It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Holy Flamin' Frost-Brand Gronk-Slayin' Vorpal Hammer o' Woundin' an' Returnin' an' Shootin'-Lightnin'-Out-Yer-Bum!! ~Planescape: Torment~
OP = Caveat Emptor. The Romans had a saying for someone buying something without giving due thought to what they were getting for their denarius.
I read all three pages of this topic and can see a clear dichotomy of thought: One, that marketing a product based on an idea of value is bad, illegal, unethical, something that the community should shun, would send Devs to hell and or more. Two, that the buyer is the one responsible for a purchase, even if they made a mistake and should take responsibility for their actions, seeking a refund if that's what they need, but responsible they are, none-the-less...
In Australia, there is an industry body called the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) which regulates all laws on unlawful practice and sales here in Aus. If you feel you've been mislead in a purchase you have the right to take it up with the seller, and if that does not resolve the situation in a way that satisfies you, you can take it up with the ACCC. The ACCC will investigate and if necessary, take action against the seller, or, if they find that there has been no breach to the law, politely tell you to mix some water and cement and harden the f*** up. This in principle complies with both train of thought a and train on line b. But more often then not, idiot consumers try to twist facts to make themselves appear to be a bigger victim then they really are (I've witnessed this before, in tribunal, several times).
I've yet to see anyone on these forums comparing inappropriate marketing with probably the biggest offenders in the world - Apple and app-related games, so lemme take a stab at this.
Apple are the mastercrafted purple shiney of potentially unethical marketing. So much so that it was revealed recently that hundreds of thousands was spent on psychological research in the past few years to better understand exactly what words needed to be said to develop a sense of need, safety and emotional necessity with their customers to ensure they take all the accessories they could possibly sell them when they buy their new shiney lewt.
Then they allow people to advertise a buyers market for apps on their iOS, Simpsons Tapped Out for example, where Aus$200 gets you a plethora of doughnuts to improve your iCity to show your friends how much better you are then them, all of this in a game world where there is no real 'value'.
While we may think that this has no real value as defined by us, what you may not be aware of is in 2012 a Dutch Supreme Court tried and convicted a teen on the theft and resale of online property from another teen. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/9053870/Online-game-theft-earns-real-world-conviction.html - Thus proving that there is potentially real value to be added to property advertised or marketed by devs for their customers in the form of a pre-purchase pack.
In the end, if you buy into the marketing of Apple, or if you buy into the marketing of the game devs who sell you the product, as a consumer, you've either made a good decision, a bad decision, or a decision that'll neither go to heaven nor hell. Take responsibility for your actions, if you were 'tricked', take action and seek a resolution. But if you weren't tricked, nor have you made a sale for the positive, don't go online slandering a name or an industry you know so little about.
We celebrate communication as one of the greatest achievements of man, so what does that make misinformation? Just a thought.
Twitter: _Alethia Steam: vikakova23
I do agree that the handling of the betas and some of the pre-purchase packages has been tacky.
I have no interest in rolling a Drow, but I can see how holding off on releasing them to everyone for 2 months to promote the $200 package is trashy.
Still looking forward to the game and happily got the $60 package. After playing in the last beta I have zero regrets about it.
What's wrong with having disposable income... I'll burn my cash in the fireplace if I want to... none of your business.
Don't get twisted with the whole have and have not.
The OP only reveals their inexperience with the real world.
The scary part is one day the world will be run by adults who were never spanked as kids and got trophies just for participating.
"The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'-Jesse Schell
"Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."-Luke McKinney
Originally posted by Doogiehowser PW would be feeding off impulsive buyers if the packs they are offering are compulsory to play the game. But hey guess what..you can just download and start playing free of cost. People really need to stop worrying where and how others decide to spend their money.
If people want to spend money let them. I don't understand why it matters.
Noli sinere te ab improbis opprimi
Originally posted by aiemageek Originally posted by Doogiehowser PW would be feeding off impulsive buyers if the packs they are offering are compulsory to play the game. But hey guess what..you can just download and start playing free of cost. People really need to stop worrying where and how others decide to spend their money.
What is this with this people who have a problem on OTHERS funding a game? You want to play games for free, but then you don't want others to fund it. So what do you want, the game companies to feed their children off air? The game isn't even P2W (no more than GW2 is anyway, which has a 50 bucks purchase price).
Are you aware that some people have donated amounts like ten thousand dollars through Kickstarter to games of which there isn't even concept art for?
I really don't see how more obscenely hypocritical can a person get.
PS: Anyone that has cared enough, has gotten in the Beta without paying a dime.
My opinion is my own. I respect all other opinions and views equally, but keep in mind that my opinion will always be the best for me. That's why it's my opinion.
Originally posted by Wrehn Not enough information has been released on this game, and not enough testing has been done to warrant founders packages. ...
Although I tend to agree a bit on 'feeding off impulsive buyers' thing, it is something all do.
A lot of information compared to any oter game has been released. Most MMOs release nothing a year before beta about the game. W were able to play the game at E3 an year before beta.
Secondly, testing has been going on behind the curtains. It has already been confirmed that for 'alpha' testing has been going in for months; and if you are a person who are ready to believe 'my sources' (*completely made up so don't*) alpha has been going on for 6+months before beta started and F&F testing was done for at least 3 months before that - these stages come after internal testing. That adds up 1+ years to testing of the game uptil now, when beta has just started.
I would say it is too much info and too much testing.
I am a bit sympathatic with rest of the post though. However, it is f2p and I am sympathetic to the fact that the game was almost closed because of budget. Hence if they are grabbing money now, its fine. I just have to monitor myself. If others want to support the game(good people), or are just a victim of impulsive buying (too unfortunate). I will be cautious and that is all that matters.
Originally posted by jdnyc Impulse buying is on the consumer, not the company. The whole 'no one to blame, but themselves' is a silly statement as well. The concept of blame refers to a wrong that was done. To my knowledge the consumer is aware and received/will receive the benefits of being a founder. It's a transaction that two parties agree to. You can decide for yourself if that transaction is worth it or not. Simple as that.
Marketing is a measurable, tangible science. Marketing is a form of propaganda. It is based on propaganda. Literally early marketing takes propaganda ideas and, ingeniously, turners them into capitalist propaganda*. Nearly every company uses propaganda, I mean marketing, because it works. Nearly every company does not spend money thinking that we can make our own decisions. Marketing and propaganda exist to make decisions for us. We are sheep, we have malleable minds, and marketing works exceedingly well.
Claiming that a measurable, tangible force manipulating ones behavior is solely the responsibility of the target audience is rather naive.
*Please note that I am a capitalist pig. I buy low and sell high, mostly collectables, for fun. I make money, doing next to nothing, NOTHING, by investing in the stock market. In America my dividends are taxed lower than actual work where people have invested time in labor. Investing is a quite efficient way to make money, uses next to no time, is scalable and gives you money for not working. Say someone is limited to producing X from labor over Y hours earning Z money. Investors have no such limitations. Investing $10,000, $100,000, $1,000,000, or $100,000,000 gives you dividends . . . above and beyond the rising value of the stock or mutual funds. Doing so takes very little brains (pick a S&P 500 fund, and a bond fund and you are done). Those who tell you that investing is hard or that they are taking a great risk, are lying to you. Sure my portfolio took a dive during the recession, but I still made money from dividends for doing nothing. Compound interest is rather magical, use it.
Telling folks what to think . . . works well . . . we are social animals. As such we can be studied, we can be understood, and this understanding can be fucking profitable.
Analogy:  Nazis were marketers,  Germans were incredibly smart,  the Nazis talked the Germans into evil of the highest sort,  blame the Nazis, not the Germans . . .  that is exactly what the Allies did after WWII.
Were the Nazis successful because of propaganda, or because the Germans were incapable of thinking? Keep in mind the Germans were the most advanced scientifically in the world, and knew things like smoking was bad for you (at a time doctors were telling patience to smoke to loose weight in America). Germans had scientists working on jet fighters and missiles. Germans were SMART!
The Allies won because they had numbers . . . and Albert Einstein . . . a product of German education and society. So Germans were smart, but malleable. Do not think that people, even smart people, are impervious to marketing or propaganda. It is a dangerous thought that must be stomped out. For the love of all that is holy, the Nazis were marketers of the highest skill. Blame the Nazis, not the German people!