Jump to content

10.19.2011 Our policy on selling digital cards


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked

07 November 2011 - 10:46 PM

#81

ChaosJim

    Rookie Trainer

  • ChaosJim
1) DMorisoli wins the thread. There are benefits to Pokémon and the players by allowing a hybrid system, where users can choose to purchase cards from Pokémon directly or by using 3rd party outlets (like other users or retailers).

2) Nickfifteen, I think the troubling part is that many people acted and bought code cards anticipating that they would be able to sell the digital cards they might get. While the terms of service say that they may change at any time, changing a vague clause that eventually prohibits players from turning their investment into cash is damaging. Arguing that "virtual property" can't be owned by users is like saying that iTunes could take back your music collection at any time since they were just letting you listen to their infinite music library. "Except I paid for those songs!" Someone also paid for the booster pack, theme deck, or tin in which the code cards came. Precedent was set in the digital marketplace for trading card games that came before (like Magic). Anything that delivers less than users expected will be negative for the reception of Pokémon online. I think getting caught up in legal-ese is really negative. The pro-sales position is generally arguing that it is in the best interest of PTCGO to allow this to happen. If getting caught up in agreements/terms of service/legal text is something that we want to do though, I'd note that it is negative to NOT list on the code cards that there is a terms of service.



For reference, the code card text in a booster reads...

  • Use this code to unlock 1 online booster pack at...
  • www.pokemon.com/tcgo
  • With your parents' permission, log on and use this code to get an online booster pack with 10 additional cards. Instead of typing the code, you can just hold this card up to your webcam to redeem.
  • © 2011 The Pokémon Company International, TM, ®, and character names are trademarks of Nintendo. ENBW3BST01


  • 0

09 November 2011 - 02:43 AM

#82

nickfifteen

    Rookie Trainer

  • nickfifteen
I have a lot to say here, but it's generally just the same stuff I wrote before.



The TL;DR version is:

<ol>
[*]Everyone agreed to the same terms and service to play PTCGO, and those terms and service state that nothing we get in PTCGO is ours to claim any ownership over.

[*]We didn't invest anything in PTCGO, so we really don't have the ability or right to turn our "investment" into cash.

[*]iTunes isn't really the best example to support the idea of owning virtual property because Apple has clear restrictions on their products and services (we can't resell iTunes music, movies and iOS apps, can we?)

[*]Although perhaps these restrictions on the PTCGo may harm it (I'm not claiming that it will or won't), there is plenty of precident of other online games and services which place just as much restrictions--or even more--than what PTCGO does and they are large, thriving and extremely popular online games or services.

[*]There is no need to place disclaimers on the PTCGO code cards because customers wishing to use it either will evnetually encounter those disclaimers, or have already agreed to them.

[*]Finally, the online version is treated as an auxiliary, supplement, accessory version to the real version by Nintendo. Thus, the "restrictions". As such, Gems are simply the best way to spend money to get cards, even if it's done in an indirect manner (like the use of "Nintendo Points").
</ol>
And now, the much longer, detailed version of the above.



......



"I think the troubling part is that many people acted and bought code cards anticipating that they would be able to sell the digital cards they might get."



Perhaps Nintendo needs to make that clearer before assuming everyone understands it, or maybe customers should read the Terms and Conditions clearer before blindly accepting them? Because, on one hand, information covering whether or not we own PTCGO cards is tucked away under "[y]ou acknowledge and accept that you have no property or other rights in any content on the Site" in Nintendo's terms of service text... on the other hand the customers DID click on "I agree" and, most importantly, ignorance of the law is no excuse (ignorantia juris non excusat), so it's not Nintendo's fault that people blindly clicked "I agree" without clearly understanding the terms.



Of course, whether that bit in the terms of service is "right" or "wrong" for Nintendo to have, that's something else which I'm not going to cover.



......



"While the terms of service say that they may change at any time, changing a vague clause that eventually prohibits players from turning their investment into cash is damaging."



But the thing is, we didn't invest anything in Pokémon TCG Online, money-wise. The money we spent on a pack of cards with the free code card went to the pack itself, while the code card itself was merely a "BONUS". For example, the cost of pre-code card packs in my neighborhood was $3.99, and a pack of BW Emerging Powers is $3.99... no difference, and thus no sound claim that actual money was spent to play PTCGO. Furthermore, many post-PTCGO packs did NOT contain a PTCGO code card, and they too were the same price as packs WITH the code card. All in all there isn't much of a claim to say that any money was spent to play PTCGO.



Then there's also the bit that restrictive terms of service covering the non-ownership of virtual property doesn't stop games and services from being popular, but I'll cover that below.



......



"Arguing that "virtual property" can't be owned by users is like saying that iTunes could take back your music collection at any time since they were just letting you listen to their infinite music library. "Except I paid for those songs!""



There's an issue with your example though, and I don't think it necessarily applies to the Pokémon TCG Online. The thing is, whether or not virtual property can be owned is up to the company giving out the virtual property. As such, the various terms and conditions between the various companies providing virtual goods and services reflect the different philosophies over whether virtual "goods" can be "owned".



In the case of Apple, they do feel that, because you are directly purchasing virtual music, you are also purchasing CERTAIN rights over it... right which include the ability to not have those rights revoked and your music deleted by Apple, as well as the ability to burn your music onto music CDs and to allow your music to be linked to at most five separate computers. On the other hand, Apple also doesn't believe that customers should be allowed to have COMPLETE rights and ownership over their virtual music, which means you can't have your music on MORE than five computers, nor can you transfer or sell your license to another iTunes music (which means there is NO way to purchase "used" iTunes music). If you think about it, Apple's restrictions--despite what rights we've purchased--basically state that we DON'T own our iTunes "property", simply because we CAN'T do EVERYTHING we want to do with them just as we could with other property which we do legally own.



Nintendo, on the other hand, believes that, because we are NOT purchasing any cards from Pokémon TCG Online (or at the very least are purchasing them INDIRECTLY via proxy), users have do not any rights over the virtual cards we earn from in the game. As such, they place restrictive terms over using Pokémon TCG Online, which basically means that we are instead only "paying" for the right to play with Nintendo's "infinite collection" rather than the right to claim that anything we receive in Pokémon TCG Online via our code cards as our personal property to do what we wish.



Then also consider that many other music services that shut down also did take their music with them. A perfect example was both MSN Music and Yahoo! Music; people paid for their services under the assumption that all the music they bought was theirs, only to later lose access to ALL their music when both MSN Music Yahoo! Music shut down their DRM servers. The same thing happens when various MMORPG games go offline, like Phantasy Star Online Ep.1/2 and Matrix Online; in all these situations, the money customers spent only went to purchasing the right-of-access of that service, not the right-of-ownership over anything associated with their account. People may be upset over this, but, again, if they didn't clearly understand the terms of service disclaimer for their good and service and simply blindfully agreed to them, they only have themselves to blame.



And then there are OTHER services like Netflix which also don't allow their customers to download or claim ownership over any of the movies their money most certainly allowed them to watch. That is to say, just because someone pays for the ability to watch a certain movie as many times as they want as if it was a movie in their own personal video collection (and are even listed in their Netflix watch list), it doesn't mean that they are entitled to claiming that it is theirs to do as they wish, which includes selling their rights to that movie to another user. .... Of course, it doesn't help that every Netflix user has the same access to the same movies, but it's more like a Netflix user "selling" "their" movies to a non-Netflix-using person.



Basically, the issue is over whether the money spent on an online good or service simply purchases a "right to access" of that service, or if it purchases the "right of ownership" over the specific products and services within that online business. My understanding is that, concerning the PTCGO, what money we spent on the PTCGO merely purchased a "right to access" the services and products of PTCGO, and did NOT purchase any rights over the individual cards our code cards products. And this is not my opinion but is based on the terms of service of activating a Pokémon Trainers Club account.



......



"Precedent was set in the digital marketplace for trading card games that came before (like Magic). Anything that delivers less than users expected will be negative for the reception of Pokémon online."



Precedent for the reverse has also been set in the digital market place by other games and digital services, such as the aforementioned iTunes and Netflix, as well as in various online games such as World of Warcraft and Farmville. In all those services, it is against their terms and services to "sublicense, rent, lease, sell, trade, gift, bequeath or otherwise transfer your Account or any Virtual Items associated with your Account to anyone" (quoted from Zynga's TOS). Despite these restrictions, it hasn't stopped these services from exploded in popularity and become some of the most widely used--if not most popular--services online.



Of course, it may also be that these companies don't really enforce their rules against trading, and THAT is why these services have exploded in popularity; as such, it may end up proving that the PTCGO IS taking the wrong route by restricting "players from turning their investment into cash". As such, the only REAL way to show anything for certain is to have Nintendo continue to do things they way that they feel is best and let reality prove things one way or the other.



......



"If getting caught up in agreements/terms of service/legal text is something that we want to do though, I'd note that it is negative to NOT list on the code cards that there is a terms of service."



The thing is, in order to use the cards, you have to use it through your Pokémon.com Trainer Club account. If a customer don't already have one, then they can't use the code card until they sign up for one; this would mean that they will also need to read and agree to Nintendo's terms and services, which does state that users don't own anything associated with their account.



If a customer already signed up for a PTC account before they use their PTCGO code card, then they already agreed to--and are thus supposed to be aware of--those terms and disclaimers. As such, I don't believe that Nintendo needs to place any kind of disclaimer on the code cards because customers wanting to use the code card EVENTUALLY will run into the disclaimer, if they haven't already agreed to--and are thus aware of--them.



......



The whole point of this, again, was just to point out that we don't own anything on PTCGO, by virtue of the fact that we all agreed to the same terms and service specifically stating that we don't own anything here, as well as that we simply CAN'T do anything with what we have on PTCGO (as opposed to what we have to own in real life).



The thing is, we already HAVE a version of the Pokémon TCG where we can claim ownership over our collection and do anything we want with them--sell them, burn them, feed them or our pets, etc.; it's called "Pokémon TCG" and they're sold in packs of 10 cards for about $3.99 MSRP. If we want that right, we'll stick with that version of the game. The online version is simply an auxiliary, supplement, accessory--and most importantly, FREE--version to the "IRL" version, and thus isn't treated as a separete and indepenent game from the "IRL" version by Nintendo. Thus the "restrictions".



Is it a good or bad idea that Nintendo doesn't treat this as an independent version of the game and completely separarte from the main game, as opposed to how Wizards treats Magic Online (as Magic online has its own sets like "Masters Edition")? I'm not here to argue that. I'm simply pointing out the reality of the PTCGO, which is that it is NOT a unique and separate entity and that nothing we acquire here on PTCGO is ours in the sense that we truly OWN them. We don't, and I feel that if anyone wants to argue the "Ownership Question", they should really argue for changing the terms of service first before arguging for the "right" to sell our online collection to someone else or other concepts which involve purchasing Pokémon TCGO cards directly with money.



Yes, Gems are coming, but I feel that's simply enough because people can simply just treat gems as a proxy... it represents the card they want later on. Like, I'll buy a Gem and trade it for a Yanmega Prime. Someone else will take that same Gem and trade it for a Donphan Prime. Then THAT someone will take that same Gem and trade it for a Charizard. Just because the END result of a Gem means a hat or other item for your avatar, it doesn't mean that it can't be used in an infinite number of trades before it's finally used. Basically, Gems will be the "Nintendo Points" of PTCGO, and for that matter it's just as good as money.



....but anyways, that's what I think, for what it's worth.

Nick15 — Pokémon TCG player since the beginning

* http://www.pokemonaaah.net/—  Pokémon Aaah!; I plan on doing something with this in the future.

* http://www.pokemonaaah.com/— This is what Pokémon fandom looked like in the year 2001.

  • 0

10 November 2011 - 01:40 AM

#83

JasonKlaczynski

    Rookie Trainer

  • JasonKlaczynski
nick, I think everyone here would agree TPCi can make rules to prevent people from selling cards, but the issue is should they? There are certain expectations people have when they buy trading cards. Don't call these online boosters free - they aren't. A lot of players (including myself) bought boosters because they had online codes.



This policy not only hinders the growth of the game, but its very difficult to enforce and it leaves a sour taste in peoples' mouths. Trying to stop virtual property being sold is one thing...but when that virtual property is TRADING cards it becomes a bit invasive. Then, go a step further and not allow customers to trade PTCGO Cards for Real Pokémon cards and you have a lot of unhappy people.

  • 0

10 November 2011 - 01:12 PM

#84

mtcc8516

    Rookie Trainer

  • mtcc8516
I did not buy booster packs but bought the codes straight from an online seller on ebay. Were those free Nick? I bought 100 codes for $115.00. They were not free. Had I bought those in actual booster packs it would've cost $400. I know people who have bought that many booster packs just for the codes that wouldn't have if there weren't any codes at all. So basically the codes provide incentive to buy more boosters than one typically would and therefore they're not free. It would be interesting for pokemon to release the data pertaining to sales of booster packs before and after the codes were included. I can almost guarantee sales have increased and so have pokemon's profits. Not to mention maybe the price per booster pack hasn't increased, but the price of a case of pokemon cards increased by nearly 10% once retailers realized people wanted or could make money off the codes.



However, none of this or what you were talking about is really the point. The point is that pokemon will suffer from this decision because it will hurt the game. You can argue that "we don't know that that's true" but everyone who plays the game knows. This is because they *** a sick feeling in their stomach knowing that they'd have to buy physical or virtual booster packs (in the future) just to simply have a terrible chance to *** the cards they want.





I myself have purchased nearly 500 code cards and do you know how many Yanmega Prime's I came away with? One. Do you know how many Magnezone Prime's I came away with? One. What if I wanted to assemble the Prime time deck featuring multiple copies of these cards? At least 1500 packs of virtual cards. It's nearly impossible to play a competitive deck let alone the one you want without infusing a lot of cash into this game that you say is "free". It's not free. Without the secondary markets people don't have the choice to play with the decks/cards they want. They are forced to use what they have or spend a lot (and I mean a lot) more money. If our freedom of choice (to buy single cards to create the decks we want) is taken away, consumers will grow frustrated and annoyed with the game and ultimately leave.





All of the other online games that have had success have done so because there's only one way to play/participate in the game, online. But, pokemon is not restricted to just the online realm. Pokemon has the physical card game, redshark, playtcg, etc...There are other ways people can play the game that are a lot cheaper. This calls to mind a post I read on this thread earlier that in Japan, Pokemon is saying "Kids, kids, kids" and that seems very likely. By destroying the secondary market, you are giving up the market of people age 18 and up. The problem with this? They are your big spenders!! They keep the game going. Is a child's parent going to buy a lot of boosters? Yes. Is the child's parent going to buy a booster box? No. Is a child going to write an article, make a video, post a decklist about pokemon? No, no and no. The older players are pokemon's unsung heroes. They market the game like mad, increase interest and increase people's investment in the game. How does pokemon reward these players? They ignore them and focus on the kids. Well I would like to personally thank Sixprizes, onehitko, pokebeach, pokegym, pokemandan, jwittz, Pooka etc... because you guys do everything for this game and are getting the short end of the deal when it comes to the PTCGO, as are all of us.





  • 1

14 December 2011 - 09:18 PM

#85

mtcc8516

    Rookie Trainer

  • mtcc8516
Any word from the professors about this issue?? It would be nice to get some feedback.

  • 0

14 January 2012 - 04:20 PM

#86

SlowpokeXXL

    Junior Trainer

  • SlowpokeXXL
'FUTURE PLANS: In November 2011 the TCG Online will introduce Gems into the store. This allows the user to purchase gems, which can be used to get Avatar Items and in-game accessories. That is pretty cool in itself but after that, we will introduce Gem Trading. Ahhhh, you say. Now you get it. Trading gems to get the cards you want in a safe and fraud protected setting within the TCG Online game? SCORE!'



First post needs an update, lol.

Slooooooooow.....poke

  • 0

28 January 2012 - 06:26 AM

#87

killjoypoprocks

    Rookie Trainer

  • killjoypoprocks
well... i eather trade REAL polkemon cards or give my REAL freinds a dollar for there unuesd code cards

  • 0

28 January 2012 - 06:14 PM

#88

Idon

    Rookie Trainer

  • Idon
Problem with all of this is, you can't possibly track cards, at least in a rational, legal and cost effective way.



Unless you guys plan to sell the digital versions for scrap I strongly suggest PTCGO implements digital card buying fast as the longer you wait, the more popular code buying will get, which in turn will force you to match the price of code sellers if you want things to kick off.

There is also the fact that you are really inconveniencing players that have a problem getting physical copies, like myself. Ordering packs from NA/UK is both costly and time consuming.

  • 0

07 March 2012 - 03:54 AM

#89

ServiceGames

    Novice Trainer

  • ServiceGames
eh... nevermind

  • 0

18 April 2012 - 07:59 AM

#90

5446was

    Rookie Trainer

  • 5446was
is it november 2011 yet

  • 1