Drugs can also be used successfully, for enjoyment over a very long time by certain people. Just because one guy can enjoy recreational drugs with no ill effects on his life doesn’t mean that drugs aren’t bad for the majority of people who are hooked on them or having their lives ruined by addiction.
I certainly agree that any person with the tendency to become addicted to gambling-type games should NOT be playing this game (or others like it).
I also feel it’s up to parents to watch their children carefully for any warning signs that it’s becoming a problem.
For some people however (and I won’t debate if it’s the majority of not), the game is simply entertainment. Some people find free or cheap entertainment, while others tend to spend a lot on their entertainment. For those people it’s simply not an issue - regular frustrations, needing to occasionally vent, of course, but otherwise it simply fits into their lives and offers a nice form of pleasure and relaxation in a very social setting.
I’m Canadian. We legalized pot. So I don’t see your point.
And I’m very left wing politically, but even I don’t think it’s a company’s responsibility to baby sit it’s clients and protect them from any possible peril they may put themselves in, as long as the company’s practices and actions are legal.
If a nation or jurisdiction rules that (for example) loot boxes are a social ill and dangerous and thereby rules them illegal, then SG has to abide that law - but it’s certainly not SGs job to create such laws arbitrarily.
One thing about “caring” for players that is confusing is what timescale and what goals.
I think SG wants to keep players enjoying this game for a long time.
I think that doing that requires mostly frustrating players in the short term, giving them a taste of what they want but leaving them wanting more.
Balancing that is really hard. Balancing that with a business model that allows both a significant number of free players to enjoy the game and allows other players to spend money that supports the game and lets those players get enough to find the spending worth it but not so much to totally discourage the free and cheaper players is even harder.
Anyhow, as I’m a relatively vocal member of these forums, perhaps some SG employees care a little about me as a player personally. I suspect that the company as a whole and most of the employees much more about the overall population of players than about any specific player. And I care more about the overall health of the company than individual employees; I don’t even know who most of the employees are!
No, they are terrible people and are pretty bad at their job, id fire every single one given the chance.
Thank you, all, for participating in the conversation! I was worried that people would not take it seriously, but I enjoyed reading a lot of the posts - most were considered and thought-provoking.
As others stated, I am grateful to have connected with any number of people, both in the game and through the forum. There are numerous people in those categories that I care about, even though I literally know nothing about them (not even their names).
I am thankful to SGG for providing a game I enjoy and a conduit for making those connections. The truth is that I wish I cared more about the actual people behind SGG more. It would go a long way with me if they made more of an effort to show their human-side and interact with the enthusiastic portion of the player base.
For example, has any staff member posted about the Alchemy Lab? Do they regard it as a success? How do they feel about it being widely panned here on the forums? I know if it were me I would be absolutely crushed that a feature I spent so much time on and had such a grand vision for was looked at as such a flop by so many.
What are their thoughts about the health of the game (power creep, the overall life cycle, etc.)? What are their thoughts on long time players leaving (most notably Anchor, but there have been others)? Is that troubling to them? What are their thoughts on various attempts to introduce lootbox legislation?
Why does there seem to be such a disconnect between problems that beta players report and whether or not those changes are implemented into the game? Does SGG have some basis for thinking beta players are ‘wrong,’ in which case, what is the point of beta (seriously - I do NOT mean this sarcastically…I really think it’s a fair question)?
SGG seems to deliberately limit its staff presence on the forums (and I understand that staff interaction is not the point of the forums, but I’m also unaware of any prohibition on it and see no real reason why it should be as limited as it is), and often gives extremely terse (“we’re looking into it.”) responses when they do show up. I feel that sets constraints on the sort of relationship a player can have with the staff.
Again, my relationship with SGG is primarily / purely transactional. And that’s fine. But, as I stated at the beginning, I can envision a model that I think would be more mutually satisfying and beneficial.
In contrast, I actually DO care about, for example, @zephyr1. I know (or at least reasonably suspect - if I’m wrong then they did a hell of a job on the Turing Test) they are a real person and I respect that they work tirelessly to merge threads and link relevant information, when I would just laugh at people’s haplessness. One of my in-game highlights was raiding zephyr, simply because it was someone I knew.
Or @Garanwyn (who is missed), who also is relentlessly gracious in explaining odds and randomness, where I would (again) just laugh at people’s haplessness. Really all the mods are incredible - we are fortunate to have them.
Or @Steve9999 - I did genuinely celebrate for them when they pulled Kingston. Or @wineybrit, who went from forum friend to alliance mate. Or @Razor, who has done too much for me to list here. And many others.
Again, to me, the key difference seems to be that I have interacted and have a (pseudo / online) relationship with those people, whereas that can hardly be said for any member of the SGG team.