Phoenix Packs: Why This "overlord" Votes Yes...
#21
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:08 PM
#22
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:08 PM
#23
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:10 PM
The single strongest arguement for having those mechs in their packaged Premium form, out and about in the mech store. Cant argue with this. This doesnt make any other arguements against or for any better or worse though.
Short form, if you have a mech and want it to get fair updating and added options, its best if its still marketable.
Edited by Johnny Z, 17 May 2015 - 10:18 PM.
#24
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:26 PM
1) You can have a Phoenix II be available forever and Phoenix I be exclusive. The two cases are mutually exclusive.
2) Actually I do own Mox's just wish I had bought more. Even then not false equivalency. The point is just because you miss out on something doesn't mean if you whine enough you should be entitled to it. Words have power and the word exclusive should be treated as such.
3) Still not hearing a clamor for Battlemasters. You are imagining a demand when there is no demand indicated to make a point.
4) Now we have false equivalency. Asking for unreleased content is not the same as asking for a re-release of exclusive content.
5) I have admitted that there is no current market. It does not mean there will not be a future market. Even if PGI says there will not be one, well we see how they treat the term "exclusive". If you would like to give away a potential asset fine. But legally you cannot make me give up mine without compensation, only governments can or PGI in the case of a ban or insolvency. Put two and two together why Paul tweeted that the vote will only make them consider re-releasing the Phoenix pack.
But by all means if you all are willing to give stuff away for free there is a gift store and you know my player name.
For Dino:
This is not a zero sum game as my loss is equally decided by someone who might have bought a lower tier pack then me. So I in fact stand to lose more than others who are being given equal consideration.
So please stop using zero sum game. Please.
#25
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:27 PM
Ted Wayz, on 17 May 2015 - 10:23 PM, said:
1) You can have a Phoenix II be available forever and Phoenix I be exclusive. The two cases are mutually exclusive.
2) Actually I do own Mox's just wish I had bought more. Even then not false equivalency. The point is just because you miss out on something doesn't mean if you whine enough you should be entitled to it. Words have power and the word exclusive should be treated as such.
3) Still not hearing a clamor for Battlemasters. You are imagining a demand when there is no demand indicated to make a point.
4) Now we have false equivalency. Asking for unreleased content is not the same as asking for a re-release of exclusive content.
5) I have admitted that there is no current market. It does not mean there will not be a future market. Even if PGI says there will not be one, well we see how they treat the term "exclusive". If you would like to give away a potential asset fine. But legally you cannot make me give up mine without compensation, only governments can or PGI in the case of a ban or insolvency. Put two and two together why Paul tweeted that the vote will only make them consider re-releasing the Phoenix pack.
But by all means if you all are willing to give stuff away for free there is a gift store and you know my player name.
So what would you consider fair compensation then? Dont chicken out from this, since you are making the arguement, which is cool. Whats fair? In game stuff as compensation like C-bills or MC or something would make sense.
By the way I personally think its for the most part a valid arguement.
Take into consideration that if this mech pack is mothballed they still have Hero versions to market as premium, although the Mech packs offer far far better value for the dollar.
Edited by Johnny Z, 17 May 2015 - 10:37 PM.
#26
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:30 PM
1. Not all the players currently here were playing when the pack was released (I personally did not have good enough of a computer to play beta, though I feel like it could run the game on low settings now, but I have a better computer now so that's redundant)
2. They're not the Founders packages, so why are they such a big deal to keep 'exclusive'? They're no different than the current IS packs available in the store so I say make it available as well, its content current players can pick up without PGI having to invest more time into something that could produce potential revenue.
Revenue = Game Funding = Better/More Content
3. Having an IS pack re-released gives some of the newer players a discounted option to purchase with a good variety of mechs that are available.
#27
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:38 PM
Rip Snorgan, on 17 May 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:
No, it meant that the pattern was supposed to be exclusive to those who pre-ordered - why else would it be "the ultimate loyalty reward"?
Rip Snorgan, on 17 May 2015 - 10:04 PM, said:
It is, and it pissed a lot of people off when they removed the word "exclusive" towards the end of the pre-order period.
#28
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:42 PM
Ted Wayz, on 17 May 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:
1) You can have a Phoenix II be available forever and Phoenix I be exclusive. The two cases are mutually exclusive.
2) Actually I do own Mox's just wish I had bought more. Even then not false equivalency. The point is just because you miss out on something doesn't mean if you whine enough you should be entitled to it. Words have power and the word exclusive should be treated as such.
3) Still not hearing a clamor for Battlemasters. You are imagining a demand when there is no demand indicated to make a point.
4) Now we have false equivalency. Asking for unreleased content is not the same as asking for a re-release of exclusive content.
5) I have admitted that there is no current market. It does not mean there will not be a future market. Even if PGI says there will not be one, well we see how they treat the term "exclusive". If you would like to give away a potential asset fine. But legally you cannot make me give up mine without compensation, only governments can or PGI in the case of a ban or insolvency. Put two and two together why Paul tweeted that the vote will only make them consider re-releasing the Phoenix pack.
But by all means if you all are willing to give stuff away for free there is a gift store and you know my player name.
For Dino:
This is not a zero sum game as my loss is equally decided by someone who might have bought a lower tier pack then me. So I in fact stand to lose more than others who are being given equal consideration.
So please stop using zero sum game. Please.
But the two do NOT equate. Again. I, personally, DO own the content (I did NOT "miss out" on it), and I, personally, DO NOT mind at all if they make the content available again to others, therefore will vote yes to support that. This does NOT equal someone who wants Mox's whining to WoC to make more. So...yeah. There it is.
Lack of "clamor" =/= lack of interest. And we're talking about Phoenix Battlemasters here. I feel pretty safe imagining there to be a likely market of some variety.
Unreleased vs re-released doesn't matter, the conversation is about "content". People (us), asking a game company (PGI), to make some video game stuff available for purchase that is not currently available (Urbies, Phoenix Mechs, or my proposed extra bonus stuff. Same, same, same).
I will grant you though, that the two packs are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but as someone who does marketing for a living, I will say that it generally looks better from the perspective of prospective buyers to not "skip number 1" in your online catalog when your product doesn't have an expiration date. "Sorry guys, you can only buy Ghostbusters II from us..."
There is no current market. And there may never be. So here we sit.
#29
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:50 PM
stjobe, on 17 May 2015 - 10:38 PM, said:
It is, and it pissed a lot of people off when they removed the word "exclusive" towards the end of the pre-order period.
Two bits. I don't see it stated anywhere, that it would never be released to anyone else, ever. Nor do I infer that it is implied. Even at the time it was placed out there, when I bought it, I read it as, "Neat, I'll get this unlocked on my mechs because I'm buying this now", and that is all. Sort of like, we got advanced access, at no extra cost, and that was the reward.
Our personal interpretations of the above likely explain a lot about our very different reactions when they made the pattern available to everyone else, since I was definitely NOT one of the people that got pissed.
#30
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:51 PM
Ted Wayz, on 17 May 2015 - 10:26 PM, said:
For Dino:
This is not a zero sum game as my loss is equally decided by someone who might have bought a lower tier pack then me. So I in fact stand to lose more than others who are being given equal consideration.
So please stop using zero sum game. Please.
Dude, what is your loss in this? Seriously, what do you lose? I suspect you do not understand what zero-sum game means, in part because your statement up there makes no sense whatsoever. I have a hard time following your points because they tend to follow what I call, "non-sequitor logic."
Are you asking me to stop using a term you don't understand? Because I'll explain it to you again. In a zero-sum environment, resources are finite. That means to acquire more of a certain resource, others will have less opportunity to attain the same resource. There can be no more added to the total population of resources. You get more, someone else gets less. In our case, mech packs are not finite. Someone else getting more does not mean you get less.
Again, the only thing you are complaining about is the "exclusivity," which I have asked repeatedly, WHY? Why do you care if someone else gets to join your little club? It's ridiculous. I hope those of us who bought the Overlord package vote yes, yes, and yes again so that we can bask in the cryfest that will commence from 0.2% of the population that "already said no," when the idea was proposed before.
Seriously, grow up. Offer a compelling reason to not open up the Phoenix package again other than "but then I won't be special!" If you can provide some legitimate reasons such as consumer impacts, mech diversity/balance, or other legitimate, measurable aspects, then I'll stop arguing with you. Until then, please accept membership in my exclusive "Dino's Care-a-lot Club." You are currently the only member.
#31
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:51 PM
The Talon package is garbage. 2/3rd of the variants are extremlely subpar. The mastery would ideally have the PB, 1E and 1M and premium time. Its a no brainer.
Why get the Thunderbolt package when the hero pack would provide the Tallman, 9SE(c) in addition to the 9S/5S/5SS?
The Griffin and Wolverine bundles likely would be better as well though less pronounced.
Edited by Spheroid, 18 May 2015 - 07:55 AM.
#32
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:52 PM
Johnny Z, on 17 May 2015 - 10:27 PM, said:
By the way I personally think its for the most part a valid arguement.
Take into consideration that if this mech pack is mothballed they still have Hero versions to market as premium, although the Mech packs offer far far better value for the dollar.
That's my thought, as an approach for a middle ground. Re-release the pack, but give the original purchasers a load of extra perks.
I'd hope this could make the largest number of people possible at least content, if not happy.
#33
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:58 PM
#34
Posted 17 May 2015 - 10:59 PM
Rip Snorgan, on 17 May 2015 - 10:52 PM, said:
That's my thought, as an approach for a middle ground. Re-release the pack, but give the original purchasers a load of extra perks.
I'd hope this could make the largest number of people possible at least content, if not happy.
I am nuetral in this entirely but this seems fair. Some perks for the Phoenix loyalty package owners if it is made available again, and I dont see why the game isnt generous about it to. If anything players that dont own the Phoenix package already will feel like they missed out even more so than now if the kick backs are good enough.
If everyone is cool its a win win for everyone.
Edited by Johnny Z, 17 May 2015 - 11:05 PM.
#35
Posted 17 May 2015 - 11:03 PM
#36
Posted 17 May 2015 - 11:08 PM
ShinVector, on 17 May 2015 - 11:03 PM, said:
I can respect that. I would hope that if it was put to a vote, and it passed with a "YES", that the "NO" crowd could be gracious about it, just as I would intend to be, and hope that the rest of the "YES" folks would be as well, if the "NO" vote takes it.
But I do know that these forums do sure get all crazy from time to time though eh?
#37
Posted 18 May 2015 - 12:55 AM
NO.
Edited by NeoCodex, 18 May 2015 - 12:56 AM.
#38
Posted 18 May 2015 - 01:27 AM
Edited by CHH Badkarma, 18 May 2015 - 01:28 AM.
#39
Posted 18 May 2015 - 01:31 AM
if people want it. Sell it to them.
Who honestly cares.
You got it first. Now they get it second.
3-4 years after this game ages what will it matter?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users