But anyways it’s called gaming not gambling and they are distant cousins not bedfellows like some argue for.
V1PER1987 wrote: » Now you’ll tell me that’s healthy for the longevity of the game and I’ll have nothing else to say.
KamalaWantsToPlayToo wrote: » Selling something to people that want it is business. Deliberately preying on people you know are psychologically incapable of making sound decisions is at best unethical and at worst criminal. You aren't accusing Kabam of selling crystals to people who like to buy crystals. You're accusing them of explicitly designing the game to target people incapable of making sound decisions about the amount of money to spend on crystals. That's not Girl Scouts selling cookies to people who like to eat. That's Girl Scouts deliberately targeting hospitals treating people with dietary problems and poor impulse control. I would find that equally abhorrent. All businesses make money offering people something they want and willing to pay for. I'm a business owner. I do not prey on my customers, and I take a very dim view of companies that do. As someone who works in the retail marketing world I’d have to say you’re in the minority. Finding out everything possible about current/prospective customers and using that information to try and sell them something they most likely don’t really need seems to be the name of the game anymore. There is no honor in business. And if you think this company doesn’t know exactly what their business model is (gambling) and who their customers are (gamblers) I really think you’re fooling yourself or at least underestimate the lengths companies will go to make a buck.
Selling something to people that want it is business. Deliberately preying on people you know are psychologically incapable of making sound decisions is at best unethical and at worst criminal. You aren't accusing Kabam of selling crystals to people who like to buy crystals. You're accusing them of explicitly designing the game to target people incapable of making sound decisions about the amount of money to spend on crystals. That's not Girl Scouts selling cookies to people who like to eat. That's Girl Scouts deliberately targeting hospitals treating people with dietary problems and poor impulse control. I would find that equally abhorrent. All businesses make money offering people something they want and willing to pay for. I'm a business owner. I do not prey on my customers, and I take a very dim view of companies that do.
xNig wrote: » People just complain about everything. If we hypothetically remove the rng, are you mentally prepared to pay the cost @V1PER1987 ? Let’s take the current featured 5* crystal for example. 6/24 are new champs for 15k 5* shards. Removing the extra 18 champs there to leave 6 new champs would mean increasing the odds of pulling a new champ by 3x. This means, to ensure same expected risk/reward ratio, you’re looking at a 60k shard price tag for the new 6 champs. To totally eliminate rng to give you a targeted champ, you have to increase the odds of getting the champ 5 more times, which means the price tag goes from 60k shards to 360k shards for a specific champ. At that time people won’t be complaining about rng, but rather what an unrealistic company Kabam is for setting the price tag so high. The current crystal system is fine. People just want to find someone to blame when things don’t go their way, instead of persevering through it and be patient for better pulls.