Who thinks they should make gamerscores worth something?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
If I'm not mistaken Xbox Live Rewards gives a discount on various purchases based upon your gamerscore.
Samslayer
It's a rebate system, you get 1% of your MSP back every month when you're between 10,000G & 24,999G, and then it gets upped to 2% back when you're above 25,000G.
Also, when you're at 3,000G and above, you get a "special gift" in your birthday month, it's 20 MSP.
It's not great, but the Rewards program is free to sign up to, so it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
http://rewards.xbox.com/
People are rewarded for it all the time. If you're going to ask a question like that, you may as well be questioning whether or not it's right to pay employees.No.
It's just a number which reflects your own hedonism. Should we reward people for hedonism?
psymon100
They should give out free stuff like avatar gear when you reach certain levels of gamerscore... but you know microsoft... always trying to find ways to save money, make money, and take money.
"money money money is all you need" :P
Mad props to whoever can figure out which game that line came from :)
^ Or you know, they could give us absolutely nothing which is what we're technically entitled too. Free is free. You pay for the service, anything else is just gravy. Don't like it? Don't use it... This sense of entitlement from gamers gets crazier and crazier. Especially in this case. Why the hell should gamerscore be worth anything? NES never gave me bugger all for my high scores. Even if something IS owed, it should be from the game developer, NOT the console manufacturer.i_noseworthy
I'm so annoyed at the word "entitlement" being tossed around like gamers should just bend over and accept whatever BS business practices gaming companies try to make that I'm probably going to strangle the next person I see who uses it. I agree that expecting something for achievements is foolish, but that doesn't mean gamers shouldn't feel they deserve to get some kickbacks on a service that they pay $60 a year for, especially when said service is free everywhere else - the PC, the Wii U, the PS3 - all free. "The don't like it, don't use it" argument doesn't hold much weight when Microsoft completely locks down a portion of each game you purchase unless you're willing to pay Microsoft for the online access. The NES never gave you anything for your highscores, but then again you weren't paying Nintendo a yearly fee to play on it either.
[QUOTE="psymon100"]People are rewarded for it all the time. If you're going to ask a question like that, you may as well be questioning whether or not it's right to pay employees.No.
It's just a number which reflects your own hedonism. Should we reward people for hedonism?
MadVybz
Employee: A person employed forwages or salary.
What you're thinking of is a slave.A question for you - I think I know the answer.Is it right to keep slaves?
Why should people get any reward for playing video games purely for hedonistic purposes? They shouldn't.
People are rewarded for it all the time. If you're going to ask a question like that, you may as well be questioning whether or not it's right to pay employees.[QUOTE="MadVybz"][QUOTE="psymon100"]
No.
It's just a number which reflects your own hedonism. Should we reward people for hedonism?
psymon100
Employee: A person employed forwages or salary.
What you're thinking of is a slave.A question for you - I think I know the answer.Is it right to keep slaves?
Why should people get any reward for playing video games purely for hedonistic purposes? They shouldn't.
The definition of hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure. In it no way specifies the means of attaining it or for what purpose. So to say that people shouldn't be rewarded for hedonism also includes the working community. People work, to get money. Money is sought out for pleasures. Therefore, your statement doesn't make much sense.I responded earlier, but I really do not think that gamerscore should be worth anything. If Microsoft turns it into some type of currency or whatever, I think that would be really terrible. I just want it as a guage on what I have done in games, and it helps the replay value for a lot of my games!
[QUOTE="psymon100"][QUOTE="MadVybz"] People are rewarded for it all the time. If you're going to ask a question like that, you may as well be questioning whether or not it's right to pay employees. MadVybz
Employee: A person employed forwages or salary.
What you're thinking of is a slave.A question for you - I think I know the answer.Is it right to keep slaves?
Why should people get any reward for playing video games purely for hedonistic purposes? They shouldn't.
The definition of hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure. In it no way specifies the means of attaining it or for what purpose. So to say that people shouldn't be rewarded for hedonism also includes the working community. People work, to get money. Money is sought out for pleasures. Therefore, your statement doesn't make much sense.No. You're making a reductio ad absurdum, reducing the whole point of earning money to the pursuit of pleasure - hedonism. Wrong.
Why work? "To get money".Why did I seek out this money? Pleasures. . This is my interpretation of what you're saying.
There are massive flaws in this:
1. Is work an enjoyable pursuit? No.
Work is one method of attaining money through a typically unenjoyable pursuit. Earning money gambling may be hedonism?
2. Is 100% of money spent on hedonism? Typically - no.
You could choose to spend all this money on non-hedonism, like Greenpeace.
Now I don't like to make assumptions about people over the internet, so instead I'll ask a question - are you an adult? Let me tell you why I'd ask.
I - an adult - probably spend less than 10% of my money on hedonistic pursuits. This is money I earn in my job, which is an excellent job (thanks to a University education to Postgraduate level) but it is by no means 'pleasure':
What do I and many other adults spend their money on? First, essentials. And by essentials, I mean what I consider essential to my life: Rent, Power, Phone, Internet, Mobile Phone, Car insurance, Contents insurance, income tax, Student loan repayments, Kiwisaver (semi-compulsory superannuation scheme), petrol, car registration, motorcycle registration, motorcycle registration (if you have two bikes you have to pay twice), ha, I haven't even mentioned Food yet! Perhaps I should stop.
Now things like the Internet, can be hedonistic, but my internet usage would be about 50/50 non-pleasure (work, education etc) and pleasure. What about food and eating? You have to eat to survive.
Now I won't bother with a list of hedonistic pursuits. All I'll say is that the percentage of my income spent on hedonism is easily under 10%.
You need to face facts. Games are purchased to be played for pleasure. Gamerscore is merely a reflection of both time based, and skill based unlocks achieved whilst playing on the Xbox Live service. A person who never pays the live fee, and only buys used games could amass a gamerscore of over 200K. Why should Microsoft reward this person?
When Microsoft announced that 2% payback or whatever it was, do you realise what a whole bunch of gamers did? Complain. I do not associate myself with these people. I can't believe some people think the world owes them so much.
If Microsoft were to offer rewards, they should do it for the paying Gold Members. Oh, wait a second. They already do.
The definition of hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure. In it no way specifies the means of attaining it or for what purpose. So to say that people shouldn't be rewarded for hedonism also includes the working community. People work, to get money. Money is sought out for pleasures. Therefore, your statement doesn't make much sense.[QUOTE="MadVybz"][QUOTE="psymon100"]
Employee: A person employed forwages or salary.
What you're thinking of is a slave.A question for you - I think I know the answer.Is it right to keep slaves?
Why should people get any reward for playing video games purely for hedonistic purposes? They shouldn't.
psymon100
words
While my statement was somewhat disingenuous by being a bit too general, it still stands. The majority of people who work (especially those who have enough disposable income to enjoy games) seek out the cash to enjoy the essentials and plus some. You claim that it's an absurdity to say that hedonism applies to the working community but look at your list of 'essentials' - a lot of them are luxuries and not needs to simply keep on living. How is working not hedonism in a western society when what is referred to as 'essential' is not even common place in less fortunate countries?
Let alone the fact that pleasure in itself is a highly ambiguous term and can be applied to most things we do in every day life. I find the internet (same application as yours, 50/50 work and recreation), my phone, and transportation to be pleasures yet you're calling them essentials. If you don't see the fallicious nature of your statement I don't know why I should keep replying to you.
[QUOTE="i_noseworthy"]^ Or you know, they could give us absolutely nothing which is what we're technically entitled too. Free is free. You pay for the service, anything else is just gravy. Don't like it? Don't use it... This sense of entitlement from gamers gets crazier and crazier. Especially in this case. Why the hell should gamerscore be worth anything? NES never gave me bugger all for my high scores. Even if something IS owed, it should be from the game developer, NOT the console manufacturer.Vari3ty
I'm so annoyed at the word "entitlement" being tossed around like gamers should just bend over and accept whatever BS business practices gaming companies try to make that I'm probably going to strangle the next person I see who uses it. I agree that expecting something for achievements is foolish, but that doesn't mean gamers shouldn't feel they deserve to get some kickbacks on a service that they pay $60 a year for, especially when said service is free everywhere else - the PC, the Wii U, the PS3 - all free. "The don't like it, don't use it" argument doesn't hold much weight when Microsoft completely locks down a portion of each game you purchase unless you're willing to pay Microsoft for the online access. The NES never gave you anything for your highscores, but then again you weren't paying Nintendo a yearly fee to play on it either.
Uggg, really? Changing the scope of the argument to suit your agenda is just weird. I didn't toss the word around. I meant it. It was calculated. Why? Because in this instance there is nothing outside of entitlement as the basis for the argument. I didn't say anything about Live, or online services, or paying $60 a year. The topic here is whether or not GAMERSCORE (understand?) should be worth some sort of tangible benefit. And no. No it shouldn't.[QUOTE="psymon100"]wordsMadVybz
While my statement was somewhat disingenuous by being a bit too general, it still stands.
Which statement? This one:
"People work, to get money. Money is sought out for pleasures."
This is a reductio ad absurdum. It does not stand. Someone could work and spend no money on pleasure. Someone could not work and engage in activities they find pleasurable all the time. From relaxing in the sun, to vandalism.
The majority of people who work(especially those who have enough disposable income to enjoy games) seek out the cash to enjoy the essentials and plus some. You claim that it's an absurdity to say that hedonism applies to the working community but look at your list of 'essentials' - a lot of them are luxuries and not needs to simply keep on living. How is working not hedonism in a western society when what is referred to as 'essential' is not even common place in less fortunate countries?MadVybz
Easy. Firstly, I don't deny that some of that money is used for hedonism. I myself admitted to about 10% of monies spent on this. So if 90% of my money is spent on living in a westerised country, and only 10% on hedonism, well it sounds to me like I'm working for my keep, rather than working for hedonism. Are we in agreement here?
Your question -How is working not hedonism in a western society when what is referred to as 'essential' is not even common place in less fortunate countries?
The societies, geography, hazards, wildlife, floura etc all differ a great deal from place to place. In Australia a very thick woolen coat and snowboarding gear would be non-essential, probably just for hedonistic purposes. However in Greenland, they may well be essential, legitimate (and inexpensive) transportation/thermoregulatory devices.
I'll give you another example, the car. Now, obviously a Ferrari 599, driving that is hedonistic, a 1.5L Toyota Corolla, not so much. What does the Corolla do >90% of the time? Sit in the drive way. When someone drives it, why do they do this? To go somewhere, like to get to work. It's a utilitarian device in western society. But of course yes - in The People's Republic of the Congo, the car may well we a luxury item. But, let's not be too hard on these Congoites and immediately make the logical fallacy of assuming that the car is for pleasure. I actually suspect they'd use it the same way we do - as a utilitarian device for transportation.
Let alone the fact that pleasure in itself is a highly ambiguous term and can be applied to most things we do in every day life Agreed. I find the internet (same application as yours, 50/50 work and recreation), my phone, and transportation to be pleasures yet you're calling them essentials. If you don't see the fallicious nature of your statement I don't know why I should keep replying to you.MadVybz
If one didn't have the internet, phone, and transportation, the number one thing which I suspect would suffer in one's life is utility, not pleasure. The internet is magnificent and its on the whole - utilitarian. I spend the bare minimum on my cellphone as it's just for utility. Something I can use to receive calls when people want me (this is actually free), and to ring people / send messages when I need to get a message out (this costs). I don't get a massive amount of pleasure from texting my girlfriend to let her know I'm going to be late. If anything, all I'm doing is easing her worries about why I'm not home yet. Transportation I feel I've covered earlier.
If we go way way back in time here, I made the statement that GamerScore should not be rewarded because it's a number which merely reflects hedonism. You responded by saying that you might as well forego paying employees (though as we discussed the definition of an employee is someone who's paid, you're thinking of a slave. You still haven't answered my question re: "Is it right to keep slaves?")
Next up you said that work is for money, money's sought for pleasure. Well, this too is a fallacy. You can have pleasure without money, you can spend money on non-pleasure items.
And regarding your comment about not responding, come on!?!? Aren't you enjoying yourself? Healthy debate is fun. If you are right, I will eventually see eye to eye with you. If I'm right, I'm sure you'd do the same.To be frank, though I'm really enjoying this discussion with you regarding what hedonism is or isn't, that's not what the thread is about. I want to know, from you - should gamers be rewarded for their gamerscore?
I've always wanted something like that since I first heard about gamerscore. A fixed exhange rate on gamerscore to MS points would be nice. Otherwise, it's pointless dick waving.MadVybz
Yeah that would be nice, but why would Microsoft do that? Gamerscore can be accrued without the individual paying any money to Microsoft at all (borrowed Xbox, used games, silver account). I say again - the rewards should be for paying gold members, and these rewards already exist.
I'm not arguing the notion that someone who works gains pleasure. I'm arguing that people work in the pursuit of pleasure. A.K.A., hedonism. It doesn't matter if the process of attaining said pleasure is in fact unpleasurable, what matters is the act of pursuing it.
I feel that the lack of contextualization from both of us left that in a bit of confusion, so I thought I'd clear it up.
The notion of a car being a need is really murky waters, with me at least. A car is by no means a necessity but rather a convenience/privilege. Public transportation is regularly available but obviously if everyone in the country used the bus/train it would be quite hectic and/or damn near impossible to manage. So yes, I can also see your point about having your own transportation but it is not strictly an essential. Within the context of my argument, essentials are more or less the bare minimum (this is how I was raised, it's why I feel I'm more appreciative of all the things I have opposed to most people I know):
Physical:food, shelter, clothes, clean water.
Psychological:Companionship, personal identity, personal fulfillment.
[QUOTE="psymon100"]
If one didn't have the internet, phone, and transportation, the number one thing which I suspect would suffer in one's life is utility, not pleasure.
Aaaand again, since pleasure is such a loose term it can wash over into what someone would find as a strict utility. After all - we need people who find interest in utilities and enjoyment in using/making them in order for us to even have them. Example, I absolutely love riding my motorcyle. It doesn't matter where or for how long. While someone else would find it as a strict utility, I'm near my happiest when I'm riding. It's only second to playing a good video game.
The internet is magnificent and its on the whole - utilitarian. I spend the bare minimum on my cellphone as it's just for utility... psymon100
Since this is a really specific case it hardly makes a sound argument regarding the nature of hedonism. At the very most, it gives a clear indication of whyyouhold your views on the matter. This can vary greatly between each and every individual. While if we try to get a bit general in the subject matter (say, if we had a questionnaire that asked bland, non-specific questions about gaming as hedonism vs. being in the work force to earn a pay cheque) you might be able to see trends in who thinks what is and what isn't. But to something that's down to a pin like that isn't really relevant but more so projection of your own situation to everyone else.
If we go way way back in time here, I made the statement that GamerScore should not be rewarded because it's a number which merely reflects hedonism. You responded by saying that you might as well forego paying employees (though as we discussed the definition of an employee is someone who's paid, you're thinking of a slave. You still haven't answered my question re: "Is it right to keep slaves?" -Obviously this is a rhetorical question so I don't know why you're dwelling on it. But I'll humor you; No. It is not right.)
Next up you said that work is for money, money's sought for pleasure. Well, this too is a fallacy. You can have pleasure without money, you can spend money on non-pleasure items. psymon100
Repeating yourself doesn't strengthen your argument.
And regarding your comment about not responding, come on!?!? Aren't you enjoying yourself? Healthy debate is fun. If you are right, I will eventually see eye to eye with you. If I'm right, I'm sure you'd do the same.To be frank, though I'm really enjoying this discussion with you regarding what hedonism is or isn't, that's not what the thread is about. I want to know, from you - should gamers be rewarded for their gamerscore? psymon100
To be completely honest the only reason why I said that is because I've had a load of stuff to do recently lately and I didn't have the time/energy to take part in a heated debate (mostly due to lack of sleep). It's finals week, plus lots of other personal commitments, and job hunting. You know, stuff us non-adults aren't quite used to juggling. :P
To answer your question regarding gamerscore, I never felt that theyshouldput an exchange system in place. I just think that it would be cool if they did. I'm not being demanding by any means, just the thought of getting some free points in exchange for all of my free achievements (I mean honestly, most 'achievements' in games are anything but) would make me feel more than just some dude who got suckered into paying $60 a year for a service other providers give for free.
Sorry that Gamespot stuffed your post. It always seems to do that after writing a wall of text.
Of course, I accept that hedonism, pleasure, work etc, these things are all subjective. I can also accept that some people go to work, live their life in order to maximise pleasure (hedonism). But, it's not true of everyone. I'm sure nobody wants to make any sweeping generalisations. Many people have different drives, such as achieving notoriety among prominent scientists, or raising a family. There are many things one can do with money that are not hedonistic.
Regarding the car situation, the city in which I live (Auckland, New Zealand) suffers urban sprawl, and the public transport system is almost not worth looking at. It sounds like you could get away without personal transport in your location.
Could I live without cars/motorbikes in Auckland? Well technically yes I suppose I could. But it would mostly affect the utility of my life very very adversely, this effect would probably be so bad I would feel that life was less pleasurable. Technically, I can also live without Carbohydrate however my physiology would suffer!
I have really enjoyed this discussion. If you have more to say, I'd like to read it, and of course I'll respond. However, you sound like you're at a busy part of your life and should focus on your finals. You sound like a really cool person, and I suspect that if we had this discussion face-to-face rather than by internet forum posts, I think we'd be agreeing more than disagreeing. Good to talk to more motorcycle riders. Health and safety, driving defensively, that's the most important thing.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment