Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

I don't understand why some people think sub rewards are free.

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
I don't understand why some people think sub rewards are free.

Andryah's Avatar


Andryah
04.15.2016 , 10:07 AM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by DarthDymond View Post
Ah, the wonders of working with a living, natural language. Is this the part where I can dig up the US Federal Trade Commission's Guide which says that "Free" can mean the offer is contingent on purchasing other services/merchandise?

The FTC, the Better Business Bureau, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the UK's CAP and BCAP codes, and plenty of other regulators all allow promotions to be advertised as "free" even when they are contingent on purchasing another product or service, so long as the price for the product / service isn't marked up (e.g. you can't double the price of a t-shirt then have advertise a "buy one, get one free" sale to effectively charge the same price). In commerce, the term "free" often does equal "no cost added" - that is the way it is communicated and the way it is understood.

If countless promotions use the word "free" to communicate the concept of "no cost added", millions of customers understand the word "free" in that context to mean "no cost added", and the preeminent legal and regulatory authorities across the English-speaking world endorse the use of the word "free" to mean "no cost added", then I'm okay with the idea that "no cost added" is one valid definition of the word "free" (although I am not saying it is the only definition).

Some people are comfortable using "free" to describe a situation of "no additional cost" and some people are only comfortable using the word to describe a situation where no money changes hands at all - and both uses are prevalent enough in normal use that there's no butchering of the English language, so no one is going to come out as right or wrong here.

And that's fine. We can just use context to determine which way the person is using the term - "free" as a synonym for "no additional cost", or "free" as "no money required at all."
Thank you!

Saved me from having to state this... AGAIN.. in yet another whine and complain thread about incentives.
When you find yourself surrounded by hostile Clowns... always go for the "Juggler" first.

CrazyCT's Avatar


CrazyCT
04.15.2016 , 10:09 AM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
If I pay $50 for X, then X cost $50. If I pay $50 for X+Y, then X+Y cost me $50 together.

X alone did not cost $50, and Y alone did not cost me $50.

Entangled costs are tricky, and it's not really accurate to make either claim -- that Y is free, or that the money spent was just for Y while ignoring X.
Ooh. But, as with the supermarkets BOGOF offer, you can buy one and you can take one. You can also take the second, if you want, you don't have to, but you don't pay any more money for it. If you take just one, you have still got what you paid for. If you take the second, you didn't pay any extra, but you got it anyway.
"An argument must have opposition if it is to prove itself."
Queen of the White Knights <==== Click to pay tribute to your Queen
Once managed to use "Obfuscate" in a sentence. Allegedly sounds like.....Robbie Williams?

JWagner's Avatar


JWagner
04.15.2016 , 10:09 AM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
If I pay $50 for X, then X cost $50. If I pay $50 for X+Y, then X+Y cost me $50 together.

X alone did not cost $50, and Y alone did not cost me $50.

Entangled costs are tricky, and it's not really accurate to make either claim -- that Y is free, or that the money spent was just for Y while ignoring X.
If you are paying $xx for X+Y, knowing full well that X costs the same price by itself, that's your own fault.
It isn't wrong if they are charging you for X at full price, and giving you Y for free. It's free in that case, as you still paid for X, and it cost you the same thing. Using the same cost for extras doesn't mean the extras cost money. It means the original was still full price.

MadDutchman's Avatar


MadDutchman
04.15.2016 , 10:14 AM | #24
Bah, if you don't like the word free, then call it complimentary.

Complaining about something complimentary still makes you sound like a whiny *****, so it is entirely irrelevant
Demand: Are. We. There. Yet.

Use my referral link for free goodies.

ArkhaanPremiare's Avatar


ArkhaanPremiare
04.15.2016 , 10:14 AM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by DarthDymond View Post
Ah, the wonders of working with a living, natural language. Is this the part where I can dig up the US Federal Trade Commission's Guide which says that "Free" can mean the offer is contingent on purchasing other services/merchandise?

The FTC, the Better Business Bureau, the Canadian Competition Bureau, the UK's CAP and BCAP codes, and plenty of other regulators all allow promotions to be advertised as "free" even when they are contingent on purchasing another product or service, so long as the price for the product / service isn't marked up (e.g. you can't double the price of a t-shirt then have advertise a "buy one, get one free" sale to effectively charge the same price). In commerce, the term "free" often does equal "no cost added" - that is the way it is communicated and the way it is understood.

If countless promotions use the word "free" to communicate the concept of "no cost added", millions of customers understand the word "free" in that context to mean "no cost added", and the preeminent legal and regulatory authorities across the English-speaking world endorse the use of the word "free" to mean "no cost added", then I'm okay with the idea that "no cost added" is one valid definition of the word "free" (although I am not saying it is the only definition).

Some people are comfortable using "free" to describe a situation of "no additional cost" and some people are only comfortable using the word to describe a situation where no money changes hands at all - and both uses are prevalent enough in normal use that there's no butchering of the English language, so no one is going to come out as right or wrong here.

And that's fine. We can just use context to determine which way the person is using the term - "free" as a synonym for "no additional cost", or "free" as "no money required at all."
No, no, and NO. The sub reward is NOT its own product. It's not being sold separately, it's included as a subscriber benefit. Saying it's free is like selling someone a rose and telling them they got the petals as a free bonus.

JennyFlynn's Avatar


JennyFlynn
04.15.2016 , 10:16 AM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by ArkhaanPremiare View Post
No, no, and NO. The sub reward is NOT its own product. It's not being sold separately, it's included as a subscriber benefit. Saying it's free is like selling someone a rose and telling them they got the petals as a free bonus.
.. wut? How do you even function?
--------{---({@ Defiant Devotion | Defying Destiny | SWTOR Prompt Oneshots @}}>---}-------

Max_Killjoy's Avatar


Max_Killjoy
04.15.2016 , 10:17 AM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by JWagner View Post
If you are paying $xx for X+Y, knowing full well that X costs the same price by itself, that's your own fault.
It isn't wrong if they are charging you for X at full price, and giving you Y for free. It's free in that case, as you still paid for X, and it cost you the same thing. Using the same cost for extras doesn't mean the extras cost money. It means the original was still full price.
I didn't say it was wrong, or that someone was mislead, or anything of the sort.

What I said was that it's not entirely accurate to call something you can only get by spending money, "free" -- regardless of what the FTC might say on the matter.

Also PLEASE note that I'm not using that as an argument to make the other extreme claim, that the $15 sub fee is for this or that incentive -- I pay my sub fee for the benefits of being a subscriber, extra companions and gear and the occasional extra CCs are just things that sometimes improve the return on my $15 spent that month.

ArkhaanPremiare's Avatar


ArkhaanPremiare
04.15.2016 , 10:17 AM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by JennyFlynn View Post
.. wut? How do you even function?
If honestly can't understand that, then there's just no hope for you.

JWagner's Avatar


JWagner
04.15.2016 , 10:19 AM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
I didn't say it was wrong, or that someone was mislead, or anything of the sort.

What I said was that it's not entirely accurate to call something you can only get by spending money, "free" -- regardless of what the FTC might say on the matter.
Their wording, and I quote, says "Free To Subscribers".
It says it. Right there. It is literally called "Subscriber Rewards". It doesn't twist your arm and say "Pay for a subscription." It says that you get it IF you are a subscriber. You pay for the subscription, which costs $14.99 + taxes all by itself, then lets you get all the perks of a sub, plus any extra rewards they issue.

I mean, the concept and math isn't the problem. The wording isn't even the problem. The problem is that people are trying to get something for nothing.

xordevoreaux's Avatar


xordevoreaux
04.15.2016 , 10:19 AM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by ArkhaanPremiare View Post
If honestly can't understand that, then there's just no hope for you.
No fewer than four people are trying to get the OP past his conceptual hurdle. It's obviously not working.
/thread