Playstation Stars, a reward program

Sounds cool. I do wonder if the underlying tech is NFT :) hahaha. But it doesn’t need to be since it’s never leaving PS ecosystem
 
So this Wil replace Sony rewards or will be alongside Sony rewards?

Or Sony rewards has been shut down?

Btw the collectibles are basically steam trading cards but cannot be traded for shop money?
 
It looks like Sony is bringing their own style Microsoft Rewards program by the end of the year.



Interesting. I wonder if it'll always be limited to just the PSN store or if it'll be expanded to other things as well.

One of the best things about Microsoft rewards is that I can use it at Amazon, Dominos, Target, or any number of other retailers. The list of participating retailers isn't huge, but it's enough that I can get good value. Heck, I paid (300 dollars of my rewards) for part of my Surface Book 2 with the rewards.

And if that's too capitalistic for someone, they can always be altruistic and donate funds to charity using MS rewards.

Would be great if Sony were able to expand the scope of their rewards beyond just PlayStation, but regardless if they do or don't, this is a great thing for PS owners, IMO.

Regards,
SB
 
Ahh.. another reward incentive programme by a company who want you to use their services more. Preferably by paying them more money. Every single 'reward' programme in the world is predicated on the user's interaction being more valuable to the company than the 'rewards' you are provided.

Bravo, Sony, bravo
 
Ahh.. another reward incentive programme by a company who want you to use their services more. Preferably by paying them more money. Every single 'reward' programme in the world is predicated on the user's interaction being more valuable to the company than the 'rewards' you are provided.

Bravo, Sony, bravo

I mean, that's pretty much how virtually everything in the world works, no? The work you do for someone is worth more than how much they are paying you. And for the person doing the work, the amount they are getting paid is worth more than the work they are doing for someone. Same goes even if there is no currency involved. A farmer trading a chicken to a tradesman for services obviously values those services more than they value the chicken and likewise with the tradesman valuing the chicken more than than the service they are providing.

That, of course, is always the tricky part with rewards programs. Are there enough people that value the rewards offered more than they value whatever time, effort or money they would need to expend in order to reap those rewards? If there isn't enough people that think there is great value there, then your reward program isn't going to succeed. And, of course, it doesn't matter whether or not I find value in it, it just matters if enough people find value in it.

Regards,
SB
 
I mean, that's pretty much how virtually everything in the world works, no?
Yes. The only difference being the Farmer is rewarding the service provider a chicken - it's established as a trade. Reward Programs may be fair commerce, but they are dressed up to try to feel different and exploit psychology. This isn't going to be called "Sony Work - Put in the Effort and Earn Fair Recompense." 😉
 
I mean, that's pretty much how virtually everything in the world works, no? The work you do for someone is worth more than how much they are paying you.

No, very little of the world's commerce is predicated on 'reward economy' but on actual trade - as in people paying somebody else for a product or service that they need and often cannot source or do themselves.

Reward/loyalty programmes are entirely about retaining users/customers but making the user feel they are being provided value, but only by having the customer invest as much (or even more) that offsets the cost of the rewards. They may be some genuinely altruistic reward schemes that are balances on a slightly loss of profit is better than a lost customer but I've never come across one.

Some credit cards give you a percentage cash back, which I use, but then I pay off my credit card every month so that is a genuine win for me. It's a win for credit card companies overall though, as most people do not have a zero outstanding balance each month. Others debts are my reward.
 
No, very little of the world's commerce is predicated on 'reward economy' but on actual trade - as in people paying somebody else for a product or service that they need and often cannot source or do themselves.

Reward/loyalty programmes are entirely about retaining users/customers but making the user feel they are being provided value, but only by having the customer invest as much (or even more) that offsets the cost of the rewards. They may be some genuinely altruistic reward schemes that are balances on a slightly loss of profit is better than a lost customer but I've never come across one.

Some credit cards give you a percentage cash back, which I use, but then I pay off my credit card every month so that is a genuine win for me. It's a win for credit card companies overall though, as most people do not have a zero outstanding balance each month. Others debts are my reward.

I guess I'm still not seeing the distinction. In almost all cases, a person only gets something because the value (how much that person values the thing or service) is greater than the value of what they need to give up in order to attain it (time, effort, money or an item).

Like, no matter how poor I am, I am never going to give (trade) away something that I feel is more valuable than whatever it is that I'm going to receive in return. On the extreme end, if it's something I need to survive (IE - I'm dead if I don't get it), then it's obviously going to be more valuable than pretty much anything that I own or could provide, short of my life.

The only exception, as you noted is altruistic gifting of something of value. But even then I'd argue that people only do it because they are receiving something in return that is of greater value than what they are giving up. In this case, it's anything from tax breaks, to "advantages" (like increasing the chances of getting a scholarship or grant), to just feeling good about yourself, to atoning for some wrong you felt you did in the past, etc.

Sure, as Shifty noted, a person might not consciously think of it that way but in effect that is what they are doing.
  • "Hey, look at this reward program it's great!"
    • If the time, effort or cost is lower than what they believe they'll receive from the program.
  • "Hey this reward program is shite! Why would anyone participate?"
    • If the time, effort or cost is greater than what they believe they'll receive from the program.
  • "I guess this reward program is OK?" Coin flip if the person will participate.
    • If the time, effort or cost is roughly equal to what they believe they'll receive from the program).
It's still just an exchange of one thing for another thing regardless of how a person consciously thinks of it. And they are still mentally calculating if what they could get from the reward program is of greater value than what they giving up to participate in it.

I'd argue the only "bad" versions of reward programs are things like Sweepstakes that you sign up for in order to get a chance to win something. People don't often read the fine print to find out what exactly they are giving up. So they'll have the perception that they are giving up nothing when in fact they are often giving the other party the right to cold contact them via phone, e-mail, texts or letters with the worst ones containing fine print that allows to give that information to other companies so they can contact the person.

Gambling, of course complicates this as then it's all about the chances of obtaining something more valuable than what you are giving up. Since it's only a chance, I never did see the point in gambling. But there's obviously a lot of people that do see the "value" in it or are addicted to the endorphin rush of the possibility of losing everything. Similar to how people will risk their life by cliff climbing with no safety ropes or riding bikes on narrow cliff trails where one wrong move results in their death.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm still not seeing the distinction. In almost all cases, a person only gets something because the value (how much that person values the thing or service) is greater than the value of what they need to give up in order to attain it (time, effort, money or an item).

I think you're struggling to see the distinction because you're focussing on the perceived value, which is what reward and loyalty programmes want you to do. :yes:

At the end of the day, if you are happy with a particular reward programme that is all that matters, because it is about an individual's perceived value. You may value something more (or less) than somebody else and reward scheme operator.

Like, no matter how poor I am, I am never going to give (trade) away something that I feel is more valuable than whatever it is that I'm going to receive in return. On the extreme end, if it's something I need to survive (IE - I'm dead if I don't get it), then it's obviously going to be more valuable than pretty much anything that I own or could provide, short of my life.

But some people do, these situations are what people in absolute poverty face every day. Supposing you need your computer to work, but you're not making enough to pay rent and put food on the table, if your kids are starving now you might - out of desperation - sell your computer in order to feed your starving kids.
 
But some people do, these situations are what people in absolute poverty face every day. Supposing you need your computer to work, but you're not making enough to pay rent and put food on the table, if your kids are starving now you might - out of desperation - sell your computer in order to feed your starving kids.

Sure, growing up those are things our family and relatives had to do in Hawai'i and Taiwan. I still remember spending time at my Aunt's house which had not a single window that wasn't broken because putting food on the table was more important than keeping the bugs out of the house. We usually went barefoot because shoes were expensive and were only to be used for special occasions. I still remember going to the dump (landfill) to scavenge for clothing. And for me to get spending money in order to buy books I'd have to collect aluminum cans. A toy for me was something like a broken wooden broomstick from the local dump combined with a clothespin and rubber bands to make a rubber band gun. A fancy drink for me was a glass of water with one drop of honey in it. :p I tried it recently to relive my childhood. Bleh! :D But, no matter how poor we were or how much we had to sacrifice, no-one succumbed to the temptations of easy money via hard crime. And it paid off, instead of some of us potentially being incarcerated or killed in turf wars, all of us succeeded to a greater or lesser degree. And that hard work continues to pay off even now.

Everything in life is about trading one thing of value that you have or can provide for another thing of value that someone else has or can provide. Even for rich people. It's just for rich people time is far more valuable than any amount of money they have, so what they value is different than what poor or middle class people value.

Maybe it's because I grew up poor that I just see it differently since every single thing growing up was a conscious decision about the relative worth (to me, my family, or relatives) of almost everything. Even so far as the relative worth of crime versus hard work.

Regards,
SB
 
Last edited:
Back
Top