#41
Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:42 PM
#42
Posted 24 May 2014 - 06:58 PM
I would consider spending serious money if they can get basics right like a UI that actually works.
Have to prove competence before investments are made (with most intelligent financial backers anyway).
#43
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:02 PM
Halcyon201, on 24 May 2014 - 06:58 PM, said:
I would consider spending serious money if they can get basics right like a UI that actually works.
Have to prove competence before investments are made (with most intelligent financial backers anyway).
Now this is an example of the kind of comments I was expecting! I was starting to worry!
I am rather surprised at how mostly positive the thread started out, though. Color me amazed.
#45
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:07 PM
Shar Wolf, on 24 May 2014 - 07:04 PM, said:
What I found the most interesting was that Bishop Steiner admitted to buying a pack. That I didn't see coming. Granted, it was his alter ego, so maybe anything is possible
#46
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:08 PM
Shar Wolf, on 24 May 2014 - 07:04 PM, said:
Not really, given that once someone contributes money to a F2P game, especially someone who would be considered a "whale", it's generally pretty easy to get them to give more money.
What's interesting is how PGI has managed to make so many of those whales totally despise PGI at this point, and refuse to give any money, despite having already forked over hundreds of dollars.
In the F2P world, if you can get a customer to give you any money, you've made it past the biggest hurdle.. if you can get them to give you as much money as someone like me has given them, you'd generally expect to have that customer for the duration of the game.
You need to screw up really bad to make folks abandon you after they've already invested hundreds of dollars.
#47
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:14 PM
#48
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:15 PM
Roland, on 24 May 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:
Considering one of the big arguments I keep seeing around is that PGI has done so horribly that no Founder of Phoenix buyer (let alone anyone foolish enough to buy both!) would ever be foolish enough to buy the Clan Pack?
Yeah, it is... kinda.
#49
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:16 PM
Shar Wolf, on 24 May 2014 - 07:15 PM, said:
Yeah, it is... kinda.
Yeah, you should probably read the entirety of my post.
#50
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:17 PM
#52
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:20 PM
#53
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:28 PM
Shar Wolf, on 24 May 2014 - 07:18 PM, said:
You might want to go read the forum a bit - and take a look at some of the Anti-PGI-do-not-ever-give-them-more-money arguments.
Uh.. you still didn't read the entirety of my post, or perhaps just didn't comprehend it.
#54
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:28 PM
TalRavis, on 24 May 2014 - 07:17 PM, said:
I'm willing to say...potentially not.
SSRM20 is a very nice option, with lots of ammo. LRM35+NARC is a stock loadout, never checked the ammo.
Boom Fox for the lulz.
#56
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:34 PM
Mcgral18, on 24 May 2014 - 07:28 PM, said:
I'm willing to say...potentially not.
SSRM20 is a very nice option, with lots of ammo. LRM35+NARC is a stock loadout, never checked the ammo.
Boom Fox for the lulz.
If it's a boom fox, then it's $30 for a cheap laugh. I don't see a good side to the lowest package for the $. With SSRMs you're volleying them in pairs, and you're too slow to catch up to other lights. LRMs might work, but it's still a bleh idea, you can run bigger and better missile boats.
However, if it were down to like $15 or $20, I might buy it.
Edited by TalRavis, 24 May 2014 - 07:34 PM.
#57
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:35 PM
#58
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:37 PM
darkkterror, on 24 May 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:
Now this is an example of the kind of comments I was expecting! I was starting to worry!
I am rather surprised at how mostly positive the thread started out, though. Color me amazed.
Can people simply not be allowed to disagree with the state of the game without them being bashed for it? White knights are as bad as detractors around here, that much is clear.
There are objective problems with this game. For some, it's enough to prevent them from spending money. For others (like me), I hope they get their **** together and make a better game, but thus far their track record isn't great.
#60
Posted 24 May 2014 - 07:41 PM
Lukoi, on 24 May 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:
Can people simply not be allowed to disagree with the state of the game without them being bashed for it? White knights are as bad as detractors around here, that much is clear.
There are objective problems with this game. For some, it's enough to prevent them from spending money. For others (like me), I hope they get their **** together and make a better game, but thus far their track record isn't great.
Sure, people can disagree with the state of the game. The real question is: Can people disagree on the state of the game without taking direct/indirect stabs at each other? The comment I quoted included such a stab at the other side.
5 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users