Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, elit eget consectetuer adipiscing aenean dolor

Is this moral?

I totally understand the need to generate revenue. And I support this.

Yet, some things, sometimes make me question why I’m supporting this game…


Let’s compare these 2 offers - 2 mythic ingots that will literally take you nowhere, and 2 Deeds, which are needed to level up your kingdom and literally give you advantages in all your battles, on the long term! At almost the same price.

Who in their right mind would fall for the mythic / legendary ingots offers? The one that is blatantly overpriced for the value it brings?

New players to the game, that’s who. Players who have no idea about the value of various resources yet. And at some point they’ll discover they paid a Mercedes price for a lousy second hand car.

So my question is - how moral/ethical is for the devs to do this? It literally feels like an intentional rip off for unsuspecting/uninformed players…
This kinda leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and adds up to my list of reasons for not supporting the game financially any longer…

I mean, would you be OK with supporting a sleazy used cars salesman ripping off unsuspecting people?

PS: Before you start with the snarky comments about things being optional - yes, I agree with you. And that’s why I chose to invest in the game in the past and support the devs. The deeds screenshot is from my account - which means that I’ve spent quite a bit of money on this game in the few months I’ve been playing it.

24 Likes

I would donate Mythic Ingots if I could. They are worthless than gold as of now…

Vip 5 just locks me out of these new deals for Vip 6+ specially because there is no good argument I could make to convince myself to spend more money to unlock the next Vip tier so…

5 Likes

There are no ethics in capitalism, and this is far from the most unethical thing they’ve ever done. At least here, you can ignore it. Remember that time they doubled the cost of completing a weekly event while we were all quarantined…or the time they tripled the cost of what it means to be amongst the best guilds…I 'member.

They pull these values out of a hat, I swear. $50,000,000 value for only $29.99

6 Likes

The mythic ingot offer preys on people who are literally that many ingots short of fully upgrading a mythic weapon. I remember being in that position when I was still new to the game. Delves are hard to do. You get limited mythic ingots every week from PvP. But oh look, you can get a couple for some gems… it’s incredibly tempting and devs take full advantage of it, even though end gamers like myself have thousands and thousands of these ingots lying around (and we’ll never use them now!) But it’s the new players they are targeting who don’t fully realize that 2 mythic ingots is only 3.6% of the required ingots to fully upgrade a class weapon, and there are 34 classes and dawnbringer. That works out to 1925 mythic ingots, but you can get TWO for a low 200 gems.

4 Likes

You know what’s funny, many games out there have scammers & those games constantly remind you to be wary. Here in GoW the devs are the one trying to scam you.

6 Likes

Oh, I remember as well - those were the other items on my list :smiley:. Somehow, they manage to lose more and more of the little respect I still had left for them as human beings, with every single patch they release…

@NeoAxL summed it up pretty well in one sentence… :frowning:

1 Like

The devs/publisher (I’m no longer sure who is responsible for this) grossly over-value resources in this game. This stuff is targeted to take advantage of newer players and/or those who happily throw money at the game buying Gems.

You get 225 Gems if you buy the $5 “daily Gems” deal (the one where you get 15 Gems per day for 15 days, or something like that). 2 Deeds of Magic are not worth $5. Gold isn’t worth real money at all, since you can grind all you want for free. 2 Mythic Ingots aren’t worth $1 let alone whatever 200 Gems works out to.

12 Likes

Best Gif seen since years. :+1:
(@Razzagor)

2 Likes

There is no moral or ethic in FTP games, its the worst of the worst. Everything is made to confuse the new player about the different currencies in the game and their “value”. Another known method is to use stupidly overpriced items reference and then doing “sales” that make believe the player that he is buying something at a good price, which is obviously wrong of course. And add to that addictive gambling mechanics directly taken from the Casino methods with less protection for childrens than the casinos.
The gems of war chief once said he would be worried if someone become addicted and spend too much money that put this person in trouble…well that is like if a cigarettes manufacturer say that he would be worried if the people buying his product become addicted and develop health problems.

I sincerly believe that every publisher or developper involved in FTP games should be arrested, judged, condamned and then put in jail.
I’ve read that things are slowly changing in some countries to try to regulate more all that circus so there is still maybe some hope…

With the arrival of internet came good things for the video game lovers (online multiplayer, DLCs, updates for fixing bugs) but unfortunately also bad things (microtransactions, FTP concept).

4 Likes

This is called anchoring/price anchoring, and comes up somewhat often as of late on these boards.

Don’t hold your breath, sadly. To get around “lootbox laws” in one country, there’s a game that sells an in-game junk item and includes lootboxes as a “free gift with purchase”. To get around them in another country, there’s a game that sells an item that will tell you what’s in a lootbox ahead of time, and then requires you to buy that lootbox once you reveal the content before you’re offered another lootbox (that you can, in turn, buy another revealing item to view the contents of).

These games, and especially the bigger publishers, will find any loophole they can to pad their bottom line…and the customers are the ones who encourage it by buying the [censored] things to begin with.

2 Likes

I see nothing wrong. You’re allowed to choose to not buy and the developers are allowed to try to make as much money as they can. New players need to do their own due diligence. It’s not against the law to offer a garbage deal to the public. It’s only against the law if they force you to buy said garbage deal. God bless Capitalism.

1 Like

I mean, this is the Big Tobacco and Casino argument, and there’s a reason why it sounds good but people still protest it. It’s also used by abusers, “You’d leave if you didn’t love me.”

Suppose I sell snake-oil health supplement pills that are actually baking soda in a capsule. I say they can cure COVID-19. Normal people are going to be suspicious about some rando calling them about a miracle cure. So I use my sources to get a list of people who are mentally disabled and a list of people who are elderly. They’re my targets. I clean them out. If they say no, I call back. They usually don’t remember we’ve already talked, and eventually they buy.

Is it their fault for being suckers, or do you feel a tinge of agitation that I decided specifically to exploit people who can’t possibly know better?

That’s how big tobacco got its butt kicked in America. They paid to suppress research into the effects of their products after finding out they were dangerous. They also intentionally added chemicals to make their products more addictive. That, in the eyes of the court, made them “predatory”, not “good businessmen”. They were deemed harmful to the society and regulated.

That’s why the casino industry is sleazy. The argument is that they prey on people with addiction disorders. Their counter is “that’s only 1% to 2% of the population”. But note 100% of the population doesn’t go to casinos. It turns out if you just count people who go to casinos, there are a lot more addicts than they let on. As much as 52% of their revenue depends on addicts. So it’s arguable they’d go out of business if it wasn’t for addicts. That builds a case for “a company that preys on people who can’t make rational choices”.

F2P games operate a lot like the casino industry, but aren’t even close to as heavily regulated. The same argument sits: I think they can only thrive in an environment where they are allowed to specifically target addicts. This does real harm to society, and that tends to be our ruler for whether we want to regulate or restrict something.

Now, if at the end of the day, you might decide you don’t care and that addicts are responsible for themselves. That says a lot about your character, so don’t be upset if people draw conclusions based on it.


Also, side point:

Since “morality” tends to use some system of laws to determine what is right or wrong, it’s generally not productive to argue morals. Morality is an arena where someone can justifiably use The Bible or some other holy text as their basis. You can’t use logic to argue morality, and you can’t actually solve disagreements about morality without making someone change their beliefs.

“Ethics” is the arena where that’s not allowed, it is a logical examination of right and wrong. Holy texts and other things based on tradition are disqualified. You can, in theory, solve ethical disagreements by listing things that are “good”, providing a logical basis for them, then explaining how that set of good things makes your view “good”. Unfortunately, dilemmas exist where there can be multiple logically sound arguments that support mutually exclusive conclusions.

That tends to be why people turn to morality: it shifts the blame away from the person making the choice and onto God or some other arbitrary system. “I am entitled to take this senile man’s retirement fund because my beliefs do not consider a disabled person unqualified to make important decisions.”

So I stand firm that the deals in question are at least “shady” from an ethical standpoint. GoW, like a casino, builds its mechanics around addiction. This is not by accident, and the devs know what they’re doing. Ethically speaking I think they are obligated to implement measures that prevent people from draining a bank account, and the good that creates is more important than the “harm” of removing a person’s freedom to buy $13k in gems for some reason.

I don’t care much to argue those points. I cannot be convinced it’s ethically correct to use a person’s disability as a shield for bad behavior. Even saying, “people should use due diligence” is admitting you think the deal is a swindle. I’m not entertaining arguments that there is a “good” swindler.

But morally speaking, depending on which system we choose to follow, they’re either sinners or saints.

9 Likes

Thus the question whether it’s Moral, not whether it’s Illegal.
:relaxed: :vulcan_salute:

5 Likes

Holy crap! Stop the presses! Companies are immoral?!?!?!

Seriously, immoral or not. It really doesn’t change the fact people still need to do their own due diligence.

1 Like

Slyp’s saying not everyone can.

And he’s right, to a degree—it’s a sort of non compos mentis argument to be applied to children, gambling addicts, and other people who, for whatever reason, probably shouldn’t bear the full onus for their actions or decision-making because it is compromised in some way; thus, it is a caring society’s job to protect against predatory capitalism, by his reasoning, because allowing the weak or the stupid or the unlucky to be victims through no real fault of their own is wrong—i.e. “bad”

For example: children, generally speaking, aren’t treated in courtrooms as adults. Why? Because societies deem their minds to be underdeveloped and—thus—incapable of reasoned, adult, decision-making.

And so, we bar children from dangerous purchases—cigarettes, say—and activities—such as gambling in casinos.
But are there any such bars in place to protect children from a “harmless” video game? No—and there’s the rub, because some video games (like Gems of War) are quite like casinos, both in function and business practice.

If the argument is “well, a kid shouldn’t play, or have money to spend, or should be raised to know money’s too valuable to throw away, etc…etc…” well, that sort of misses the point. It’s a way of blaming the victim—the kid who was effectively sold a bill of goods rather than goods themselves, after being targeted by a company who knowingly did everything they could to make the sale to that specific, vulnerable demographic.

Now extend that line of reasoning to gambling addicts, the mentally impaired, etc…, and you can hopefully start to see why this sort of thing doesn’t sit well with everyone.

11 Likes

I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you. We all control our own actions. Addictions to me is just an excuse.

I get we all have our own vices and I’ll be the first to admit I’m very guilty of that but I am not so weak that my addictions control me. As for kids my kids know if they do something stupid like that there would be hell to pay.

I don’t know, maybe it’s just me but I’m very high on personal responsibility and not blaming other people for my own weaknesses. It’s just the way I was taught when I was growing up and believe me I have done a lot of stupid things at least once but I had the will power get out of my own demons by myself instead of blaming others for my mistakes.

You say blaming the victims is wrong but I see it as a choice. They chose to get themselves in that mess and they should choose to get themselves out of it. Blaming a corporation for it is unfair to the people who can actually control themselves but yet decided they want to buy said products even though to a guy like you or me the deal isn’t good.

You don’t have to be :slight_smile:

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss and debate perspectives which differ from my own. And my goal isn’t to change your mind so much as to challenge you to think in ways you might not be inclined to otherwise, and to be challenged to do the same myself.

That’s dialogue, and that’s important :+1:

5 Likes

You made great points in your post. For those same reasons, the tactics used in F2P games concern me. Frankly, the only reason I started playing GoW years ago was because I didn’t see the predatory mechanics that I noticed in other games. However, I can’t say that I’m completely happy with the change in direction that GoW has taken. I figured I would wait and see what the final vision of the game looks like once 5.0 drops.

But Anywho…

The problem with this whole topic is that it isn’t easy to draw the line at what is or isn’t predatory when it comes to game mechanics and monetization. Yes, some things are easy and crystal clear. Some aren’t however.

Who gets to decide what game mechanics the vulnerable should be protected from? That’s truly a can of worms.

3 Likes

trying to figure out how to make a snarky comment about it being optional.

people have different brain chemistry. that makes some folks’ brains much more susceptible. for some, controlling your addictoon is like taking a mile hike. for others, it’s like running a marathon. I’m not gonna criticize anyone who can’t run a marathon.

4 Likes