However, if you originally posted "tribal wars is ripping us off!" I would have left it alone, posting your opinion is what the forum is for. I could see why it wouldn't be worth it to some. It is misrepresentation of economics and accusing TW of being immoral that I have issues with.
What's the diff? That's my opinion and you claim that you agree I have a right to it. I DO think it's immoral to raise the price by so much at once, and doubt very much that they "needed" to do it.
Do yourself a favor and stop referencing economic principles until you take some business courses.
No, thanks, I can screw things up perfectly well as I am. Or, better still, I much prefer just having what I need rather than having to justify screwing people to get what I want.
The mortgage crisis was NOT perfectly sound economically. They lowered approval standards of people's credit history required to get loans, and charged higher interest to those with lousy credit. It was actually horrible economically, since it didn't properly factor in perhaps the most important part of lending money... RISK. It was not "how the world works", hence leading to a downturn unseen in almost a century.
Well, the people that backed it, that had done their economics degrees, apparently didn't agree with you on that one. And I only brought it in to show you that "the way the world works" is not necessarily good just because it is status quo. You are dodging that because you don't want people to see the problems with your doctrine - inhumanity. What goldmann sachs did was perfectly legal, and so regardless of what you think was the risk, was well within "the way the world works".
You could look at a different example that does not have the risk - cigarette companies. Is it moral to produce and sell that product? Is it good for people or the environment? No - but perfectly legal and a fantastically good economic choice. It is only done to make some people rich while devastating the lives of millions of others - whether they be smokers or tobacco workers or cigarette factory workers or whatever. OK, now you're going to try to sidetrack the debate by talking about people's choice to smoke. Well bud, that is not what we're talking about - and people would not even need to make that choice if the product was not there on the market and being pushed out at people through advertising, to make people rich, in order to choose NOT to use. If the laws of business included the moral factor then the product would not even be permitted. But hey, it makes a lot of money, right?
Your ideals are crooked, you believe everything revolves around the consumer. But it doesn't. It all starts with the seller, as it should.
Well I think you're the one with crooked ideals. How can that work? If there were no consumers, the sellers couldn't sell anything. You would favour a corporation over an individual, when corporations are only created to allow individuals to dodge responsibility for their shonky actions against consumers and the environment? Everything revolving around the seller? No wonder so many people live in poverty! There is no regard for humanity in these principles! I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because this is where we fundamentally differ, and that's irreconcilable. Neither of us will be able to see the other's point of view...
No doubt you truly believe that people have a choice whether to be poor or not. That everyone really has an equal chance to "get ahead". If that's the case there is no real further point in this discussion.
@morthy - I realise this is starting to get further and further away from the topic...it's an elaborate way of discussing that I do not believe such a large price rise was necessary - especially one that hits people who can only afford smaller packets at a time, the hardest. That really smacks of profitmongering, and nothing else. I know I have said this many times before, but I feel I must answer these people that seem to think that people who are too poor to afford the increase should not be able to play. OK, so they in fact can't play any more - well congratulations on freezing some of the customers out by raising the smallest packets by the highest margin. Many poorer people used to be able to play by putting in small amounts regularly, and now they can't afford to do that any more. Great. A game that was once known for being very affordable, just had to charge as much as other games do, to make as much profit - never mind the many marginal players who only played because it was a cheap game...
I think this is wrong - OK it's correct economically - you have raised the price by a large enough amount that will still bring in a profit after the expected amount of people quit in annoyance or from not being able to afford it (who cares about them, right?). That's great for you. I just object to this attitude in our world - profit first, humans and planet second (if at all). You probably think I live in some tree-hugging, fluffy bunny dream world - but I don't really care. Greed is not good.