Yes, one which GGG should've solved leagues ago even, by now they're simply ripping off customers with their lack of functionality. Everyone who bought a premium-tab has bought the ability to list items. Not showing all of those is just fucking them over, plain and simple.
yes, this is exactly what i was saying.
i imagine most people buying the premiums tabs are buying them with the expectation that their listing will not be randomly omitted from search results.
it is particularly disturbing in that Chris has mentioned making it more difficult for people to search for things in some of his posts, as well as stating that he does not want the value of items trivialised by easy trade - and coincidentally, it seems the lowest priced items are frequently not showing in results sets as has been noted by the OP.
GGG's response seems to me more of their same dismissive attitude toward those who trade - the title of the opening post says it all "I know you guys hate trade, but come on". i think this takes the dismissive attitude towards trade too far - into the realm of misrepresentation, and i'm surprised GGG don't see the ethical issues with it, as i actually believed they were better than that.
they didn't hide their stance that trading in it's current state is too powerful and needs to be toned down.
the reason is that players who trade alot also end up being much richer than players who don't. surprise!
if you look at the issue from the game's perspective you somehow have to balance the progress of players trading and those who rarely do so. because having a linear increase of "whealth gained" by playtime/trading time would demotivate the casual players and mean "less money from them".
the principle is called "diminishing returns", triple effords put into a system doesn't mean triple but double rewards.
also, if you blame ggg for issues they openly admit, all you will achieve is them stopping to do so.
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
I don't think you've had much experience with huge database design and management...
It is true that you can do (some of) what you say (though not as you describe it), but do you not realise how expensive and difficult it is to create such a system?
Not only do you need to hire the database experts to design and manage it (and there's a reason these are some of the most expensive people in the business), you also have to pay for the servers.
Neither of these are cheap (far from it), and GGG would not make any extra money to cover these costs.
Yes, one which GGG should've solved leagues ago even, by now they're simply ripping off customers with their lack of functionality. Everyone who bought a premium-tab has bought the ability to list items. Not showing all of those is just fucking them over, plain and simple.
yes, this is exactly what i was saying.
i imagine most people buying the premiums tabs are buying them with the expectation that their listing will not be randomly omitted from search results.
it is particularly disturbing in that Chris has mentioned making it more difficult for people to search for things in some of his posts, as well as stating that he does not want the value of items trivialised by easy trade - and coincidentally, it seems the lowest priced items are frequently not showing in results sets as has been noted by the OP.
GGG's response seems to me more of their same dismissive attitude toward those who trade - the title of the opening post says it all "I know you guys hate trade, but come on". i think this takes the dismissive attitude towards trade too far - into the realm of misrepresentation, and i'm surprised GGG don't see the ethical issues with it, as i actually believed they were better than that.
they didn't hide their stance that trading in it's current state is too powerful and needs to be toned down.
the reason is that players who trade alot also end up being much richer than players who don't. surprise!
if you look at the issue from the game's perspective you somehow have to balance the progress of players trading and those who rarely do so. because having a linear increase of "whealth gained" by playtime/trading time would demotivate the casual players and mean "less money from them".
the principle is called "diminishing returns", triple effords put into a system doesn't mean triple but double rewards.
also, if you blame ggg for issues they openly admit, all you will achieve is them stopping to do so.
ur totally missing the point. It's not a debate about the merit of chris's views. It is about people spending REAL LIFE MONEY on a product that most likely does not meet their expectations.
For example, if I paid for an advertisement to sell my car in the local newspaper, I would expect it to appear in the local newspaper because I PAID for it. People pay real life money for premium stash tabs, and I believe most of them are under the impression that their items will show up on the GGG trade site when someone does a search that matches their item - not that whether the item appears or not is arbitrary based on whether it is returned in the first 999 or whatever number of results.
GO HAVE A LOOK AT THE STORE LISTING FOR PREMIUM STASH TABS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT ADVISES BUYERS OF THIS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER POE SHOULD HAVE AUCTION HOUSE OR BETTER TRADE FACILITIES - IT IS ABOUT HONEST REPRESENTATION OF PRODUCTS THAT PEOPLE ARE SPENDING REAL LIFE MONEY ON.
While the GGG premium stash tab blurb doesn't explicitly state that listings will definitely appear, it is a reasonable assumption for a purchaser to make, based on the information presented, that their listings will appear. I don't know that GGG are doing anything illegal in this case, but there is definitely an ethical issue regarding how the average buyer would interpret the information presented as c/w the reality.
I'm stunned that people can't seem to make this distinction... The local donut shop owner might be of the opinion that people shouldn't eat donuts. That doesn't mean it is ethical for him to advertise "12 donuts per box" and then only put in six. GGG should at the very least amend the in-store information presented at the point of sale.
While the GGG premium stash tab blurb doesn't explicitly state that listings will definitely appear, it is a reasonable assumption for a purchaser to make, based on the information presented, that their listings will appear. I don't know that GGG are doing anything illegal in this case, but there is definitely an ethical issue regarding how the average buyer would interpret the information presented as c/w the reality.
[Removed by Support]
What makes you think that a technical issue can be illegal? Why the f. would it be illegal if your worthless trash of items didnot show up on the api?
[Removed by Support]
Trust your mind and strengthen your abilities!
Last edited by Scott_GGG#0000 on Jul 26, 2019, 8:30:11 PM
While the GGG premium stash tab blurb doesn't explicitly state that listings will definitely appear, it is a reasonable assumption for a purchaser to make, based on the information presented, that their listings will appear. I don't know that GGG are doing anything illegal in this case, but there is definitely an ethical issue regarding how the average buyer would interpret the information presented as c/w the reality.
[Removed by Support]
What makes you think that a technical issue can be illegal? Why the f. would it be illegal if your worthless trash of items didnot show up on the api?
[Removed by Support]
most of the time I have my account set to "appear offline", so my comments have nothing to do with my personal selling experience. most of the time this has actually worked to my advantage, as it has allowed me to buy stuff that other people have missed because it's not showing on the official GGG site.
my comments are purely about what i perceive as being honest and not being honest. i don't believe that, at the time of purchase, that most people buying the premium stash tabs would understand their listings might not show up on the official ggg site. i believe, for the sake of honesty, this should be clear.
as far as technical issues being illegal - absolutely - if those technical issues result in fraud or misconduct. for example, if a superannuation fund has a technical issue that causes them to overcharge all their customers, that is illegal. it doesn't matter that the source is a technical issue, it is that the result is misconduct. i know this from personally having dealt with such issues in a professional capacity.
It's not a debate about the merit of chris's views. It is about people spending REAL LIFE MONEY on a product that most likely does not meet their expectations.
For example, if I paid for an advertisement to sell my car
there is a difference between you buying a product or a service or temporarily purchasing a license to use a product that you don't own.
buying something at your retailer makes you own a product. buying a service so a company places an advertisement is making you own rights that the service is fullfiled.
you don't won ggg's mtx even if they grant you a temporary license to use them for as long as ggg wants you to after you supported them.
also they exclude all claims from your side towards ggg.
if anything, then ggg's licensing is comparable to license online musik or digital books which can be deleted from your bookreader without you having any means to prevent it or the store closing, making all your purchases void and, like microsoft, they maybe compensate you for the stuff you bought and notes you left in those digital books.
ggg exclused even that in their ToS. they can remove your account tomorrow for no reason stated, leaving you with nothing and you can just open a new account if you're still in the mood to play the game.
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
It's not a debate about the merit of chris's views. It is about people spending REAL LIFE MONEY on a product that most likely does not meet their expectations.
For example, if I paid for an advertisement to sell my car
there is a difference between you buying a product or a service or temporarily purchasing a license to use a product that you don't own.
buying something at your retailer makes you own a product. buying a service so a company places an advertisement is making you own rights that the service is fullfiled.
you don't won ggg's mtx even if they grant you a temporary license to use them for as long as ggg wants you to after you supported them.
also they exclude all claims from your side towards ggg.
if anything, then ggg's licensing is comparable to license online musik or digital books which can be deleted from your bookreader without you having any means to prevent it or the store closing, making all your purchases void and, like microsoft, they maybe compensate you for the stuff you bought and notes you left in those digital books.
ggg exclused even that in their ToS. they can remove your account tomorrow for no reason stated, leaving you with nothing and you can just open a new account if you're still in the mood to play the game.
Of course, and they can also enjoy an exodus of players and a real death of PoE if they are "smart" enough to do those on a large scale.
I got why they "over protected their @$$#$" and have such clauses in the ToS, but they do SELL you a service WITHOUT PROPERLY HIGHLIGHTING said service's LIMITATIONS.
If they know the problem and can't provide a solution, they are obliged by at least moral sense to provide A DISCLAIMER about said problem, so every buyer that intends to "support" them doesn't end up not satisfied.
We all should know that they need CONSTANT "SUPPORT" TO CONTINUE, and by not addressing this MAJOR PROBLEM, they will have more to lose than gain further down the line.
But this should be a sticky topic on the forum/Reddit until they "git gud" and address it, so at least they will have the appearance of "the good guys". If not, well, we will all know why "SCAMMING IS A CORE ASPECT of PoE, because TencentGGG DOES IT TOO"...
PSS: Our almighty TencentGGG overlords are very scrupulous regarding criticizing their abilities to take proper decisions and consider everything "needlessly harsh and condescending"...
Good to know "free speech" doesn't apply in any form or manner on the forums these days...
Last edited by sofocle10000#6408 on Jul 28, 2019, 10:56:16 PM
It's not a debate about the merit of chris's views. It is about people spending REAL LIFE MONEY on a product that most likely does not meet their expectations.
For example, if I paid for an advertisement to sell my car
there is a difference between you buying a product or a service or temporarily purchasing a license to use a product that you don't own.
buying something at your retailer makes you own a product. buying a service so a company places an advertisement is making you own rights that the service is fullfiled.
you don't won ggg's mtx even if they grant you a temporary license to use them for as long as ggg wants you to after you supported them.
also they exclude all claims from your side towards ggg.
if anything, then ggg's licensing is comparable to license online musik or digital books which can be deleted from your bookreader without you having any means to prevent it or the store closing, making all your purchases void and, like microsoft, they maybe compensate you for the stuff you bought and notes you left in those digital books.
ggg exclused even that in their ToS. they can remove your account tomorrow for no reason stated, leaving you with nothing and you can just open a new account if you're still in the mood to play the game.
If they know the problem and can't provide a solution, they are obliged by at least moral sense to provide A DISCLAIMER about said problem, so every buyer that intends to "support" them doesn't end up not satisfied.
companies does not have morals. they have goals and deadlines.
companies does not have morals. they have goals and deadlines.
i do think gaming companies are different if they manage to restrict business administration guys to just doing their job and not overtake the company.
the problem for small companies is, both tasks (game decision and busiess administration) fall to the same persons.
ggg did manage that so far, although only up to a certain level. i felt a bit of relieve when chris could get the ba stuff off his shoulders.
age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill!
Last edited by vio#1992 on Jul 29, 2019, 5:04:16 AM
companies does not have morals. they have goals and deadlines.
i do think gaming companies are different if they manage to restrict business administration guys to just doing their job and not overtake the company.
the problem for small companies is, both tasks (game decision and busiess administration) fall to the same persons.
ggg did manage that so far, although only up to a certain level. i felt a bit of relieve when chris could get the ba stuff off his shoulders.
well more than the bussiness side of things morals can be subjective.
so while serving gamers from all across the world its important to keep things professional. i admire ggg, they kept it pretty professional and i hope they keep it this way.
