For those who want to say that 5% is better than nothing, well yes, it is. The problem of course, as has been pointed out, is that 5% is such a meager pittance that it can only be classified as a blatant attempt to *USE* a good charity as a *VEHICLE* to enrich your own coffers. My personal measure of the glass being considered half full (doing a good deed) or half empty (being a self-serving d-bag), is the 50% mark. The glass is 5% full, 95% empty. The so-called charitable gesture is as morally bankrupt and transparent as the foregoing glass, AND THAT is why people are reacting negatively to it. Apparently, Child's Play doesn't much care to be played for a fool and pulled out. No amount of complaints would have caused them to take this action had they not felt similarly. For NDOORS to then try to lay blame on those who pointed this out to Child's Play is just the reprehensible icing on the shit cake. I recently purchased a vanity pet in EQ2 with 50% of the proceeds going to Child's Play, so I do practice what I espouse. Had the contribution been anything less than 50%, I would not have bought it and instead would have sent money directly to CP. Which is great option for anyone who still feels that 5% is better than nothing.
Exactly. Those who are saying "5% is better than nothing!" are like people who would say "well, that guy mugged you a beat the crap out of you? Don't bother going to the police because it's better than him killing you!"
Don't see Ndoors complaining, they get the extra 5%! Sounds like they were in the only winners in this scenario. Advertising something as going to charity and then turning around and not doing it seems to be like they are breaking some laws. Perhaps some attorney general's need to look into this situation. Personally I find Ndoors one of the more greedy producers in this genre. I don't play their games and advise any one else to avoid them too.
That may be the case if they weren't "asked to leave the charity." As in asked to not contribute at all, which is peculiar IMO. That makes me think they were slandered in some way by this hate mail. Which resulted in the charity not wanting their contribution, if that's the case I can see why they would point out the reasons "why". Maybe the mail stated exactly what they were doing and how they were getting these donations, in turn they (the charity) weren't happy about that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Orrrrr......instead of being greedy fucks and involving some cashscam in the whole thing, ndoors could just make a donation? Nonsense to do something asblatantly obviously greedy and self serving as this, try to pass it off as charity, then put the owness on the players when they call bullshit. Blizz just pulled the same shit. Its crap.
"charity" should not involve the company "being charitable" making a pile of money off it. Luckily, most people aren't too dense to see this kind of scheme for what it is....though, obviously , there are those dense few.
Yeah.. but even Blizz donated 50% of the revenue for these items. To me, 50% of the procedes does show good intention. 5% is simply an attempt to gain free advertising and a false incentive for players to actually buy the items.
It was 50% off ONE of the pets and it was the pet that was the worst of the two. And the 50% to charity was only for a month or two. The reason why the other pet was better because it killed "critters" for you which is an achievement (kill 30 specific critters). Blizzard got a lot of flack over it as well.
First off I wish to defend Child's Play's decision to remove AO NDoors from advertising for their charity after receiving bad emails from AO's own player base. Charities are run off of GOOD word of mouth. They do not have the luxury of having a few shakey deals especially publically. Registered charities jump through hoops to get their charities approved and their charity number. They then seek the holy grail of which all charities dream of for sustainability: A Large Well Known Corporate Sponsor. They then must keep their noses clean to maintain their corporate sponsors and their official charity status. Child's Play is an organization that seeks to bring games to children stuck in hospital convalescing over long periods of time. Many of these children will never be able to play outside. But just as games bring enjoyment to us here on this forum, so do they help to bring a smile, a welcome distraction and a sense of normalicy to children who have lesser circumstances then most.
Individual donations account for very little of the operating costs for any charity. It is in fact big business that keeps them going. Why would a business wish to support a charity? Well it is good advertising, for BOTH the charity and the company. It is also a tax write off. It improves your corporate image. It improves corporate morale giving the employees a rewarding challenge to fundraising drives and the feeling of inclusiveness. And maybe those big ol'boys sitting at the executive desks have a kid or a niece who benefited from the charity and they wish to give back. What ever the reasons... it is money that is given to help others.
You can say that the 5% was too little an amount, but this was most likely AO's first attempt to donate to charity and were being conservative either worried they would loose profit or uncertain how it would all work out. Sometimes going too big can be even more harmful as what if their servers couldn't handle the transactions and crashed or if they lost too much money and were unable to make good on their promises. Even baby steps are steps in the right direction. Sony and BLizzard are much large companies that have done other charitable drives and know the ropes.
What was the real outcome of all of this... Well the BEST one was that Child's Play is in the news, is being spoken of, and is now known by all of you. The worst is that AO/NDoors may likely never attempt to partner on another charitable drive.
PS I work as a nurse and have seen many charities at work, from the individual celebrity that walks in to cheer up the patients, to the giant McDonalds Play room, and even the grannies that knit little hats for the premies in NICU. There is always a place for people to give, no matter how great or small. And no matter the size of the contribution we are always thankful, as it wouldn't happen without the effort.
again you give for the sake of giving not the tax break and whats more is they would profit even more off of all of it and even get the tax break on top of it
I found this interesting response, apparently from Child's Play, in regards to Ndoors donations in the Atlantica Online forum:
"To summarize, the emails we received from players generally said that
they felt ripped off, that the item had been misrepresented, and that
Child's Play should have done better research into to program before
becoming involved. Some people were not aware that only $2.00 from
the $40.00 purchase was being donated, and they were unhappy upon
finding out.
As a gamers' charity, we felt it was important to assure this group
that their concerns were heard, and we could not in good conscience
accept the donation under these circumstances. In the future, should
we work with Ndoors again, we will strive for a greater level of
disclosure before starting any fund raising programs with them."
Child's Play didn't flat out refuse Ndoors from donating again but they demanded "Greater Level of Discloure". It seemed there were something Ndoors didn't want to disclose and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to tell they don't want to tell us the odds of the gamble boxes so they would rather choose another charity instead of pursuing Child's Play.
This is the original thread from the Atlantica forum. It is frozen now, but still accessible.
"Some people were not aware that only $2.00 from the $40.00 purchase was being donated, and they were unhappy upon finding out."
That's the essence of the fraud. In many similar abuses of the concept of charity, you'll see some sentence like, "A portion of the proceeds will be donated to charity." What proportion will be donated is usually left unstated, or stated only in fine print. Most people would assume that a fairly substantial proportion will be donated, but it's usually a very small proportion.
There's a broader ethical problem here than one instance of such an abuse. The objection that because of the complaints, Child's Play loses the donation they would have received misses that broader ethical problem. How little can a company get away with donating, and still claim the aegis of charity? If the limit isn't 5%, is it 1%? 0.01%? One cent out of all proceeds? And how much do the charities have to bow and scrape to corporations for those donations?
It's entirely reasonable to believe that Child's Play, or other charities, are better off receiving only direct donations from individuals, than crumbs from corporations.
"Some people were not aware that only $2.00 from the $40.00 purchase was being donated, and they were unhappy upon finding out."
That's the essence of the fraud. In many similar abuses of the concept of charity, you'll see some sentence like, "A portion of the proceeds will be donated to charity." What proportion will be donated is usually left unstated, or stated only in fine print. Most people would assume that a fairly substantial proportion will be donated, but it's usually a very small proportion.
There's a broader ethical problem here than one instance of such an abuse. The objection that because of the complaints, Child's Play loses the donation they would have received misses that broader ethical problem. How little can a company get away with donating, and still claim the aegis of charity? If the limit isn't 5%, is it 1%? 0.01%? One cent out of all proceeds? And how much do the charities have to bow and scrape to corporations for those donations?
It's entirely reasonable to believe that Child's Play, or other charities, are better off receiving only direct donations from individuals, than crumbs from corporations.
5%, 0.01% or 200% are all acceptable donations as long as they are clearly specified. I don't think charities will turn down a 0.01% donation of gross revenue generated from a product if the details of the product is 100% revealed.
Anyway, Ndoors did tell the "portion of the proceeds" they planned to donate to Child's Play was 5% in their forum although they didn't want to add that clarification to the descriptions of the products and they walked away from the donation after getting the demand for disclosure from Child's Play.
Comments
Exactly. Those who are saying "5% is better than nothing!" are like people who would say "well, that guy mugged you a beat the crap out of you? Don't bother going to the police because it's better than him killing you!"
That may be the case if they weren't "asked to leave the charity." As in asked to not contribute at all, which is peculiar IMO. That makes me think they were slandered in some way by this hate mail. Which resulted in the charity not wanting their contribution, if that's the case I can see why they would point out the reasons "why". Maybe the mail stated exactly what they were doing and how they were getting these donations, in turn they (the charity) weren't happy about that.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Yeah.. but even Blizz donated 50% of the revenue for these items. To me, 50% of the procedes does show good intention. 5% is simply an attempt to gain free advertising and a false incentive for players to actually buy the items.
It was 50% off ONE of the pets and it was the pet that was the worst of the two. And the 50% to charity was only for a month or two. The reason why the other pet was better because it killed "critters" for you which is an achievement (kill 30 specific critters). Blizzard got a lot of flack over it as well.
First off I wish to defend Child's Play's decision to remove AO NDoors from advertising for their charity after receiving bad emails from AO's own player base. Charities are run off of GOOD word of mouth. They do not have the luxury of having a few shakey deals especially publically. Registered charities jump through hoops to get their charities approved and their charity number. They then seek the holy grail of which all charities dream of for sustainability: A Large Well Known Corporate Sponsor. They then must keep their noses clean to maintain their corporate sponsors and their official charity status. Child's Play is an organization that seeks to bring games to children stuck in hospital convalescing over long periods of time. Many of these children will never be able to play outside. But just as games bring enjoyment to us here on this forum, so do they help to bring a smile, a welcome distraction and a sense of normalicy to children who have lesser circumstances then most.
Individual donations account for very little of the operating costs for any charity. It is in fact big business that keeps them going. Why would a business wish to support a charity? Well it is good advertising, for BOTH the charity and the company. It is also a tax write off. It improves your corporate image. It improves corporate morale giving the employees a rewarding challenge to fundraising drives and the feeling of inclusiveness. And maybe those big ol'boys sitting at the executive desks have a kid or a niece who benefited from the charity and they wish to give back. What ever the reasons... it is money that is given to help others.
You can say that the 5% was too little an amount, but this was most likely AO's first attempt to donate to charity and were being conservative either worried they would loose profit or uncertain how it would all work out. Sometimes going too big can be even more harmful as what if their servers couldn't handle the transactions and crashed or if they lost too much money and were unable to make good on their promises. Even baby steps are steps in the right direction. Sony and BLizzard are much large companies that have done other charitable drives and know the ropes.
What was the real outcome of all of this... Well the BEST one was that Child's Play is in the news, is being spoken of, and is now known by all of you. The worst is that AO/NDoors may likely never attempt to partner on another charitable drive.
PS I work as a nurse and have seen many charities at work, from the individual celebrity that walks in to cheer up the patients, to the giant McDonalds Play room, and even the grannies that knit little hats for the premies in NICU. There is always a place for people to give, no matter how great or small. And no matter the size of the contribution we are always thankful, as it wouldn't happen without the effort.
Currently Playing: D3-ROS
Previously played: WoW, Tera, SWTOR, TSW, Rift, Defiance, GW2, Aion, LotRO, Rapplez, RoM, Dofus, LC, Requiem, WoKF, PW, etc
Waiting on: Wildstar
again you give for the sake of giving not the tax break and whats more is they would profit even more off of all of it and even get the tax break on top of it
2 problems:
1) Gave away end game equipment.
2) It looks too much like gambling.
An F2P game giving to charity.......... hmm.
Isn't the purpose of F2P to keep an unprofitable game, profitable?
I found this interesting response, apparently from Child's Play, in regards to Ndoors donations in the Atlantica Online forum:
"To summarize, the emails we received from players generally said that
they felt ripped off, that the item had been misrepresented, and that
Child's Play should have done better research into to program before
becoming involved. Some people were not aware that only $2.00 from
the $40.00 purchase was being donated, and they were unhappy upon
finding out.
As a gamers' charity, we felt it was important to assure this group
that their concerns were heard, and we could not in good conscience
accept the donation under these circumstances. In the future, should
we work with Ndoors again, we will strive for a greater level of
disclosure before starting any fund raising programs with them."
Child's Play didn't flat out refuse Ndoors from donating again but they demanded "Greater Level of Discloure". It seemed there were something Ndoors didn't want to disclose and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to tell they don't want to tell us the odds of the gamble boxes so they would rather choose another charity instead of pursuing Child's Play.
This is the original thread from the Atlantica forum. It is frozen now, but still accessible.
http://atlantica.ndoorsgames.com/center/ATForum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=32506&start=101
daltanis has a good point on that forum
That's the essence of the fraud. In many similar abuses of the concept of charity, you'll see some sentence like, "A portion of the proceeds will be donated to charity." What proportion will be donated is usually left unstated, or stated only in fine print. Most people would assume that a fairly substantial proportion will be donated, but it's usually a very small proportion.
There's a broader ethical problem here than one instance of such an abuse. The objection that because of the complaints, Child's Play loses the donation they would have received misses that broader ethical problem. How little can a company get away with donating, and still claim the aegis of charity? If the limit isn't 5%, is it 1%? 0.01%? One cent out of all proceeds? And how much do the charities have to bow and scrape to corporations for those donations?
It's entirely reasonable to believe that Child's Play, or other charities, are better off receiving only direct donations from individuals, than crumbs from corporations.
That's the essence of the fraud. In many similar abuses of the concept of charity, you'll see some sentence like, "A portion of the proceeds will be donated to charity." What proportion will be donated is usually left unstated, or stated only in fine print. Most people would assume that a fairly substantial proportion will be donated, but it's usually a very small proportion.
There's a broader ethical problem here than one instance of such an abuse. The objection that because of the complaints, Child's Play loses the donation they would have received misses that broader ethical problem. How little can a company get away with donating, and still claim the aegis of charity? If the limit isn't 5%, is it 1%? 0.01%? One cent out of all proceeds? And how much do the charities have to bow and scrape to corporations for those donations?
It's entirely reasonable to believe that Child's Play, or other charities, are better off receiving only direct donations from individuals, than crumbs from corporations.
5%, 0.01% or 200% are all acceptable donations as long as they are clearly specified. I don't think charities will turn down a 0.01% donation of gross revenue generated from a product if the details of the product is 100% revealed.
Anyway, Ndoors did tell the "portion of the proceeds" they planned to donate to Child's Play was 5% in their forum although they didn't want to add that clarification to the descriptions of the products and they walked away from the donation after getting the demand for disclosure from Child's Play.