1126 replies to this topic

[Imperius]

Summary of this thread.

White knights = PGI knows what they are doing and this is the best option for the game.

Community Leaders/Group players = We will leave if things don't change soon. Playing games with friends is supposed to be what games are about, please listen PGI.

Lone Wolves = Healthy mix of yes, no, and don't care. Some saying they would like the challege of group queue, others saying they wouldn't play it, and some just don't care.

Then there are just a few trolls/anomalies that just need to be ignored...

/close thread

Edited by Imperius, 21 April 2014 - 08:12 PM.

[Chronojam]

Why actually close the thread when the concerns within it can just be ignored in the traditional manner -- the one that's been so successful thus far?

[Imperius]

This isn't success...

[Atreides76]

Imperius, on 21 April 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

This isn't success...

Perhaps it's deemed a success from a PGI perspective ?

[Heffay]

Atreides76, on 22 April 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

Perhaps it's deemed a success from a PGI perspective ?

[Joseph Mallan]

Imperius, on 21 April 2014 - 06:33 PM, said:

Summary of this thread.

White knights = PGI knows what they are doing and this is the best option for the game.

Community Leaders/Group players = We will leave if things don't change soon. Playing games with friends is supposed to be what games are about, please listen PGI.

Lone Wolves = Healthy mix of yes, no, and don't care. Some saying they would like the challege of group queue, others saying they wouldn't play it, and some just don't care.

Then there are just a few trolls/anomalies that just need to be ignored...

/close thread

Good up till the end.

[Imperius]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 April 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Good up till the end.

Please tell me why it should stay open?

[I R O N]

"We do not have the resources." - PGI

Imperius, on 21 April 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:

This isn't success...

Edited by Irontygr, 22 April 2014 - 07:42 PM.

[Sam Slade]

Craig Steele, on 20 April 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

An Investor might or might not run for the hills, but their decision would not be based on pure speculation.

Actually it is. 'Informed decision' is a sales tool used to make people feel more secure in their investment; at the end of the day it's always speculation. It may be speculation based on historical trends(as in a company offering massive sales and trying to replace key staff while promising a product they refuse to show anyone having their investors run for the hills...) but it's still just speculation. Oh and please don't try to lecture me about this, I've read your other posts and I'm almost certain I know more about it then you(just speculation based on historical trends again... amazing stuff).

Craig Steele, on 20 April 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

You're a consumer.

Yes, and as such the vendor(PGI) is subject to the reasonable expectation of service(sic) requirements of Canadian consumer law. Customers, in this case, actually have more rights then shareholders as the nature of the initial offering('Founders Pack') was pitched and sold directly as a contribution of development funds with a subsequent good faith delivery of services(the 'Founders mechs' and 'premium time' were only an element of this as the logical inference is that the advertised game content is required to use these items, in effect making the game and the promised 'products' one and the same). Had PGI registered as a charity it would be different... but PGI is not a charity so they've in fact waded into a horrible murky area where they may actually be liable under common law consumer protections and common law investment regulations(to put it as generically as I can).

Craig... your speculation is showing.

EDIT: I should add that this is all pure speculation and should not be taken seriously be anyone...

EDIT2: What I've posted may be against the bizzare and obtuse terms of service(I honestly cannot tell)... but then no one at PGI reads this anyway right?

Edited by Sam Slade, 22 April 2014 - 10:35 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 22 April 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

(1) Actually it is. 'Informed decision' is a sales tool used to make people feel more secure in their investment; at the end of the day it's always speculation. It may be speculation based on historical trends(as in a company offering massive sales and trying to replace key staff while promising a product they refuse to show anyone having their investors run for the hills...) but it's still just speculation. Oh and please don't try to lecture me about this, I've read your other posts and I'm almost certain I know more about it then you(just speculation based on historical trends again... amazing stuff).



(2) Yes, and as such the vendor(PGI) is subject to the reasonable expectation of service(sic) requirements of Canadian consumer law. Customers, in this case, actually have more rights then shareholders as the nature of the initial offering('Founders Pack') was pitched and sold directly as a contribution of development funds with a subsequent good faith delivery of services(the 'Founders mechs' and 'premium time' were only an element of this as the logical inference is that the advertised game content is required to use these items, in effect making the game and the promised 'products' one and the same). Had PGI registered as a charity it would be different... but PGI is not a charity so they've in fact waded into a horrible murky area where they may actually be liable under common law consumer protections and common law investment regulations(to put it as generically as I can).

Craig... your speculation is showing.

EDIT: I should add that this is all pure speculation and should not be taken seriously be anyone...

EDIT2: What I've posted may be against the bizzare and obtuse terms of service(I honestly cannot tell)... but then no one at PGI reads this anyway right?

(1) I can't decide if you're agreeing with me or not? Whats the difference between not pure speculation and speculation based on .....?

I'm not going to lecture you though, as much as you might think you know more than me on this subject (or more than anyone on any subject) I am extremely comfortable with my knowledge of investments and returns which is why I can sit here enjoying a lot of spare time at a pretty comfortable age. Are there people smarter than me, of course, but I am comfortable I know exactly what I am talking about when it comes to assessing an investment and expected returns.

(2) Which was the point. Founders are not investors (which is why I think the investment analogy does not serve the argument well) and are consumers. They got a certain product (MC, mechs etc) and the key to use the product in exchange for cash. They also received an understanding of the vision that the company wanted to take the game, but it was not a guaranteed return. They didn't "buy" the vision.

If you're making an argument that the vision was part of the transaction, then you have a case for consumer fraud. You could argue that PGI have not delivered what they promised when they took your cash. If thats you case, get your supporting document together and launch your legal action, I am sure Canadian Law has mechanisms to protect consumers for exactly that, after all, consumers do enjoy more protection than investors.

But I'm willing to bet there is no fraud that has actually occurred bar the slighted parties feelings of injustice. Heck, I'd even invest money on the odds of that case being thrown out in minutes.

[Sam Slade]

Craig Steele, on 22 April 2014 - 10:50 PM, said:

But I'm willing to bet there is no fraud that has actually occurred bar the slighted parties feelings of injustice. Heck, I'd even invest money on the odds of that case being thrown out in minutes.

This invalidates your assertion vis a vis knowledge of investments(being married to a lawyer has some perks and a vendor does not arbitrarily define the scope of their product in relation to their advertising)... but it makes me more confortable in my speculation as to the efficacy of 'informed decision' as a sales tool used by investment broakers.

Edited by Sam Slade, 22 April 2014 - 11:32 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 22 April 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

This invalidates your assertion vis a vis knowledge of investments(being married to a lawyer has some perks)... but it makes me more confortable in my speculation as to the efficacy of 'informed decision' as a sales tool used by investment broakers.

ha ha ha, except I have read the relevant documentation excerpts and am pretty comfortable that while people may question the ethics of PGI's actions, they always had the legal right. So yeah, pretty sure my knowledge on this particular subject would serve my hyperthetical "investment" well.

You can label "informed decision" as a sales tool if you like, it's both a jargon word and a descriptive.

Some brokers might use it as a sales tool, some governments certainly legislate using similar terminology (ask your wife ) so it's in common usage.

Fact is that smart investors use knowledge, trends, projections, and history to make a judgement of probable outcomes, and take risks acceptable to their estimation of the outcomes. It's still speculation, but not pure speculation.

[Sam Slade]

Let's not get into the legal versus legislative debate... though I will say 'common usage' is only a valid argument in Scrabble and parliament.

As to the legal right; it's all untested(the status of crowd funding and so called 'click n' sign' agreements). I've been advised that it'd possibly end up in torts(ugh) if it ever went to civil action(having a legal staff with idle hands is dangerous... execute operation Side Project) but much would depend on the bench at the end of the day(Canada + slighed consumer = Four Legs Good! Two Legs Bad!... if one were to speculate that is... but then factor in digital development tax breaks and we come full circle to legislative vs. legal). Would be an interesting case either way.

Oh and "Ner! You're wrong!".

Also, please just make it two launch buckets... Solo Only and Groups with PUG-filler.

Edited by Sam Slade, 22 April 2014 - 11:58 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Sam Slade, on 22 April 2014 - 11:52 PM, said:

Let's not get into the legal versus legislative debate... though I will say 'common usage' is only a valid argument in Scrabble and parliament.

As to the legal right; it's all untested(the status of crowd funding and so called 'click n' sign' agreements). I've been advised that it'd possibly end up in torts(ugh) if it ever went to civil action(having a legal staff with idle hands is dangerous... execute operation Side Project) but much would depend on the bench at the end of the day(Canada + slighed consumer = Four Legs Good! Two Legs Bad!... if one were to speculate that is... but then factor in digital development tax breaks and we come full circle to legislative vs. legal). Would be an interesting case either way.

Oh and "Ner! You're wrong!".

Also, please just make it two launch buckets... Solo Only and Groups with PUG-filler.

LOL, Good luck with your legal action then, tell me I'm wrong when you've won.

[Sam Slade]

Craig Steele, on 23 April 2014 - 12:04 AM, said:

LOL, Good luck with your legal action then,.

Flogging a dead horse only makes your arms tired; it would be a waste of money,

on the subject of flogging a dead horse... PGI, listen to your customers, they're always right.

[Sandpit]

Sam Slade, on 23 April 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

Flogging a dead horse only makes your arms tired; it would be a waste of money,

on the subject of flogging a dead horse... PGI, listen to your customers, they're always right.

he's not listening dude

I've said it before but people like him don't get it, just want to argue, don't understand, or whatever.

Does it matter if it's "illegal"? Does it matter if they actually "lied"?

Not really

Many, many customers have those perceptions of PGI at this time and that number is growing as more and more customers feel jaded at the whole "our position at the time" crap.

People like I mentioned above can argue all they want. That doesn't change the fact that customers (those people who pay your bills by buying your product?) have that perception and stop spending money on the product. Now you can argue against that all you want. You can claim it's "wrong" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that money is not being spent because customers feel like they have been deceived, cheated, misrepresented, etc. No amount of "you're wrong, PGI didn't say or do any of that" isn't going to change the FACT that less people are spending money than they were. That's not anecdotal, that's factual. Is it enough of a drop in profits to affect PGI's bottom line? No idea, but it's still less money than they WOULD earn by simply following through with what they advertised to paying customers more often.

[Helmer]

Sandpit, on 23 April 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

No amount of "you're wrong, PGI didn't say or do any of that" isn't going to change the FACT that less people are spending money than they were. That's not anecdotal, that's factual.

For my own edification , and in order to be able to reference it later , can you site/link your source of information?


Thank you sir!


Cheers.

[Heffay]

Helmer, on 23 April 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

For my own edification , and in order to be able to reference it later , can you site/link your source of information?

While he's at it, can he cite the source where he says Paul hates groups because the Goons killed him?

[Sandpit]

Helmer, on 23 April 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

For my own edification , and in order to be able to reference it later , can you site/link your source of information?


Thank you sir!


Cheers.

I'm spending less money as is
Nick
Road
Davers
Goat
Aym
Agent
Randalf
Numerous people in this thread
other threads
many others in my unit

I can get you a complete list of accurate names if anyone would like to pay me to be their librarian.

[Heffay]

Sandpit, on 23 April 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

I'm spending less money as is
Nick
Road
Davers
Goat
Aym
Agent
Randalf
Numerous people in this thread
other threads
many others in my unit

I can get you a complete list of accurate names if anyone would like to pay me to be their librarian.

And maybe their decisions caused 10 times as many people to open their wallets in support. You're grasping at straws.

Not to mention most of the people on that list have been saying they haven't been spending money on the game for months, and it has nothing to do with group sizes.

Edited by Heffay, 23 April 2014 - 01:49 PM.