67 réponses à ce sujet

[placeboblack]

jeffrey123450 wrote...

Murkman4683 wrote...

You are right, I am one of those top elite "social beggars", you didn't even try. How accurate can your data be if you are just finding out about the rules after the fact. What are you campaigning for? To prove what point? That certain individuals don't have the stomach for competition. Hell yeah I begged for clicks and I won something. SO you are better than the rest of us, is that it? How does it feel on your high horse. I guarantee you tried to get fifty clicks a day and gave up mid-week.

You are posting on Bioware forums, you own the games, you own the DLC, way to stick it to the man.

i dont think its a case of not having "the stomach for competition" more like we wont become beggers.
gamers loyality should NOT be reward, by turnin use into spammers 4them

I agree completely with this. Murkman, you are really taking the low road by representing the "winners" by responding like a dick. I still love bioware, i just feel a little bit dirty when i think of them now...

[Murkman4683]

First off there is no need for name calling "placeboblack", from what I have seen the only individuals taking the "low road" are those who disagree with how the Bazaar was executed. These individuals continue to cast judgment on the winners and name call, when the real problem was the Bazaar itself.

How come no one compains about the Twitter Challenges.  What, wasn't there like 30 of them.  That is 15000 points alone, plus the 5750 for owning all the games, a social account, and uploading your character.  Are you going to attack those that were able to get lets say 10,000 points from Twitter challenges.  Because there were certain individuals that reported some 3000 - 6000 points from the questions.  Did they abuse the system?  Those answers were judged by a panel.

Modifié par Murkman4683, 13 avril 2010 - 04:15 .

[CptPatch]

Murkman4683 wrote...

You decided from the beginning that you didn't want to post your link and beg for clicks. So why are you mad, are you mad at Bioware? Because it looks to me that you "guys" are taking it out on the wrong people. Bioware was responsible for this Bazaar, so don't sit here and call us(auction winners) cheaters and beggars. Take your anger out on someone else and quit posting inflammatory comments towards your fellow gamers.

You make a good point: It is BioWare (more likely EA) that set the stage.  BUT..... Work with me on this:

You've got a game show.  Sort of a "Truth or Consequences" type show.  Contestants are brought on stage and presented with the Rules that lay out How To Win:
After a Challenge phase, contestants will spin a large wheel.  On the wheel is a portion marked "win".  How big that portion will be will be determined by how they perform in the Challenge phase.

The Challenge phase has three tiers:
1) If the contestant agrees to strip naked and stay on stage for all to see, the "win" portion of the wheel will be LARGE.
2) If the contestant agrees to only strip down to his underwear, then the "win" portion of the wheel will be **small**.
3) If the contestant refuse to strip off anything, there is no "win" portion; just a VERY thin line.

Those are the Rules.  You want the best chance if winning, get naked.  PLUS they get to spin first.  Next comes the semi-naked.  Provided there's anything left to win, they get to go for their share.  Finally, the fully clothed take their shots.

So, there's your pool of contestants.

First thing to happen is the people that simply refuse to play because "This is too demeaning!"  How do you think they will describe those other people that _do_ play the game?  Deviants?  Unscrupulous?  Morally degenerate?  The point is, their criticism is actually aimed at the top tier.  And those labels do not actually apply to all of the contestants.

Then the game starts.  The nakeds are running away with the bulk of the prizes.  _They_ are ecstatic about their prizes -- but nobody else is happy for them.  Now there's additional complaints aimed at the top tier -- who defend themselves by saying, "Well that's what the Rules said would offer the best chance to win!  _YOU_ other people could have had the same chance we had, but _you_ chose not to!"

Now comes the semi-naked have their shot.  They tend to think that the nakeds were crazy idiots with no sense of propriety, and may even say so.  Yeah, they got down to their underwear, but it's not like they were standing there naked.  And as the spins go around, it just happens they take home all of the remaining prizes.

Which leaves the fully clothed with nothing but a "Thank you for playing the Game!"   So now they're complaining about how the game was "rigged" to make good, honest people to do morally objectionable things -- and some moral degenerates did exactly that.

The thing here is that, yes, the Rules promoted a socially questionable activity, and one's chances to win were greatly enhanced by going overboard when doing it.  BioWare is ultimately responsible because it was _their_ Rules that promoted the behavior.  But for those that did participate those that actually won something are high profile targets -- because they had _obviously_ done what was needed to win.

THe complaints are actually _also_ leveled at those that went heavy with referral links but did NOT win.  However, _none_ of them are identifiable.  So who is left to throw stones at?

Once again, what transpired entirely BioWare's (EA's) responsibility.  But even with that, the behavior would never have materialized had we ALL refused to play.  (Fat chance of that.)  So, ultimately, it's a shared responsibility.

Just keep in mind that angry people tend to used sawed-off shotguns instead of sniper rifles.  More than likely, if you feel that criticism should not apply to you, it _wasn't_ aimed at you.  You just happen to be standing too close to the intended target.  Unless the accusation has _your_ name attached.

After all, wouldn't you all like others to give you the benefit of the doubt when the accusations start to fly?  How about giving the accusers the benefit of the doubt as well?

[Murkman4683]

Thank you for breaking that down, but your rules comparison is vague. Bioware stated that you would have to post the link to get points. Your scenario makes it seem like you had no choice, that you were just thrown into this competition without any say. The rules were stated well before the auction ever began. Yes, Bioware did say that they were rewarding their fans and certain fans with moral standards were left in the dust. But how are we the people who participated at fault. Because we chose to compete and post the link or "get fully naked". You comparison still reeks of judgmental jargon and still comes off a tad offensive towards the winners.

You posted a link, a small link that led to a gaming site that 90% of people probably closed within a few seconds. Bioware was not asking you to get naked, murder, rape, strip, throw racial slurs,etc. You cannot honestly compare posting a link to having to get naked to win a prize.

People were left out, yes, but they were not forced out. Wait, I bought a lottery ticket, I deserve to win. Oh no, there is only one winner, curse that bastard, Not everyone can win or participate.

My company gave away a PS3 and an XBOX 360 last year. I own both, should I be mad that other people will be rewarded and that I am left with nothing. Oh well, move on, I eventually won a 100 Amazon gift card at different giveaway within the company. I was forced into that competition and was cast aside cause I already owned those systems. They were rewarding us, but certain people were left out. It happens, it will always happen.

Modifié par Murkman4683, 13 avril 2010 - 05:24 .

[leesiulung]

I really don't know what the issue really is. Bioware gave you, the fans, an opportunity to win some items. As far as I know, there were a lot of prices relative to the number of participants. The prices all seem really nice.

With that said, the rules was posted up front and you had a choice to participate or not. By participating you agreed to the stated rules, and you really have no case to complain. You are no worse off than NOT participating, so I really don't see your argument holding any case.

There were multiple ways to earn tokens including the Twitter challenge so if you didn't want to spam referral links, you could avoid that.

I didn't win anything, but sure wish I did. However, I'm not going to complain about it, because I had a choice. Would you prefer Bioware not give anything?  Is that your goal?

Bottom line, you were given an opportunity to win with the rules posted clearly and upfront that you didn't have to participate in. So stop the whining and move on!

Modifié par leesiulung, 13 avril 2010 - 06:05 .

[CptPatch]

Murkman4683 wrote...

Thank you for breaking that down, but your rules comparison is vague. 

Hrm, hrm, hrmba.  (That's the sound of cogitation.)

Okay, I guessing that your starting to catch the drift.
"naked" = spammers.  Morally suspect people that will do whatever it takes to win.

"semi-naked" = link posters that kept their postings reasonable, didn't go overboard.  "I want to win, but I will NOT go _that_ far!"

"fully clothed" = participants that felt posting at all was akin to begging, and refused to do it at all.

non-participants = those that refused to aid BW in using it customer base for what it _really_ wanted to do, as opposed to what it was saying it was doing.

Now, the disgruntled in this combined group start throwing out condemnations against

A) BioWare for setting up a scheme that promotes "people getting nekkid" kind of thing.  They don't say, directly, "Go forth and spam!", but it's pretty obvious that those that do spam will gain advantage.  The only curtailment on spammers is, "Do NOT spam on _our_" site.  Then will defend themselves by saying, "Well we never said people should start spamming." But they still end up rewarding people that DO spam elsewhere.

B ) All the people that _did_ spam.  They may even point their fingers at some specific winners, but those are pretty much all the really BIG spenders.  That is: Someone wins on a 15K+ bid -- probably did some spamming. 8-10K, might have spammed.

Those two were pretty much the most common complaints.    A third complaint that cropped up in considerably fewer places was

C) People that posted links in any quantity.  "Beggars", "Panhandlers", "Solicitors", etc.  Basically, even in the more restrained Click Exchanges, what was transpiring boiled down to "Please donate to my favorite charity -- me!"

That last one is simply a matter of personal definitions and attitudes.  Like, some girls wear microskirts and think that's quite alright.  Others think microskirts are scandalous and girls that wear them MUST have low moral standards.  Which is "correct"?  The answer to that question lies within and is as varied as there are people.

The basic point is, unless the complainer says "ALL are", or unless the finger is pointed directly at you, it is simpler and safer to assume "They must be talking about someone else."  Because that is most likely the case.

[Crixt]

CptPatch wrote...

Murkman4683 wrote...

Thank you for breaking that down, but your rules comparison is vague. 

Hrm, hrm, hrmba.  (That's the sound of cogitation.)

Okay, I guessing that your starting to catch the drift.
"naked" = spammers.  Morally suspect people that will do whatever it takes to win.

"semi-naked" = link posters that kept their postings reasonable, didn't go overboard.  "I want to win, but I will NOT go _that_ far!"

"fully clothed" = participants that felt posting at all was akin to begging, and refused to do it at all.

non-participants = those that refused to aid BW in using it customer base for what it _really_ wanted to do, as opposed to what it was saying it was doing.

Now, the disgruntled in this combined group start throwing out condemnations against

A) BioWare for setting up a scheme that promotes "people getting nekkid" kind of thing.  They don't say, directly, "Go forth and spam!", but it's pretty obvious that those that do spam will gain advantage.  The only curtailment on spammers is, "Do NOT spam on _our_" site.  Then will defend themselves by saying, "Well we never said people should start spamming." But they still end up rewarding people that DO spam elsewhere.

B ) All the people that _did_ spam.  They may even point their fingers at some specific winners, but those are pretty much all the really BIG spenders.  That is: Someone wins on a 15K+ bid -- probably did some spamming. 8-10K, might have spammed.

Those two were pretty much the most common complaints.    A third complaint that cropped up in considerably fewer places was

C) People that posted links in any quantity.  "Beggars", "Panhandlers", "Solicitors", etc.  Basically, even in the more restrained Click Exchanges, what was transpiring boiled down to "Please donate to my favorite charity -- me!"

That last one is simply a matter of personal definitions and attitudes.  Like, some girls wear microskirts and think that's quite alright.  Others think microskirts are scandalous and girls that wear them MUST have low moral standards.  Which is "correct"?  The answer to that question lies within and is as varied as there are people.

The basic point is, unless the complainer says "ALL are", or unless the finger is pointed directly at you, it is simpler and safer to assume "They must be talking about someone else."  Because that is most likely the case.

I think I get it.  I finally understand you.











Your parents were killed by spam.











And now you are the batman.

[CptPatch]

Crixt wrote...
And now you are the batman.

Hey! Get it right!  That's supposed to be "BattyMan"!

[Crixt]

CptPatch wrote...

Crixt wrote...
And now you are the batman.

Hey! Get it right!  That's supposed to be "BattyMan"!

You best be jokin'.

[CptPatch]

Crixt wrote...

CptPatch wrote...

Crixt wrote...
And now you are the batman.

Hey! Get it right!  That's supposed to be "BattyMan"!

You best be jokin'.

Nooooo. I'm BattyMan.  Didn't you get the memo? 

[placeboblack]

I don't care about the stupid prizes at this point, and congrats to those of you who won something. All I know is that this was to give thanks back to the fans, and I feel crazy alienated while a very small percentage of you that won feel pretty warm and fuzzy inside.



It should have been a lottery with one ticket for every game you have to be spent only on one item of your choosing. If Bioware were to have followed that path, I may have felt warm and fuzzy too, without winning anything.

[Crixt]

placeboblack wrote...

I don't care about the stupid prizes at this point, and congrats to those of you who won something. All I know is that this was to give thanks back to the fans, and I feel crazy alienated while a very small percentage of you that won feel pretty warm and fuzzy inside.

It should have been a lottery with one ticket for every game you have to be spent only on one item of your choosing. If Bioware were to have followed that path, I may have felt warm and fuzzy too, without winning anything.

But that would not have been any advertising for bioware (its all about give and take!)

[placeboblack]

this was suppose to be a give to us. (i too support miranda's ass)

[leesiulung]

placeboblack wrote...

this was suppose to be a give to us. (i too support miranda's ass)

... except companies don't ever give anything for free. Everything has to justified, otherwise you might get some angry shareholders wondering why their investment is giving away money.

Even when there is giveaway or drawing of sorts it is intended to be monetized it in some way. Nothing is free. There is always a price to pay! It might just not cost you anything in money, but you are always giving something up.

Modifié par leesiulung, 14 avril 2010 - 04:33 .

[WolfMark1374]

well to put my opinion in this, my whole problem with the entire thing. is that this was supposed to be for the fans and people thar supported bioware of the last 15 years and to celebrate that. If you are going to do something just to say thank you to all the people that helped make your company big. then do it. but dont turn the whole thing into nothing but using those same people to advertise for you. and allow people that have never even heard of bioware. to enter the contest. i know they cannot require anyone to purchase anything to enter the game. ok that is fine. that is real simple to solve. anyone could of just made a bioware social network account and gotten the 1000 points. then they have technicaly entered into the contest. then points should of been given for game registration. the twitter challenge was one good way to give points. they should of had a true trivia challenge type thing also. but instead it was all just a ploy to use the fans of bioware to advertise for them. and that is what sucks. and i will say i have lost respect for bioware now after all this.

[CptPatch]

leesiulung wrote...

placeboblack wrote...

this was suppose to be a give to us. (i too support miranda's ass)

... except companies don't ever give anything for free. Everything has to justified, otherwise you might get some angry shareholders wondering why their investment is giving away money.

Even when there is giveaway or drawing of sorts it is intended to be monetized it in some way. Nothing is free. There is always a price to pay! It might just not cost you anything in money, but you are always giving something up.

That's not _entirely_ accurate.  Many companies (that think of themselves as being "smart") put a high value on Goodwill.  Donate to local charities.  Sponsor a Little League team.  Stuff like that.  The last outfit that I worked for had 550 stores across the US.  Every single one of those hosts an annual "Customer Appreciation Day". 

NONE of those things bring in any _direct_ value to the companies, but do represent an outlay on the part of the company.  They do it for the Goodwill.  They do it for Customer Satisfaction.  And they do it for the favorable opinion of the people they sell to -- which opinions those satisfied people _will_ share with others.

Had this been strictly an actual Customer Appreciation event, EVERY participant would have gotten something.  Be it just 50 BioWare Points to spend on a DLC (marked up 50 BPs perhaps) or a custom sig banner that reads "I was at the Bazaar and all I got was this lousy banner!"  Something.  Instead, only 412 (max) people got something.  And even those somethings were heavily subsidized by the event sponsors.  PLUS BioWare made certain that it would get LOTS of free advertising, along with a _large_ expansion to its Marketing databse

Smart companies _do_ try to reward their loyal, repeat customers.  However, if they're _really_ smart, when they're giving, they try to avoid saying, "Gimme back something, NOW."  That makes them look too mercenary and nerfarious.

OMG!  This has been Truth In Advertising!

[jeffrey123450]

does anyone else feel a little dirty when you hear da name "bioware" now?

[CptPatch]

jeffrey123450 wrote...
does anyone else feel a little dirty when you hear da name "bioware" now?

Honestly, I doubt that that anyone that wasn't already leaning in that direction before the Bazaar will have switched to that POV after.  BW makes some outstandingly GOOD games; given what else is out there and the behavior of quite a few other companies (**cough**Activision**cough**), a track record of GOOD games buys a _lot_ of tolerance/forgiveness.