498 replies to this topic

[Havok1978]

[Wintersdark]

Yeah... . I'm absolutely of wit a setup fee (MC) for merchandise guilds. I'm right with that, and expect it. But maintaining premium time? Paying to stay with my Corp/clan/guild/whatever? No.

*IF* it offers extras, I'd even be on with a reasonable maintenance fee for merc guilds. You're own custom decals for your members?, that sort of thing? Sure. But that would require a way for players to contribute to the upkeep, and it would have to have real, tangible benefits.

But simply being a member of a group requiring a subscription is a plainly bad idea.

Myself, I keep premium time going most of the time, unless I'm not going g to be able to pay much for a while for whatever reason. lf that kicked me out of a merc corp or excluded me from playing with my friends, though?

No... that'd be the end of my play time.

I spend a lot on this game, more than I should. Probably in the neighborhood of 30 a month (that's a lot for me for a single game, effectively two game subs). That would end instantly.

[S3dition]

Sifright, on 29 March 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

i've not played for over a week now due to the latest patch introducing massive stability issues for many players. (check the support/patch thread for more info)

I was hoping to come back after the next patch assuming it fixed the stability issue now i'm not sure i'm going to bother.

Tried WoT on thursday, not a huge fan of it so far but the difference in graphics quality and game stability is like going from 2001 tech to modern tech...

Not to mention it actually has a tutorial...

It's like pgi are intentionally trying to sabotage themselves.



Yeps it's a pretty common tactic in the business world. It's also despicable as hell.

WoT was horrid during beta. Absolutely horrid. Crashes, bugs, problems with hit boxes and damage registry. It was also laggy. They had their own screw ups too, like the over powered T59 premium tank.

It also didn't have a tutorial back then (but it was pretty easy to learn. You only have 1 gun.) and didn't have half the features it does now.

[BlackBeltJones]

Buddahcjcc, on 29 March 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

no but it is the way to destroy one

Sadly at this point I feel the "trust but verify" axiom is appropriate here. Before I can give more money to PGI I need to first see what they produced - no more pay on faith.

[Heeden]

Does that mean they'll only allow people to participate in Merc corp warfare stuff if they have an active premium account?

I'm thinking that's a bad idea. One time fee to make a corporation is fine.

Corporation subscription fee of (arbitary number) MC to be split amongst whoever wants to pay in the corp? Doable (depending on the number of course).

But for that sort of subscription fee they'd have to introduce a hell of a lot of content, in a time when persistent-world MMOs are struggling to get players to subscribe an arena death-match game has no chance.

[Gozer]

Don't they call this a "Trial Balloon?"

I think so, and if so this is a "Lead Balloon."

[Sifright]

Wintersdark, on 29 March 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

Yeah... . I'm absolutely of wit a setup fee (MC) for merchandise guilds. I'm right with that, and expect it. But maintaining premium time? Paying to stay with my Corp/clan/guild/whatever? No.

*IF* it offers extras, I'd even be on with a reasonable maintenance fee for merc guilds. You're own custom decals for your members?, that sort of thing? Sure. But that would require a way for players to contribute to the upkeep, and it would have to have real, tangible benefits.

But simply being a member of a group requiring a subscription is a plainly bad idea.

Myself, I keep premium time going most of the time, unless I'm not going g to be able to pay much for a while for whatever reason. lf that kicked me out of a merc corp or excluded me from playing with my friends, though?

No... that'd be the end of my play time.

I spend a lot on this game, more than I should. Probably in the neighborhood of 30 a month (that's a lot for me for a single game, effectively two game subs). That would end instantly.

to be honest with i'm against even having a setup fee for clans. Its absolute nonsense. Whats the worst that happens people make clan logos that look like penises? *yawn* thats pretty far from the end of the world.

Clans aren't going to be introducing any new server load. It's a cash grab and a transparent one that doesn't add value to the customer.

Then again it depends what you consider a viable base product.

I don't consider having areas of the game behind a pay wall F2P. It doesn't matter if its a one time fee or a monthly sub.

I payed for eve online for three years with no problems. I've nothing against pay walls when the game warrants it.

CW and this plainly do not warrant a pay wall or monthly fee of anykind.
given that there is specific types of content in the game that are behind a pay wall already i'm not cool with them monetizing CW.

If they do they can go hang.

[DirePhoenix]

Fros7bite, on 29 March 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

We need to wait for an official announcement.

I just got a response from one of our guys in the industry. He's calling ******** on the article, as he sees it all the time on new software and hardware. It's designed to get people talking, designed to get tons of web page traffic. It's all journalism.

For example, just before the PS4 was announced they said that is will be able to trump the Titan. It's simply not true. We're better off waiting for an official announcement.

I've been thinking along these lines since the coolant flush announcement -> turnaround "fix" clarification...

I wonder how much income IGP/PGI (and other games) gets from web traffic, because this is a hell of a scheme, and I see it in games across the board:

• build playerbase that congregates on websites
  
• make remark to enflame community (regardless of validity)
  
• websites get major spikes in traffic due to flamers/ragers/trolls constantly posting/re-posting/refreshing websites all day
  
• get paid for traffic
  
• come back on to clarify remark and "work with" the community
  
• get posts with input and feedback
  
• get paid for traffic
  
• make another remark to enflame the community again
  
• rinse/repeat

Holy crap I need to get in on some of this action!

[Roadbeer]

DirePhoenix, on 29 March 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

I've been thinking along these lines since the coolant flush announcement -> turnaround "fix" clarification...

I wonder how much income IGP/PGI (and other games) gets from web traffic, because this is a hell of a scheme, and I see it in games across the board:

• build playerbase that congregates on websites
  
• make remark to enflame community (regardless of validity)
  
• websites get major spikes in traffic due to flamers/ragers/trolls constantly posting/re-posting/refreshing websites all day
  
• get paid for traffic
  
• come back on to clarify remark and "work with" the community
  
• get posts with input and feedback
  
• get paid for traffic
  
• make another remark to enflame the community again
  
• rinse/repeat

Holy crap I need to get in on some of this action!

That model only works if there's ads on the site.

[Dakkath]

Just to put this out there, please continue to be civil with one another. I know there is a lot of unhappy people right now, but also understand that there could be more details coming out that might change the story.

[Roadbeer]

Dakkath, on 29 March 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

Just to put this out there, please continue to be civil with one another. I know there is a lot of unhappy people right now, but also understand that there could be more details coming out that might change the story.

We were just discussing how surprisingly civil we ARE being to each other. Community seems to be pretty much one voice on this.

HELL NO

Edited by Roadbeer, 29 March 2013 - 06:24 PM.

[kitazari]

Of all the fumbles PGI has been going through, I sit here remembering when I put 30USD into a title that would be ready by the end of the summer.
It's however many months later,
they have a hand-full of the features they promised,
and now this game might be pay2havefun.
This game can't keep the "It's just beta!" excuse forever. When that time comes I'm either going to spend $80 on a finished game, or I'm going to pretend this game never happened and wait another 8-10 years for the next mechwarrior game to be made.

[Tennex]

shabowie, on 29 March 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

It's called a trial balloon or a shark bump. You leak an incomplete idea and if everyone freaks out or puts up stiff resistance you say the comments were taken out of context. If they don't you implement the idea.

i hope thats not just wishful thinking.

[Belorion]

Dakkath, on 29 March 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

Just to put this out there, please continue to be civil with one another. I know there is a lot of unhappy people right now, but also understand that there could be more details coming out that might change the story.

I agree. There is no reason to break out pitch forks and torches. The article could even legitimately misleading. If you read all of the articles around the new information you will see a different take from each one.

[Dakkath]

Roadbeer, on 29 March 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

We were just discussing how surprisingly civil we ARE being to each other. Community seems to be pretty much one voice on this.

HELL NO

Haha yeah, I know. and from my POV its much appreciated.

[Peiper]

Tennex, on 29 March 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

i like how all the moderators are viewing this thread.

if i were a moderator. and this were implemented. i would resign to send a message.

Bullcrap. Prosperity Park is good people. I'd rather have him keeping the peace than some dumb flunky apologetic - in it for free MC - twerp as our moderator any day. I know you probably didn't mean that when you said it Tennex, but you're crossing the line from being critical of PGI's statement to spreading negativity.

I was thinking about how the article was worded by Christopher Grant (and maybe gone through an editor too). Note: the paragraph describing the one time fee for Merc corps ends. Then the next paragraph begins:

"We really want people who participate in THIS to be as engaged as possible." from here.

The pronoun THIS may not mean what was said in the previous paragraph. If it were part of the same quote as in directly following the sentence previous in Bryan/Russ's statement, then why was it in a new paragraph? The article LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE that 'THIS' is referring to what was said in the previous paragraph, because there is no other reference to what "THIS" might be. Still, typically, paragraphs are broken down by subject. This paragraph is about this subject, and the next paragraph is about the next subject, or an elaboration of this subject. If Christopher Grant (and/or his editor) were on the ball, then the article would be less ambiguous. Then again, did he predict the outrage the article would cause - or was he just reporting what he heard. If he predicted the outrage, he might have purposely omitted part of the quote to CAUSE controversy to get people to link to/visit his article/page.

So, yes, this could be a misscommunication after all on the part of the reporter or because of a lack of elaboration on the part of Bryan/Russ.

And yes, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. And no, I still am pissed about a number of bullshizzle things in the game like ECM, coolant flushes from the ether, a complete lack of support for any organized play like a simple lobby system, etc...

Edited by Peiper, 29 March 2013 - 06:26 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Well, I read 9 pages more or less. I am quite uneasy about this prospect. Paying to form a Merc unit once. Okay I get it. but expecting us to pay for premium time after that...

Not liking the sound of it. It is only a few sentences, so I wil wait to see what the DEVs meant but To be honest I am already digging in my heels a bit. Now to wait and see how much they think is "reasonable".

[Sifright]

Peiper, on 29 March 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Bullcrap. Prosperity Park is good people. I'd rather have him keeping the peace than some dumb flunky apologetic - in it for free MC - twerp as our moderator any day. I know you probably didn't mean that when you said it Tennex, but you're crossing the line from being critical of PGI's statement to spreading negativity.

I was thinking about how the article was worded by Christopher Grant (and maybe gone through an editor too). Note: the paragraph describing the one time fee for Merc corps ends. Then the next paragraph begins:

[color=#000000]"[/color][color=#000000]We really want people who participate in THIS to be as engaged as possible."[/color]

The pronoun THIS may not mean what was said in the previous paragraph. If it were part of the same quote as in directly following the sentence previous in Bryan/Russ's statement, then why was it in a new paragraph? The article LEADS YOU TO BELIEVE that 'THIS' is referring to what was said in the previous paragraph, because there is no other reference to what "THIS" might be. Still, typically, paragraphs are broken down by subject. This paragraph is about this subject, and the next paragraph is about the next subject, or an elaboration of this subject. If Christopher Grant (and/or his editor) were on the ball, then the article would be less ambiguous. Then again, did he predict the outrage the article would cause - or was he just reporting what he heard. If he predicted the outrage, he might have purposely omitted part of the quote to CAUSE controversy to get people to link to/visit his article/page.

So, yes, this could be a misscommunication after all on the part of the reporter or because of a lack of elaboration on the part of Bryan/Russ.

And yes, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. And no, I still am pissed about a number of bullshizzle things in the game like ECM, coolant flushes from the ether, a complete lack of support for any organized play like a simple lobby system, etc...

Not trying to be rude here dude but you just pulled a clinton..



I know you are trying to argue for situational context.

Certainly if PGI pulls back from this plan its what they will claim.
How ever this is a pretty cut and dried situation. PGI how ever will obfuscate how ever they can to protect themselves.

[Roadbeer]

Dakkath, on 29 March 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

Haha yeah, I know. and from my POV its much appreciated.

Think you guys will be pretty much unneeded in this thread except to participate...

that is until we start questioning the parentage, inteligence and hygiene of those dumb,dirty, ******** who's hairbrained idea this was

[Zylo]

Protection, on 29 March 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

I'm thinking we should get more proactive on this sort of slip up.

If something like this happened in a different industry, we'd see heads roll, resignations, business relationships ended.

These kinds of either 1) terrible ideas, or 2) terrible mistakes with abysmal community relations really need some accountability.

We should consider making requests for Russ or Brian to resign.

We want the direction of the game to change -- and I have a suspicion that many of the developers would like that as well.

New business leadership might steer PGI/IGP off this road to destruction.

I think the real question is which side is responsible:

Is this PGI just doing what their publisher is requesting or is this idea PGI's fault?