packs, well, whatever you're calling them? They don't count as gambling because the cards don't physically exist in a casino?
|
Quote:
| Because Magic: The Gathering isn't regulated by the American Gaming Association? (n.b. They also avoid using the word "gambling" despite being the trade association for casinos.) |
That's another reason why I think people like Snow Globe are using very underhanded tactics in attempts to enforce their positions. He used the general definition of the word, when the argument was clearly circling around its legal definition (your reference to the AGA bears that out, I say; it implies that's where your thoughts have been for this entire argument, and I've seen others do the same). As soon as I saw that song and dance about "looks and quacks like a duck" I knew he was just more interested in being right than anything else, and he was just throwing everything onto the wall in hopes that something would stick. I'm not about to take someone like that at all seriously.
Quote:
| The reaction from some quarters in these discussions when the general term gambling is legitimately used in this case tells a great deal about how contentious this issue really is, despite its virtual nature. |
I've played videogames since I was a little kid, and I've played games of chance for actual money quite often. As well, my own family history is filled with problems of addiction. So if nobody minds, I think I'll take my own experiences over those of some guys who are butthurt that they can't just get all their shinies at once and instead have to play a little game of gotta-catch-em-all in order to get them.
Quote:
As an aside I found that game to be completely idiotic also.|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Being that it's part of a videogame, I'm inclined to continue calling it that. Is there any a reason why a videogame should stop being called a videogame because it includes a CCG theme? Which, as far as I know, isn't even its main theme? We're all still playing hero and villain characters that defeat enemies and gain XP, right?
It's certainly not my fault that the AGA is afraid of the social taint surrounds the word "gambling". As well, the argument over the morality of gambling is entirely beside the point, because if we're going there then you're assuming that everyone already agrees that these Super Packs are a form of gambling, in the legal sense, and I'm pretty sure I've already expressed my opinion about that. That's another reason why I think people like Snow Globe are using very underhanded tactics in attempts to enforce their positions. He used the general definition of the word, when the argument was clearly circling around its legal definition (your reference to the AGA bears that out, I say; it implies that's where your thoughts have been for this entire argument, and I've seen others do the same). As soon as I saw that song and dance about "looks and quacks like a duck" I knew he was just more interested in being right than anything else, and he was just throwing everything onto the wall in hopes that something would stick. I'm not about to take someone like that at all seriously. I'm not at all surprised that these people can't tell the difference between a general and a legal definition, and that it's somehow all the same to them. If they want to be a pack of chicken littles running around and waving their arms about in a moral panic, well I'm not about to stop them. But I'm just as free to point out how silly their reactions are to something like this. I'm sure that'll make me a pariah or whatever, but you know, the ignore function is right there! So, what-ev. I've played videogames since I was a little kid, and I've played games of chance for actual money quite often. As well, my own family history is filled with problems of addiction. So if nobody minds, I think I'll take my own experiences over those of some guys who are butthurt that they can't just get all their shinies at once and instead have to play a little game of gotta-catch-em-all in order to get them. |
But I have a black heart so there.
EDIT: Personally I find folks that get butthurt about costume issues (like in that thread where Dink is posting) versus actual game mechanics, to be silly. So to each there own about what they find "unacceptable in a video game"
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
No need to argue over Supergamble Packs. Some will buy them others will not, just like in Vegas and the offerings there.
The development team and this community deserved better than this from NC Soft. Best wishes on your search.
Quote:
The problem with all of this is that I like them, they don't bother me, and I say (based on text books) that they are gambling. I have all the crap I want from them, and I am not butthurt by them in any way. In this case, it is a duck. It is just a more acceptable duck.
|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Being that it's part of a videogame, I'm inclined to continue calling it that. Is there any a reason why a videogame should stop being called a videogame because it includes a CCG theme? Which, as far as I know, isn't even its main theme? We're all still playing hero and villain characters that defeat enemies and gain XP, right?
It's certainly not my fault that the AGA is afraid of the social taint surrounds the word "gambling". As well, the argument over the morality of gambling is entirely beside the point, because if we're going there then you're assuming that everyone already agrees that these Super Packs are a form of gambling, in the legal sense, and I'm pretty sure I've already expressed my opinion about that. That's another reason why I think people like Snow Globe are using very underhanded tactics in attempts to enforce their positions. He used the general definition of the word, when the argument was clearly circling around its legal definition (your reference to the AGA bears that out, I say; it implies that's where your thoughts have been for this entire argument, and I've seen others do the same). As soon as I saw that song and dance about "looks and quacks like a duck" I knew he was just more interested in being right than anything else, and he was just throwing everything onto the wall in hopes that something would stick. I'm not about to take someone like that at all seriously. I'm not at all surprised that these people can't tell the difference between a general and a legal definition, and that it's somehow all the same to them. If they want to be a pack of chicken littles running around and waving their arms about in a moral panic, well I'm not about to stop them. But I'm just as free to point out how silly their reactions are to something like this. I'm sure that'll make me a pariah or whatever, but you know, the ignore function is right there! So, what-ev. I've played videogames since I was a little kid, and I've played games of chance for actual money quite often. As well, my own family history is filled with problems of addiction. So if nobody minds, I think I'll take my own experiences over those of some guys who are butthurt that they can't just get all their shinies at once and instead have to play a little game of gotta-catch-em-all in order to get them. |
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
Off topic, but this is truth. We all have our own individual triggers and hang ups.
|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
EDIT: Personally I find folks that get butthurt about costume issues (like in that thread where Dink is posting) versus actual game mechanics, to be silly. So to each there own about what they find "unacceptable in a video game"
|
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
Using their own logic, I've already pointed out that everything is gambling. And since gambling is wrong, that means that everything is wrong. And the universe is one giant duck.
|
Originally Posted by Zyphoid
The problem with all of this is that I like them, they don't bother me, and I say (based on text books) that they are gambling. I have all the crap I want from them, and I am not butthurt by them in any way. In this case, it is a duck. It is just a more acceptable duck.
|
Quote:
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case... yes. I wanted one specific piece (the jacket) for one particular character (Mei, my Nemesis agent).|
Originally Posted by Father Xmas
Do you already have a character or thinking of one that must have the super pack costume pieces or are you just being a clothes horse?
|
I'd like to have the complete set at some point, sure, just for the option of using them if I wanted to... It's a nice set. But I don't want them badly enough to spend extra money on random chance.
@Brightfires - @Talisander
That chick what plays the bird-things...
Quote:
Really? Ok, if that is the stance you want to take, then go for it. I think a little research could go a long way though.
|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
Using their own logic, I've already pointed out that everything is gambling. And since gambling is wrong, that means that everything is wrong. And the universe is one giant duck.
|
Types of Swords
My Portfolio
Quote:
No it's not.|
Originally Posted by Ironik
No it's not. Go read up on the psychology of addiction and gambling. It's exactly the same.
|
To quote yourself:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ironik
Psychological studies have determined that the single most powerful reward system people respond to is one of intermittent rewards.
|
Gambling is psychologically powerful because most of the time you get nothing, and occasionally you get $1000. With the super packs, you get a very rare card 80% of the time, and when you don't, you still get a rare. Not to mention 4 others on top. That's not intermittent, that's bloody consistent.
Yes, there's some level of inconsistency to the rewards, but to claim it's anywhere near the same as your standard kind of gambling is absurd and pure hyperbole.
Quote:
| If you want to train your kids to behave, then set ground rules for when they'll be punished, but reward them randomly. It's the most effective way of programming them to obedience. The dark side of this quirk of human psychology is when abused women stay with their abusers because often the guy will be nice to them, apologize and treat them to something. Intermittent rewards keep women in those situations for years. The abuser has to do it just often enough to trigger the response, but many of them learn at a young age where that sweet spot is. |
Main Hero: Mazey - level 50 + 1 fire/fire/fire blaster.
Main Villain: Chained Bot - level 50 + 1 Robot/FF Mastermind.
BattleEngine - "And the prize for the most level headed response ever goes to Mazey"
Quote:
When did I, or anyone in this thread apart from you, start talking about the legal definitions of gambling? I brought up the AGA precisely because that was the direction you were detouring this discussion with your objections over using the general term. Because of such reactions on the other side of the argument, I've taken to calling the Super Packs a "game of chance", which is a little euphemistic but at least is intended to avoid this kind of pedantic objection to describing the business model behind them. Painting your opponents as Gamblers Anonymous advocates is just handwaving.
|
Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
It's certainly not my fault that the AGA is afraid of the social taint surrounds the word "gambling". As well, the argument over the morality of gambling is entirely beside the point, because if we're going there then you're assuming that everyone already agrees that these Super Packs are a form of gambling, in the legal sense, and I'm pretty sure I've already expressed my opinion about that.
That's another reason why I think people like Snow Globe are using very underhanded tactics in attempts to enforce their positions. He used the general definition of the word, when the argument was clearly circling around its legal definition (your reference to the AGA bears that out, I say; it implies that's where your thoughts have been for this entire argument, and I've seen others do the same). |
Quote:
Doesn't that definition pretty much apply to almost anything in this game? From combat rewarding you randomly with salvage, recipes, shards and whatnot all the way to the Incarnate trials. Oh, and don't forget the whole rolling for random rewards using merits and AE tickets.
|
Originally Posted by Snow Globe
1. to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
|
MA Arcs: Yarmouth 1509 and 58812
The devs' willingness to compromise on only some of the items in the Super Packs but not on others shows how much they have banked on this new transaction model paying off, even if it goes against the MTX-subscription hybrid that CoH Freedom was initially presented as.