PDA

View Full Version : The Merchandising of Donations - Big Trouble In Little Bundletown



QuantaCat
05-10-2012, 05:55 PM
It has come to my attention that most of the bundles are resembling the Humble one now, especially with added charities and stuff like that.

What. The. Shit.

I know its very obvious, but this is not a service theyre doing to indie games or game culture, its just a "new" money making plan, like the free to play ones.

Not that Im complaining that much, really, as I own my fair share of them, but by jove, should they stop talking about how good they are doing the community and such. Its business, fair and square. (nothing for or against that, I just like honesty)

gundato
05-10-2012, 05:57 PM
Uhm...

What ARE you complaining about?

Indie games are getting exposure, developers are getting moneys, charities are getting moneys.

Barnox
05-10-2012, 05:59 PM
I'm getting cheap games!

I think that is the important thing here.

QuantaCat
05-10-2012, 06:01 PM
I hate charities. Probably in general, but in this fashion, its more apparent than ever before.

gundato
05-10-2012, 06:06 PM
I hate charities. Probably in general, but in this fashion, its more apparent than ever before.

...

Okay...

Damn them for offloading some of the profits to charity?

LTK
05-10-2012, 06:07 PM
I hate charities. Probably in general, but in this fashion, its more apparent than ever before.

That's a pretty shit attitude to have. Never mind not giving to charity, that's no problem, but why would you specifically oppose the profits going to charity if it's, as you say, just a business transaction? You pay money, you get games. The charity is just a bonus, or in your case, an irrelevance.

QuantaCat
05-10-2012, 06:27 PM
No, its the main selling point for a lot of these.
Essentially, theyre selling "help a dev!" for all bundles, and "help teh peoples OMG" in some/most.

Normally, I say "Whatever sells". But it seems a bit.. dishonest, even though it isnt.

Ah well.

LTK
05-10-2012, 06:29 PM
I can't imagine how you could possibly interpret these bundles having charity as a main selling point when they sell you games. Lots of games. For cheap. Really really cheap.

internetonsetadd
05-10-2012, 06:50 PM
The thread title led me to believe the OP was going to be a good read.

Jesus_Phish
05-10-2012, 06:52 PM
You know what else man?

Don't you just hate it when someone like Penny Arcade set up a charity!! I mean, gaw!! They're obviously just doing it to get exposure to make money for themselves. And then you get all these big companies like WoTC and Bioware throwing money at the charity just so they get some publicity. Who cares that sick little kids are getting a tiny ray of hope and sunshine and happiness in their life....

Yeah bro, f charity

QuantaCat
05-10-2012, 06:57 PM
You know what else man?

Don't you just hate it when someone like Penny Arcade set up a charity!! I mean, gaw!! They're obviously just doing it to get exposure to make money for themselves. And then you get all these big companies like WoTC and Bioware throwing money at the charity just so they get some publicity. Who cares that sick little kids are getting a tiny ray of hope and sunshine and happiness in their life....

Yeah bro, f charity

Aye, fuck the charity. I dont much care for the concept of it (charity in general). But thats not what my point is. And apparently, everyone seems to agree on "whatever helps charity!" must be satisfied.

gundato
05-10-2012, 06:57 PM
Then please quanta, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

I asked before, you said you hate charities.

But now it isn't about you hating charities?

QuantaCat
05-10-2012, 07:02 PM
Then please quanta, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

I asked before, you said you hate charities.

But now it isn't about you hating charities?

the merchandising of it. goddamnit man, its in the title.

the bundles, are they about games or charities? are the charities fulfilling any other role than just gathering more people to buy it? (I dont think so)

Basically, its about something called "Zweckentfremdung" in German. And if theres a word for it in german, it must be something.

gundato
05-10-2012, 07:09 PM
So you are angry that merchandise is being... merchandised?

And the charities are either going toward legal defense funds or to buy toys for sick children. The former being a necessary evil and the latter being pretty fucking good.

Jesus_Phish
05-10-2012, 07:40 PM
I'd like to point out that I'm thoroughly taking the piss in my last comment. I love charities and the warm and fuzzy feeling you get helping them.

Ever see the face of a child who gets brought christmas presents in hospitals on christmas day when they can't be at home with their families? If you hate charities after that then I hope you're never in the position to need the help of one.

Sparkasaurusmex
05-10-2012, 07:50 PM
I'm getting cheap games!

I think that is the important thing here.

Yep! The bundles are awesome because of the price and the games. Charity shmarity, half of them are probably corrupt anyway

BestFriends4Ever
05-10-2012, 08:14 PM
Ever see the face of a child who gets brought christmas presents in hospitals on christmas day when they can't be at home with their families? If you hate charities after that then I hope you're never in the position to need the help of one.

you ever see a face of a drug addict getting a fix? how can anyone dislike drugs after that?

NecroKnight
05-10-2012, 10:08 PM
you ever see a face of a drug addict getting a fix? how can anyone dislike drugs after that?

That's just an stupid comparison.

BestFriends4Ever
05-10-2012, 10:23 PM
That's just an stupid comparison.

It's not a comparison at all. It's an illustration of how a happy expression on a face doesn't necessarily guarantee a happiness in the long term.

gundato
05-10-2012, 10:43 PM
It's not a comparison at all. It's an illustration of how a happy expression on a face doesn't necessarily guarantee a happiness in the long term.

Okay then. Please, enlighten us.

What are the long term dangers of giving sick children toys to play with while they are in a god damned hospital?

c-Row
05-10-2012, 10:58 PM
Basically, its about something called "Zweckentfremdung" in German. And if theres a word for it in german, it must be something.

I think what you are trying to say is that charities get instrumentalized, thereby devaluing themselves because at some point people won't give money to one unless it's bundled with a reward.

BestFriends4Ever
05-10-2012, 11:20 PM
Okay then. Please, enlighten us.

What are the long term dangers of giving sick children toys to play with while they are in a god damned hospital?

Baby, enlightening you is the last thing on my mind.

What I wanted to do and did, was to point out faulty logic in what Jesus_Phish said. Just reread his/her post and saw another interesting thing:


Ever see the face of a child who gets brought christmas presents in hospitals on christmas day when they can't be at home with their families?

That's some cruel families that spend their Christmas at home while one of their kids is at the hospital.

gundato
06-10-2012, 12:45 AM
Baby, enlightening you is the last thing on my mind.

What I wanted to do and did, was to point out faulty logic in what Jesus_Phish said. Just reread his/her post and saw another interesting thing:



That's some cruel families that spend their Christmas at home while one of their kids is at the hospital.

There is no faulty logic there.

Doing good stuff for the community or people is good.
If you are at all conflicted on that, seeing the face of a sick child who just got a toy is a VERY good thing.

Jesus exaggerated a bit (dude wanted to take credit for stuff happening on his birthday), but seriously, it is a VERY simple concept.

So rather than compare giving sick children toys with enabling drug users, I suggest getting your head out of your ass and thinking for a moment.

MD!
06-10-2012, 01:10 AM
I dont much care for the concept of it (charity in general).

Can you explain this?

BestFriends4Ever
06-10-2012, 01:55 PM
There is no faulty logic there.

Doing good stuff for the community or people is good.
If you are at all conflicted on that, seeing the face of a sick child who just got a toy is a VERY good thing.

Jesus exaggerated a bit (dude wanted to take credit for stuff happening on his birthday), but seriously, it is a VERY simple concept.

So rather than compare giving sick children toys with enabling drug users, I suggest getting your head out of your ass and thinking for a moment.

1) Thus, for the second time, I am not, nor ever was, comparing sick children with addicts. I demonstrated how happy face doesn't necessarily lead to happiness.

2) It is endearing how you think your simplistic vision of charities is the objective truth and everyone else has their head up their ass.

I do not think that "doing good" is wrong. I think that wasting resources on treating only the symptoms of a problem is wrong.

Example: overpopulation - big problem in developing world. Overpopulation leads to high death rate of infants and scarce supplies for poor families. Let's narrow it down - some African children have no clean water and the charities ask us to donate 2 a month. I think it is good that people help those kids get water. However, if some portion of that money is not spent on educating the public (and shutting up the church) about contraceptives, those kids will grow up and have more kids of their own who will need even more clean water.

Do you ever hear about a charity asking for money to teach about contraceptives in poor communities? I've never seen them anywhere (though there probably are some small ones somewhere). Why we don't hear about them, I think, is because it's not a popular idea. Giving water to thirsty gives people a good fuzzy feeling inside. Putting a condom on strangers dick - less so. Though the latter is much more important.

And that is what I think about charities - good idea, usually treats only the symptoms.

trjp
06-10-2012, 02:50 PM
The thread title led me to believe the OP was going to be a good read.

Yeah, it's amazing how fast it went downhill when you found out they have neither a coherent point nor any way of putting it across

"I hate charities" is a mentalist thing to say - you may as well as admit to fucking chickens for sport.

trjp
06-10-2012, 02:52 PM
Can you explain this?

I'd rather they didn't because it's likely to be unpleasantly moronic - if I thought they had some fantastic insight I'd be here with bated breath but I suspect it's something like

"Because they ask for money for things you shouldn't have to ask for money for"

or

"Because I hate plastic tins being shaken"

or something... something...

Xercies
06-10-2012, 04:01 PM
I dont like the malupative nature that charity advertises to be honest so i get somewhat what the OP was saying but i dont hate charity and guess what in all the bundles you can say no to giving charities any money so whats the problem.

QuantaCat
06-10-2012, 04:21 PM
I do oppose to charities in general, but thats not the point here, hence no, I will not give a coherent or lenghty explanation why.

What I was getting annoyed about, though, was the instrumentalisation, as c-row understood. In this category, just like the bundles apparently, are also "fundraisers", which is basically just some snobby elitist gettogether, atleast some without the pretence of caring for some kind of "good deed", whatever that means.

Also, PS: you can have as many charities as you want, thats your choice, I dont have to pay or pay attention to them. like I said, I merely dont agree with it, and this thread is about the "abusing" of them for commercial gain.

LTK
06-10-2012, 04:35 PM
1) Thus, for the second time, I am not, nor ever was, comparing sick children with addicts. I demonstrated how happy face doesn't necessarily lead to happiness.

2) It is endearing how you think your simplistic vision of charities is the objective truth and everyone else has their head up their ass.

I do not think that "doing good" is wrong. I think that wasting resources on treating only the symptoms of a problem is wrong.

Example: overpopulation - big problem in developing world. Overpopulation leads to high death rate of infants and scarce supplies for poor families. Let's narrow it down - some African children have no clean water and the charities ask us to donate 2 a month. I think it is good that people help those kids get water. However, if some portion of that money is not spent on educating the public (and shutting up the church) about contraceptives, those kids will grow up and have more kids of their own who will need even more clean water.

Do you ever hear about a charity asking for money to teach about contraceptives in poor communities? I've never seen them anywhere (though there probably are some small ones somewhere). Why we don't hear about them, I think, is because it's not a popular idea. Giving water to thirsty gives people a good fuzzy feeling inside. Putting a condom on strangers dick - less so. Though the latter is much more important.

And that is what I think about charities - good idea, usually treats only the symptoms.
The FPA (http://www.fpa.org.uk) spends up to ten million pounds per year on "straightforward information, advice and support on sexual health, sex and relationships to everyone in the UK." Please respect your fellow forumites and search the fucking web (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=charity+for+contraceptives) before making completely unfounded assumptions.

I see we've also arrived at the assertion of "it's not worth funding if there are better causes to give money to". Consider this: just because there are a great number of charities focusing on absolutely essential things like food, water and education doesn't mean there isn't also room for charities who are just there to make hospitalized children happy. It doesn't matter that it's just treating the symptoms, it doesn't even matter that it doesn't benefit society at all. Someone out there is dedicated to making people's lives less miserable, and that's a cause worthy enough.

QuantaCat
06-10-2012, 04:40 PM
And again, this is not about if charities are good. its about if the "misusing" of charities by bundles is a good thing.

LTK
06-10-2012, 04:44 PM
I do oppose to charities in general, but thats not the point here, hence no, I will not give a coherent or lenghty explanation why.
So, rest assured, trjp, you are spared the twisted convolutions of reason that QuantaCat apparently uses to justify their dislike of selflessness and virtue.



What I was getting annoyed about, though, was the instrumentalisation, as c-row understood. In this category, just like the bundles apparently, are also "fundraisers", which is basically just some snobby elitist gettogether, atleast some without the pretence of caring for some kind of "good deed", whatever that means.

Also, PS: you can have as many charities as you want, thats your choice, I dont have to pay or pay attention to them. like I said, I merely dont agree with it, and this thread is about the "abusing" of them for commercial gain.
Wow! Now you're comparing the extravagantly luxurious, elite social networking opportunities called fundraisers with an online initiative to provide common people with cheap indie games, with the option to give their contribution to charity? The boggling of the mind never ceases!

QuantaCat
06-10-2012, 04:50 PM
That. is. Exactly. my. Point.

Their goal is not to give cheap games to common people. it never was. they never said that. and even if they did, no they dont.

No matter their intentions, they are selling games. They just appear to be cheap to you, and affordable, and "FOR A GOOD CAUSE!", but they are in fact selling a product. You do know that, right?

Also, please stop talking about the topic of charity in general, just charities in combination with bundles. Just because you cant envision a reason not to like charities, doesnt mean there isnt one. I am being excellent to all of yall, all I got so far was OMG U R EVUL & omg dis tred sux from a lot.

gundato
06-10-2012, 04:55 PM
1) Thus, for the second time, I am not, nor ever was, comparing sick children with addicts. I demonstrated how happy face doesn't necessarily lead to happiness.
Yet again. What the fuck does that have to do with giving toys to sick children? Please, explain to me how that has anything the fuck to do with the topic at hand?

Charities, like any organization, have issues. Childs Play in particular is one of the better ones because the operating costs are minimal (and handled by alternative revenue streams in many cases). But the concept of "give money so that sick kids can have something to take their minds off of being sick" is a god fucking damned good one so unless you can fucking explain where the bad in that is, shut your fucking trap about it being the same as giving money to a fucking drug addict.

LTK
06-10-2012, 05:05 PM
That. is. Exactly. my. Point.

Their goal is not to give cheap games to common people. it never was. they never said that. and even if they did, no they dont.

No matter their intentions, they are selling games. They just appear to be cheap to you, and affordable, and "FOR A GOOD CAUSE!", but they are in fact selling a product. You do know that, right?

Also, please stop talking about the topic of charity in general, just charities in combination with bundles. Just because you cant envision a reason not to like charities, doesnt mean there isnt one. I am being excellent to all of yall, all I got so far was OMG U R EVUL & omg dis tred sux from a lot.
Okay, now I'm getting confused. First you assert that their goal is not to sell games for cheap, and then you say thay they are, in fact, selling a product, which just happens to be affliated to a charity? You can see how you're contradicting yourself, can't you?

I can think of a few good reasons not to give to charity, but being principally opposed to every form of charity is something I can't wrap my head around. And you're not being a bad debater, no. You just have bad arguments and incomprehensible beliefs.

QuantaCat
06-10-2012, 05:08 PM
and no, it doesnt "just happen to be affiliated to a charity", charities are one of its main selling points. They didnt add the charities because theyre so charitable, they added them to move more units, is basically what Im saying.

And its getting on my nerves, because apparently, other bundles are copying this business system pretty much identically. so now we have a bunch (atleast 2, I think there is a third?) of bundles that sell stuff, with charities as selling points.

And all of this is fine, except that they seem to try and convince you otherwise, and nobody seem to really care about it.

Am I the only one being annoyed by this?

LTK
06-10-2012, 05:17 PM
Am I the only one being annoyed by this?
THE ONLY ONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD

*checks thread*

Well, you might have C-row on your side, but yeah, everyone else is just dandy.

Xercies
06-10-2012, 05:41 PM
The problem is is that they are not foricing you to use there charites you can give all to the developers or all to charities. And actually most advertising I see of bundles say how great the games are not about charities I think charities aren mentioned second like "oh and also its a good cause" to the "Look these games is for cheaps"

Xercies
06-10-2012, 05:42 PM
Also i think your not liking charities is a concern for this topic because well it doesn't look like from your posts that you are just objectivly talking about how its being used for games i feel your biases are coming through here

QuantaCat
06-10-2012, 06:00 PM
*shrugs*

Ah well. Lets just let the thread die quietly, and concentrate on XCOM preloading already.

BestFriends4Ever
06-10-2012, 06:26 PM
The FPA (http://www.fpa.org.uk) spends up to ten million pounds per year on "straightforward information, advice and support on sexual health, sex and relationships to everyone in the UK." Please respect your fellow forumites and search the fucking web (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=charity+for+contraceptives) before making completely unfounded assumptions.

I see we've also arrived at the assertion of "it's not worth funding if there are better causes to give money to". Consider this: just because there are a great number of charities focusing on absolutely essential things like food, water and education doesn't mean there isn't also room for charities who are just there to make hospitalized children happy. It doesn't matter that it's just treating the symptoms, it doesn't even matter that it doesn't benefit society at all. Someone out there is dedicated to making people's lives less miserable, and that's a cause worthy enough.



Did you even read my text that you quoted?


(though there probably are some small ones somewhere)

FPA is a small charity with 60 employees. The fact that you had to look it up on the web means you didn't know it off the top of your head. And that is all I said in my post - they are small and not very well known. WaterAid, of which I'm sure you've heard, in comparison, has about 700 employees worldwide. Again, I'm not saying water is not important. I'm trying to demonstrate what draws in money.

Please read what you quote and reply to. Surely, that shows some respect to fellow forumites.

BestFriends4Ever
06-10-2012, 06:41 PM
Yet again. What the fuck does that have to do with giving toys to sick children? Please, explain to me how that has anything the fuck to do with the topic at hand?

Charities, like any organization, have issues. Childs Play in particular is one of the better ones because the operating costs are minimal (and handled by alternative revenue streams in many cases). But the concept of "give money so that sick kids can have something to take their minds off of being sick" is a god fucking damned good one so unless you can fucking explain where the bad in that is, shut your fucking trap about it being the same as giving money to a fucking drug addict.


I have already answered your question twice.

You seem very angry.

For someone who has 912 games on Steam you do get worked up about donations to charities.

Another interesting thing: people who "defend" charities most ardently from the imagined attack also swear the most. Hmmmm...

gundato
06-10-2012, 06:51 PM
I have already answered your question twice.

You seem very angry.

For someone who has 912 games on Steam you do get worked up about donations to charities.

Another interesting thing: people who "defend" charities most ardently from the imagined attack also swear the most. Hmmmm...
Yes, because someone who is comparing giving toys to sick children to drug dealing is something that tends to elicit a response.

And you know what, I'm done. Feel free to say whatever stupid fucking trash you want to say. You refuse to do anything but straw man jesus and then pretend you are "intelligent" for spewing stupid fucking trash. You aren't worth my time.

LTK
06-10-2012, 06:54 PM
Did you even read my text that you quoted?

FPA is a small charity with 60 employees. The fact that you had to look it up on the web means you didn't know it off the top of your head. And that is all I said in my post - they are small and not very well known. WaterAid, of which I'm sure you've heard, in comparison, has about 700 employees worldwide. Again, I'm not saying water is not important. I'm trying to demonstrate what draws in money.

Please read what you quote and reply to. Surely, that shows some respect to fellow forumites.
Oh, I read what you said. I was just unaware that a charity had to have x number of employees to be notable. You made it sound like people would be unwilling to donate to charities regarding sexual health and education for some reason, but they still manage to raise millions of pounds.

If you're asking, I hadn't heard of FPA or WaterAid prior to this. I can't judge a charity's notability on the basis of not having heard of it, because there are probably a lot of charities I've never heard of that still make a significant impact.

BestFriends4Ever
06-10-2012, 08:22 PM
Oh, I read what you said. I was just unaware that a charity had to have x number of employees to be notable. You made it sound like people would be unwilling to donate to charities regarding sexual health and education for some reason, but they still manage to raise millions of pounds.

If you're asking, I hadn't heard of FPA or WaterAid prior to this. I can't judge a charity's notability on the basis of not having heard of it, because there are probably a lot of charities I've never heard of that still make a significant impact.

I do think that people are less eager to donate to charities that deal with anything sex related. Hence their smaller funds and less presence in media. It is very good that they manage to raise millions of pounds. I'm all for it!

You are also correct that there are probably lots of charities no one has heard about and yet they are making a positive impact.

Regarding the number of employees - that is just a good indicator of a size of any company and their budget. That's all. It does not, obviously, speak about the quality of their work.

BestFriends4Ever
06-10-2012, 08:24 PM
straw man jesus

Awesome band name.

Hypernetic
06-10-2012, 09:07 PM
I don't understand the problem here. Person A donates to charity and receives a game while person B benefits from said charity in some way. Person A and Person B both benefit from the transaction.

Raising money for charities through sales and auctions is nothing new. They've been having a silent auction here every year for at least 30 years for the Phillies (baseball team). They auction off memorabilia and stuff and the money goes to charity. Some people will spend many times more than what an item is actually worth when they know the money is going to charity.

If some guy buys an autographed baseball jersey for $20,000 and that $20,000 goes to charity, why is that bad? The guy got a rare piece of sports memorabilia for his collection and the charity is 20 grand richer.

Also tax deductions for donating to charity, that's always been a thing and it hasn't devalued charity.

side point: If the OP doesn't believe in charity (I'm assuming it's some kind of rich kid syndrome) why is he concerned about what implications the bundles might have on charities?

Sparkasaurusmex
06-10-2012, 09:12 PM
I'm not big on charities (after some experiences I don't trust most of them) but, yeah, I don't see a problem here. Especially since you can opt out of charity when purchasing.

It depends on the bundle, but I often feel the most charitable way I can spend my money is 100% to the devs.

Hypernetic
06-10-2012, 09:16 PM
I'm not big on charities (after some experiences I don't trust most of them) but, yeah, I don't see a problem here. Especially since you can opt out of charity when purchasing.

It depends on the bundle, but I often feel the most charitable way I can spend my money is 100% to the devs.

But then your problem would be with charitable organizations and not so much charity itself. I don't like giving money to huge charities that spend more money on administration and promotion than they do on actually helping people. I do like helping people out whenever I can though when I know it will make a difference (like buying a homeless guy a meal, for example). Charities like Child's Play are a bit different though, you can even just go on to the Child's Play website and buy a specific toy/game that a sick kid wants and amazon will ship it directly to them, so you know exactly where your money went and all that.

Sparkasaurusmex
06-10-2012, 09:33 PM
That's pretty cool. And yes, you are correct- I don't even look at it the same at all: giving to a hungry vagrant vs giving to American Red Cross.