57 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

Dracol, on 26 September 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

I probably should have put it as "between $1 and $2 a gallon". Between '98 and '00 gas doubled in Chicago from $1 to $2 a gallon. So, for 1 litter, it would have cost $4.5 to $9.....

I'm thinking their is a translation error some where. You canadians and your newfangled math

I think you got it backwards. 1 gallon = approx. 3.8 liters, so $1/gallon = 26 c / liter ($2/gallon = 52 c / liter).
That newfangled math is hard and confusing...

[Kilrein]

Pjwned, on 26 September 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

I'm not going to be grateful to you, ever, because the way I see it is that your support enables companies like PGI to continue screwing up and overcharging out the ass for low value content instead of actually fixing their game.

EDIT for clarity: I'm not really going to blame people for getting hype about the game and buying founder's packages (even if it seems pretty expensive for what you got out of it...) and I imagine the game probably wouldn't have gone anywhere really without monetary support at that point so I guess it's cool that people chipped in, but continued support after the founders' period just makes me think less of your opinion if anything to be honest.

Well, I'm totally butt-hurt taht you feel so poorly towards me.

Oh wait, I don't give a rat's arse.

Why are you playing then? If the game is soooooo bad, go find another game to play instead of accusing me of being the problem.

Wow, get a grip.

[Kain Demos]

Kilrein, on 26 September 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

Well, I'm totally butt-hurt taht you feel so poorly towards me.

Oh wait, I don't give a rat's arse.

Why are you playing then? If the game is soooooo bad, go find another game to play instead of accusing me of being the problem.

Wow, get a grip.

Just another "I want everything for nothing".

Pretty common in the world today.

[Metus regem]

Kain Thul, on 26 September 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Just another "I want everything for nothing".

Pretty common in the world today.

And that is rather sad....

[Pjwned]

Kilrein, on 26 September 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

Well, I'm totally butt-hurt taht you feel so poorly towards me.

Oh wait, I don't give a rat's arse.

Why are you playing then? If the game is soooooo bad, go find another game to play instead of accusing me of being the problem.

Wow, get a grip.

I want the game to improve and if I feel like you're contributing to the problem then I'm going to let you know, deal with it. I also find it funny that you don't care yet you tell me to go somewhere else instead of telling you what I think, and it also does seem like you're pretty butthurt.

Kain Thul, on 26 September 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Just another "I want everything for nothing".

Pretty common in the world today.

Mhm, that's the only explanation, keep thinking that.

Edited by Pjwned, 26 September 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Pjwned, on 26 September 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

Mhm, that's the only explanation, keep thinking that.

It is actually - OP wants our gratitude and recognition for "allowing us to play for free" (which I personally don't give a broken dime about - I'd take a good P2P game over a bad F2P game any day) and gets upset when folks point out that he is a large part of the game quality problem. Looks like "everything for nothing" to me.

[Metus regem]

IceSerpent, on 26 September 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

It is actually - OP wants our gratitude and recognition for "allowing us to play for free" (which I personally don't give a broken dime about - I'd take a good P2P game over a bad F2P game any day) and gets upset when folks point out that he is a large part of the game quality problem. Looks like "everything for nothing" to me.

Okay, you've made your point about a broken system, how would you go about fixing it?

What method would you suggest as a way for PGI to keep the lights on, and the servers powered so we can keep playing this game that, most of us enjoy, going?

I'm actually interested to know your answer.

[IceSerpent]

Metus regem, on 26 September 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

Okay, you've made your point about a broken system, how would you go about fixing it?

What method would you suggest as a way for PGI to keep the lights on, and the servers powered so we can keep playing this game that, most of us enjoy, going?

I'm actually interested to know your answer.

Usual "method" for any business is that bad product/service makes customers unhappy, they stop buying it, business notices drop in sales and fixes the problem (or goes bankrupt). With enough customers like OP this doesn't work - business gets money regardless and the only incentive for them to fix things is to expand (bring more customers). The "we'll have to fix this eventually if we want more clients" scenario is considerably less motivating than "we need to get this fixed or we'll have to close the shop in a few months" one.

[Metus regem]

IceSerpent, on 26 September 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

Usual "method" for any business is that bad product/service makes customers unhappy, they stop buying it, business notices drop in sales and fixes the problem (or goes bankrupt). With enough customers like OP this doesn't work - business gets money regardless and the only incentive for them to fix things is to expand (bring more customers). The "we'll have to fix this eventually if we want more clients" scenario is considerably less motivating than "we need to get this fixed or we'll have to close the shop in a few months" one.

That's all well and good, but what would you suggest for PGI to fix this current issue? Would it be with a subscription model? Expansion packs? A boxed retail game? Offer a single player mode that can be done off line?

Often it takes a lot longer to do a massive turn-around, like you are suggesting they need to do, than I think you may be aware of.

I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything, rather just to trying and start a health discussion on the matter.

[Seeker Kirov]

Pjwned, on 26 September 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

I want the game to improve

Can't improve if they don't pay the staff. Can't pay the staff if nobody buys stuff. It's really that simple. The people who buy stuff in this game are saying two things.

1. I have established that my discretionary income is at suitable level, and that I enjoy this game enough, that I see a parity in the use-value and the exchange-value of the products that PGI is selling. This is a largely subjective assessment. You and I probably don't make the exact same salary every year. As such, the value of a dollar (though nominally fixed) is variable between us as agents acting on the market.

2. I have established that I want to support this game, and help continue to fund it's development. Even if I recognize that there are flaws, on the whole I think it is worth my time (because time = money) to make purchases in the game.

I'm not sure we're in a place in human history where we can start criticizing people for spending their money on things they value. Public-choice economics is a critical aspect of modern society and we won't be able to shed that for a very long time - if ever. Maybe if we could get those Star Trek replicators? My point being - if you say you support the game, there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when you turn around and give others flak for spending money on the game that... you support and want to see thrive.

[BumbleBee]

$1.62 per Liter ATM where I live...

[Metus regem]

BumbleBee, on 26 September 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

$1.62 per Liter ATM where I live...

icky.... where in the frozen north is that?!?!

[BumbleBee]

Go so far north that you come up from Antarctica and end up in scorched Australia

[IceSerpent]

Metus regem, on 26 September 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

That's all well and good, but what would you suggest for PGI to fix this current issue? Would it be with a subscription model? Expansion packs? A boxed retail game? Offer a single player mode that can be done off line?

PGI simply needs to fix the current issues, as in "start working on the fixes". This whole financial issue with people just giving them money is about players not having ability to motivate PGI, rather than PGI being unable to fix things - they can technically do it at any time, but why bother with fixing GUI, when you get paid for the current one? Why bother with proper weapon balance, when you get paid for ghost heat? Why spend a few extra moments thinking about that game mode voting idea and realize that 20% of players who participated in the poll essentially said that they will bail from the match if outvoted into a game mode they dislike, when you can simply interpret that poll as "majority wants it" and get paid regardless of the actual outcome? PGI certainly has the ability to do things right, what they lack is motivation.

[Pjwned]

August Immanuel, on 26 September 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

Can't improve if they don't pay the staff. Can't pay the staff if nobody buys stuff. It's really that simple. The people who buy stuff in this game are saying two things.

1. I have established that my discretionary income is at suitable level, and that I enjoy this game enough, that I see a parity in the use-value and the exchange-value of the products that PGI is selling. This is a largely subjective assessment. You and I probably don't make the exact same salary every year. As such, the value of a dollar (though nominally fixed) is variable between us as agents acting on the market.

2. I have established that I want to support this game, and help continue to fund it's development. Even if I recognize that there are flaws, on the whole I think it is worth my time (because time = money) to make purchases in the game.

I'm not sure we're in a place in human history where we can start criticizing people for spending their money on things they value. Public-choice economics is a critical aspect of modern society and we won't be able to shed that for a very long time - if ever. Maybe if we could get those Star Trek replicators? My point being - if you say you support the game, there is a bit of cognitive dissonance when you turn around and give others flak for spending money on the game that... you support and want to see thrive.

I don't especially care about the status of their funds or how they manage it, it's on them to deliver a quality product and then be compensated for it. At least, that's how it is normally; if they have people throwing tons of money at them annually, they can just continue doing a half-assed job and massively overcharging for their content, and if that affects the quality of the product for me then, if I feel like it, I'm going to criticize the people that support it.

I also don't recall saying that I support the game, I simply said I want to see it improve, after which point I might support it with my money. Note that I have bought 2 packages of 1250 MC, but now I wish I hadn't.

[Torgun]

I think we need to address the misconception that giving a dev money will inevitably mean the game they're making is without a doubt improving. In the end PGI like all companies are pretty much like children and should by treated as such. If you reward a child after they've done something good, then it's quite alright. If you just keep giving a child stuff all the time whether he/she has done anything to deserve it, they get spoiled. Just because you toss money at a company doesn't mean you're doing the product they're developing any good. Yes the product still exists as long as you pour money into it. But is the money used well, and is the company actually making a decent effort to further improve the product? That's the question you should ask yourself before you toss your next pile of cash at them.

[Seeker Kirov]

Pjwned, on 26 September 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

I don't especially care about the status of their funds or how they manage it, it's on them to deliver a quality product and then be compensated for it.

That business model is clearly no longer the only option. Star Citizen has less content to engage with than MW:O and they've managed to rake in something like 54 million USD. If the MW:O community collectively pulls the plug on the funding, all it will accomplish is MW:O going the way of Tribes: Ascend. As to 'overcharging', that is (again) an entirely subjective assessment.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Cavale, on 26 September 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

The value is a wee bit off in my honest opinion, as i think they'd net more sales with a lower pricing, but if you want to spend money on a gold whatever, go for it.

If you can afford it, by all means, purchase away.

100% with you on the pricing. More people would buy more stuff and instead of feeling dirty or guilty for spending the money, they would actually be happy to do so because of the "value" they are getting for their hard earned money.

As it is now, even though I have decided 100% to buy the Loki pack, I find I keep hesitating mostly because I think I want to find a reason NOT to spend $90, twice the cost of most AAA game titles, on 3 digital robots. Honestly you should never feel that way about making a purchase in a game, rather you should be excited to spend the money. Hard to do at $90 though, real hard.