Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ...
13
21
22
23
  1. #441
    Quote Originally Posted by Art the Clown View Post
    Horrible youtuber and a leech that makes money from peoples hatred.

    Scumbag.
    He'd make good friends with Activision-Blizzard higher-ups. B)

  2. #442
    @Raelbo.

    If you wanted an example of what I meant about the playerbase being conditioned to these types of marketing tactics, look at this thread on the front page. People literally having no provlem with paid cosmetic lootboxes being added to the game.

    That's the state of a growing number of players. Absolutely willing to be milked with lootboxes.

  3. #443
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    @Raelbo.

    If you wanted an example of what I meant about the playerbase being conditioned to these types of marketing tactics, look at this thread on the front page. People literally having no provlem with paid cosmetic lootboxes being added to the game.

    That's the state of a growing number of players. Absolutely willing to be milked with lootboxes.
    No but it's fine because it's "just cosmetics."

    So long as my numbers aren't taken away from me, that's all. Because in an MMORPG it's all about numbers, mathematical progression, not visual. You need to use your numbers to take down the numbers so you can loot the corpse and get items that give you greater numbers.

    Ugh.

  4. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarathir View Post
    No but it's fine because it's "just cosmetics."

    So long as my numbers aren't taken away from me, that's all. Because in an MMORPG it's all about numbers, mathematical progression, not visual. You need to use your numbers to take down the numbers so you can loot the corpse and get items that give you greater numbers.

    Ugh.
    Despite the sarcasm, for some players that's true. But a wide variety of people play the game for a wide variety of reasons. And even top raiders like to tote their exclusive top tier gear over scrubs.

    And that's not even considering how game companies can't be trusted to not manipulate droprates to promote purchasing boxes.

    If you needed a reason why I gripe about something as "insignificant" as a cash shop mount, there it is.

  5. #445
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Despite the sarcasm, for some players that's true. But a wide variety of people play the game for a wide variety of reasons. And even top raiders like to tote their exclusive top tier gear over scrubs.
    In my book, paid cosmetics are not pay to win. After all, cosmetics have generally one of two purposes: to show off some hard-earned appearance or to look a certain way the player wants to. Now for the latter, just let them. And as for prestige - at least in games I play (WoW and Guild Wars 2) store cosmetics are distinct enough that the discerning player will know what look is earned and what is bought.

  6. #446
    Quote Originally Posted by Flarelaine View Post
    In my book, paid cosmetics are not pay to win. After all, cosmetics have generally one of two purposes: to show off some hard-earned appearance or to look a certain way the player wants to. Now for the latter, just let them. And as for prestige - at least in games I play (WoW and Guild Wars 2) store cosmetics are distinct enough that the discerning player will know what look is earned and what is bought.
    I never said they were pay to win. However, they do fall under the same complaint I have as any cash shop cosmetic: It's something that could be used as a reward for actual gameplay. It encourages players to get into the game and actually earn rewards instead of just swiping the credit card. Diablo 3's AH is a perfect example of what happens when players are allowed to pay for progress. And cosmetic appearances can absolutely be viewed as progression.

    As it stands, the number of mounts is currently relatively low. But add in look boxes for any number of appearances? You know there will be unique appearances not available through normal play. Or at least the droprates will be skewed to a ridiculous degree to promote purchasing it.

    GW2 also has a very different business model than wow. Primarily by not charging a subscription. If Blizz changed the model of wow to B2P or full F2P, that would change the discussion significantly. But with a box price and a sub, adding cash shop items or loot boxes is over the line.

    Not to mention that paid cosmetics are not targeted at "discerning" players, but at whales and impulse purchases. The industry has shown time and again that they can not be trusted to use this business model responsibility(both players and corporations).
    Last edited by SirCowdog; 2020-01-29 at 07:26 AM.

  7. #447
    Immortal
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    @Raelbo.

    If you wanted an example of what I meant about the playerbase being conditioned to these types of marketing tactics, look at this thread on the front page. People literally having no provlem with paid cosmetic lootboxes being added to the game.

    That's the state of a growing number of players. Absolutely willing to be milked with lootboxes.
    No offense, but your argument here is basically at the level of a conspiracy theory. Which means that there is no way to convince you, or disprove what you say, as your argument basically depends on taking the benefit of the doubt. So while you've gone to great lengths in your previous post to explain your mode of thinking, your entire argument still rests on a few unsubstantiated assertions.

    For example, you're claiming a direct link between the 6 month+mount promotion and "conditioning" players for lootboxes, but you haven't done anything to substantiate that claim. Yet you are confident that you are correct because people would be willing to pay for lootboxes.

    If you wanted to verify your claim, you'd need to be able to assess the attitude of people towards lootboxes both before and after exposure to these mount promotions and show that people who previously were anti lootboxes and who decided to go for this promotion changed their attitude.

    1) There is zero evidence that anyone's attitude towards lootboxes was different before this promotion and the so-called "conditioning"
    2) There is zero evidence that buying into this promotion has affected behaviour in other ways
    3) There is evidence that people who opt in for this promotion are anti lootbox

    Nothing is proven, but #3 suggests that your theory is nonsense. But of course you'll take the benefit of the doubt as proof.


    Personally I don't care what other people choose to do with their hard earned money as long as they aren't being coerced into it. And as I have repeatedly said, I don't see any form of coercion going on with this promotion.

    The thing about coercion is that people who do end up being coerced tend to feel aggrieved after the fact. To me it's telling that the people here (like you) who take issue with this promotion are not victims of said coercion, but rather self proclaimed defenders of those who have been coerced. So where are they?

    Essentially your entire argument rests on the notion that some hypothetical players are close to helpless to resist this promotion, and that there existence is proof of coercion. And your evidence of their existence? The "law of averages". Which is nonsense. Because while, yes, I accept the notion that some people are susceptible to making really stupid decisions without any form of coercion, the fact that they don't require any form of coercion means that they cannot be proof of coercion.

    This is why your argument is so tenuous and why, real as it seems to you, just comes across as nonsense to those of us who haven't drunk the proverbial Kool Aid

  8. #448
    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    No offense, but your argument here is basically at the level of a conspiracy theory. Which means that there is no way to convince you, or disprove what you say, as your argument basically depends on taking the benefit of the doubt. So while you've gone to great lengths in your previous post to explain your mode of thinking, your entire argument still rests on a few unsubstantiated assertions.

    For example, you're claiming a direct link between the 6 month+mount promotion and "conditioning" players for lootboxes, but you haven't done anything to substantiate that claim. Yet you are confident that you are correct because people would be willing to pay for lootboxes.

    If you wanted to verify your claim, you'd need to be able to assess the attitude of people towards lootboxes both before and after exposure to these mount promotions and show that people who previously were anti lootboxes and who decided to go for this promotion changed their attitude.

    1) There is zero evidence that anyone's attitude towards lootboxes was different before this promotion and the so-called "conditioning"
    2) There is zero evidence that buying into this promotion has affected behaviour in other ways
    3) There is evidence that people who opt in for this promotion are anti lootbox

    Nothing is proven, but #3 suggests that your theory is nonsense. But of course you'll take the benefit of the doubt as proof.


    Personally I don't care what other people choose to do with their hard earned money as long as they aren't being coerced into it. And as I have repeatedly said, I don't see any form of coercion going on with this promotion.

    The thing about coercion is that people who do end up being coerced tend to feel aggrieved after the fact. To me it's telling that the people here (like you) who take issue with this promotion are not victims of said coercion, but rather self proclaimed defenders of those who have been coerced. So where are they?

    Essentially your entire argument rests on the notion that some hypothetical players are close to helpless to resist this promotion, and that there existence is proof of coercion. And your evidence of their existence? The "law of averages". Which is nonsense. Because while, yes, I accept the notion that some people are susceptible to making really stupid decisions without any form of coercion, the fact that they don't require any form of coercion means that they cannot be proof of coercion.

    This is why your argument is so tenuous and why, real as it seems to you, just comes across as nonsense to those of us who haven't drunk the proverbial Kool Aid
    Oh...so we're going to open with insults? Do you see? This is why I hesitated to try and explain with any detail. And you just proved me right. Rather than have a reasonable discussion, you decided it would be easier to take an entire several paragraphs to go full ad hominem.

    And before you go into some kind of "gotcha" moment about how I refuse to explain myself when challenged, maybe think real hard about not starting your next interaction by implying multiple times that the person you want a response from is crazy.

    We're done here. I should have known better than to expect basic civility.
    Last edited by SirCowdog; 2020-01-29 at 10:42 AM.

  9. #449
    Quote Originally Posted by Kralljin View Post
    Blizzard has laid off over 800 people last year, are now hiring a fraction off that back at a lower salary.
    Blizzard has laid off hundreds of GM and whatnot over the course of the last decade and replaced them with automated systems.
    Blizzard has improved their internal structure for a more efficient design and development process.
    Your fine to belive and trust who ever you want, but please stop using the lie that Blizzard fired 800, Activision Blizzard fired around 800 in total, around 592 from Activisons part of the company, and 208 from Blizzards part, not all but most of the people was from Blizzard´s eu side and was working in administration handlings sales and distribution, which isnt so wierd cuting down the people there since most people buy digital now.

  10. #450
    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    I am starting to get the feeling that this concept is beyond some people...
    take my advice, lifes too short to argue with morons like Kralljin, i wasted a lot of time trying to argue while he just repeated the same nonsense without any argument at all, just his twisted mindset... block him and live a hapy life

  11. #451
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Oh...so we're going to open with insults? Do you see? This is why I hesitated to try and explain with any detail. And you just proved me right. Rather than have a reasonable discussion, you decided it would be easier to take an entire several paragraphs to go full ad hominem.

    And before you go into some kind of "gotcha" moment about how I refuse to explain myself when challenged, maybe think real hard about not starting your next interaction by implying multiple times that the person you want a response from is crazy.

    We're done here. I should have known better than to expect basic civility.
    Yeaaah... no.

    They attacked your argument and your assertions. Not you.

    That's not ad hominem. Lol.

  12. #452
    Quote Originally Posted by Mardux View Post
    Yeaaah... no.

    They attacked your argument and your assertions. Not you.

    That's not ad hominem. Lol.
    • Heavily implying someone is a conspiracy theorist(see: crazy, kook, unreliable, wild claims, etc), not to mention his previous claims of me being arrogant because I didn't share his views.
    • And later in his post suggesting my reasoning is nonsense, despite not providing any evidence of his own, but rather just claiming it's there.
    • Followed by straw man arguing against the idea that I said players were being coerced(which is a twisting of what I actually said: "Psychological manipulation", which is not being forced via threats(which is the definition of coercion).
    • Followed by further misrepresentation of my points by claiming players are helpless(also something I never said).
    • Finished up with the suggestion that I'm some kind of cultist by referencing the "koolaid".


    Everything about his post is thinly veiled ad hominem. It's clear he wants to just call me an idiot and be done with it, but had to cover it in just enough veneer to not be immediately infracted. And if that was not his intent, then he VERY badly needs to work on his communication skills.

    Either way I'm done here. I'm so sick of this kind of interaction.
    Last edited by SirCowdog; 2020-01-29 at 12:43 PM.

  13. #453
    Immortal
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    [LIST]
    Heavily implying someone is a conspiracy theorist(see: crazy, kook, unreliable, wild claims, etc),
    I specifically said "your argument" read like a conspiracy theory. I even went on to explain how and why. At no point did I call you a crazy, kook etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    not to mention his previous claims of me being arrogant because I didn't share his views.
    False. It had nothing to do with not sharing your views and everything to do with you trying to proclaim yourself as an authority on the subject, which you tried to defend by calling it "being confident". Sorry mate, but you totally opened that door and practically begged me to come in.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    And later in his post suggesting my reasoning is nonsense, despite not providing any evidence of his own, but rather just claiming it's there.
    I substantiated everything I said. If you look at the Toulmin method, my argument covers every aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Followed by straw man arguing against the idea that I said players were being coerced(which is a twisting of what I actually said: "Psychological manipulation", which is not being forced via threats(which is the definition of coercion).
    If you have a problem with the word coercion, I am happy to change it. Clearly we have slightly differing understanding of the word. I certainly never implied anything about threats.

    Here is a link to a dictionary definition

    "the act of persuading or convincing someone to do something using force or other unethical means" (in other words, while coercion often involves threats, it doesn't necessarily)

    Also:

    "The improper use of economic power to alter, shape, or otherwise control the actions of another"

    As I understand it, "manipulating players into acting against their own interest through shady practices" qualifies as coercion. But like I say, if you disagree, you're welcome to substitute with a synonym of your choosing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Followed by further misrepresentation of my points by claiming players are helpless(also something I never said).
    I never said you claimed players were helpless. I said you were treating them as though they were - on the basis of implied susceptibility to manipulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Finished up with the suggestion that I'm some kind of cultist by referencing the "koolaid".
    Seriously? Way to misinterpret. It was just a simple way of refering to people who haven't bought into your way of thinking. Fair enough, I was referencing to the idea of your argument reading like a conspiracy theory, so I apologise if that crossed a line.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Everything about his post is thinly veiled ad hominem. It's clear he wants to just call me an idiot and be done with it, but had to cover it in just enough veneer to not be immediately infracted. And if that was not his intent, then he VERY badly needs to work on his communication skills.
    While I can accept that not everything I write will come across to you as intended (for example, you thinking that I am calling you a cultist), I have at least put in the effort to try and substantiate everything I say. To the extent that, honestly, I don't believe you have valid grounds for taking offense.

    As for your assertion that I just want to "call you an idiot", that really isn't fair. As I said in a previous post, " I do enjoy debating with you because you do offer a lot of insights, you're generally willing go into detail, all the while remaining civil in spite of differences of opinion"

    My intent here has been entirely to challenge you to defend your opinion with a proper argument and I gave you a fair chance to present your argument. My objective has never been to ridicule you, but rather to get us to a point where at least we both understand the other's PoV, with one of three possible outcomes:
    1) You see the flaw in your opinion
    2) You show me the flaw in my argument
    3) We can agree to disagree (while at least understanding and respecting where each of us is coming from)

    Honestly, I would not have bothered writing as much as I did if I just thought you were an idiot and I am somewhat disappointed that you've chosen to essentially sulk rather than engage on the points I challenged you on.
    Last edited by Raelbo; 2020-01-29 at 02:07 PM.

  14. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by SirCowdog View Post
    Despite the sarcasm, for some players that's true. But a wide variety of people play the game for a wide variety of reasons. And even top raiders like to tote their exclusive top tier gear over scrubs.

    And that's not even considering how game companies can't be trusted to not manipulate droprates to promote purchasing boxes.

    If you needed a reason why I gripe about something as "insignificant" as a cash shop mount, there it is.
    I get you entirely. When the Celestial Steed came out, I was defending it-- it was not a big deal. Just one mount, they wouldn't add a bunch more in a short period of time, and the mounts we got in game were still great, while the Celestial Steed was just a lesser Invincible reskin.

    Kinda played myself there, in hindsight.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Raelbo View Post
    No offense, but your argument here is basically at the level of a conspiracy theory. Which means that there is no way to convince you, or disprove what you say, as your argument basically depends on taking the benefit of the doubt. So while you've gone to great lengths in your previous post to explain your mode of thinking, your entire argument still rests on a few unsubstantiated assertions
    m8 they're not hypothetical, they're right there in that thread

    unless you think they're bots

  15. #455
    Immortal
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    7,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarathir View Post
    m8 they're not hypothetical, they're right there in that thread

    unless you think they're bots
    I wasn't talking about the people in that thread. I was talking about the hypothetical people referred to in this thread. ie those who are supposedly helpless to resist the urge to buy a six month subscription just for a mount, and who don't realise that they'll be unsubbed in 2 months because nocontent.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Yarathir View Post
    I get you entirely. When the Celestial Steed came out, I was defending it-- it was not a big deal. Just one mount, they wouldn't add a bunch more in a short period of time, and the mounts we got in game were still great, while the Celestial Steed was just a lesser Invincible reskin.

    Kinda played myself there, in hindsight.
    Funny thing that: When the Celestial Steed came out I was very skeptical of where it would lead. It was only after having a chance to see how it actually affected the game, and had time to reflect on the real implications that I realised it was probably actually a good thing for the game.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •