227 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:35 AM, said:

Except in this case, we don't have a solid copy that can be sold. We have digital copies bound to our accounts. The value is set in stone. Releasing the package, again, would depreciate the value of the package we already have.

Not to mention it would essentially prove, once and for all, PGI's willingness to take advantage of the consumer by making a contract and then attempting to break it with the assitance of tools like you.

Would it? Did you get your $80 worth of game play out of the Pack? If I now buy the same pack what have you lost due to my purchase?

[Joseph Mallan]

S Morgenstern, on 20 May 2015 - 05:37 AM, said:

Vote #900 for no.
Credibility.
Integrity.
Trust.

Terciel1976, on 20 May 2015 - 05:40 AM, said:

If we have to remind them to keep their very strong words, it's hard to credit them with any of those.

With a disclaimer that they can make changes to the game at any time and for any reason they deem necessary. So many people seem to forget they have to accept 'nothing is etched in stone' before even loading the game.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 20 May 2015 - 05:50 AM.

[Ozzy Stormlight]

I voted no.
I like having exclusive items. and those seem to be taken from me when these things ( re-releases ) happen.
I support this game all the time and have been since Aug 1st, 2012. I own all the top tier packs to date , minus legendary founder( unfortunately), the saber reinforcement, and Urbie pack ( just cant get behind the trash can, sry ). And tho i missed out on the saber reinforcement, I would not want to see it happen again for those who didn't.

I support a new or revamped collection, but not a re-release of a "NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN" pack.

Gimme new packs to make me spend my money. Not this...

Edited by Stormlight, 20 May 2015 - 06:12 AM.

[Nightmare1]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 May 2015 - 05:46 AM, said:

Would it? Did you get your $80 worth of game play out of the Pack? If I now buy the same pack what have you lost due to my purchase?

It would indeed. Limited availability is limited availability. A promise is a promise. There can be no going back on it. Both in terms of product value and business integrity, PGI should never have even broached this subject.

It would have been far wiser to poll us on a Phoenix Pack II featuring the new variants released after Pack I, along with new variants that PGI makes to help complete the pack and avoid duplicating the chassis featured in Pack I. That would likely have had massive support.

[KodiakGW]

Well, looks like the "NO"s have it. Lesson learned PGI.

I voted yes for one reason. I have two people who are interested in finding a new game to play. Except I cannot suggest MWO with it's current grind. I was thinking of gifting up to $60 each to get them a number of decent mechs. Here is the problem...

There is nothing in the Gift Store, currently available to play with, for that amount that are decent mediums and heavies. You can argue all you want. But, I own nothing in there, except the Urbie, that is under $60. The Guardian set would have given them Thunderbolts and Shadowhawks to work with. Considering the going price for the Resistance Heavy packs, that would have been $60. Cadet bonuses would have paid for all the upgrades to those.

So, PGI, want to generate revenue on work you have already done? Add a la carte and the Mastery Packs to the Gift Store. Then you might sell more. Because you're not going to be able to sell more Phoenix packs.

[Reptilizer]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 May 2015 - 05:49 AM, said:

With a disclaimer that they can make changes to the game at any time and for any reason they deem necessary. So many people seem to forget they have to accept 'nothing is etched in stone' before even loading the game.

"Ultima ratio regum" anyone

Now one might think that such a disclaimer in a less trustworthy company would keep people from spending money there.
Sounds like a disclaimer (which sadly is common) allowing scams of any sort at least.
Even more reason to make me believe i can hold them up to their word, right?

[Savage Wolf]

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

Of course. We paid good money for it and were promised it was a one-time only event. PGI should release a Phoenix II package instead of releasing the original. To release the original is akin to breaching a contract. Putting it bluntly, it's false advertising and incredibly disrespectful to the consumer.

So, yeah, those of us who were here at the beginning and performed the requirements feel like PGI should keep its promiseto us.

I'd like to remind you that I'm among those people, even if I can't seem to find my badges anywhere. Where was it that you configured which to display again?

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

Each purchase is its own separate contract. PGI can't establish a poll and allow a simple majority to determine this. Each individual purchaser is, in essence, an individual contractor. You cannot renegotiate my contract with PGI. That's not how things work. If you are truly so naive as to believe that it does not esablish a precedent, then you should go back and read your history books again. It is the little, seemingly insignificant things that establish precedents far more often than it is large or flashy issues.

I see it more as one huge contract with shareholders. I have one vote, you have one vote.
Why would it? If we say Yes now doesn't mean we would say yes to anything, just like saying no wouldn't mean we would say no to everything. They would simply have to ask every time to know.

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

In this case, the problem is, at its heart, whether PGI will keep its word. It doesn't matter if the vote is in favor of releasing the pack, there are still contracted parties whose rights, as a consumer, will be violated. There is no getting around that. PGI should never even have brought this up or dared to broach the subject. All it can do is hurt its credibility.

Far better would it have been to poll us on a Phoenix II Pack with the new variants instead. Then, there would have been no danger of damaging PGI's image or reneging on a promise.

A Phoenix II pack wouldn't need any approval at all if it was all new variants or mechs. But this is about those that were in Phoenix pack 1, so not relevant.
And yes, there will no doubt be people who would get butthurt over a Yes, no matter how big a Yes (presuming it would never be 100%). And then there are people who see this as a good thing and now will love PGI more.
I'm already glad PGI has dropped the practice of selling exclusive content and entitlement. Now I don't have to rush to buy packs anymore and maybe buy packs I regret. So I'm only glad to see them correct a past mistake. And I trust that in the future, there will be no more Phoenix packs.

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

No, it was different. In the FAQ itself, it is spelled out that it would never again be released. That alone is enough to distinguish it from the packs that followed. The one-time offer was also a big part of the advertising. Releasing it now would constitute false advertising, a business sin that is punishable by law.

You called it a second founders pack. It isn't. Yes the Phoenix is currently exclusive and the resistance pack is not. But symbolically they are both just mechs. Nothing remotely founderish about any of them.

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

In this case, the people who missed out were not victimized because nobody took advantage of them. There is no rational basis to even think of them as victims. However, the people who did purchase the pack would very well be victimized because releasing the pack again would, in essence, show that PGI hoodwinked us with promises it never intended to keep. We would be victims of false advertising and business malpractice.

The people who missed out are denied access to a piece of content that we were not. So if you can use the victim card, then so can they. For different reasons, but both equally valid. If they cannot use it, neither can you.

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:26 AM, said:

Except that, even if the "Yes" crowd wins, you still have a sizeable number of consumers who don't want to see it released or their rights violated. That doesn't build trust. Instead, it demonstrates a willingness to break a contract at the merest excuse, and with a total disregard for a large number of the contracted parties.

You really don't get this, do you? It's so simple and it makes me kind of aggravated that there are people around that are so willing to blind themselves like this.

No, I'm not blind to it and it will be up to PGI to decide the pros and cons depending on the outcome of the poll. And it might as well be in your favour if the answer is a big No. Then they can always refer to this poll if anyone asks again and then the case is closed.
But it might split the community, that is true. But sometimes that is necesary. Not certain the Phoenix pack does this. If it did it probably wouldn't be worth it. It not THAT important.

[TKSax]

stjobe, on 19 May 2015 - 12:37 PM, said:

"Important! These Phoenix Variants will NEVER again be available to purchase or to unlock once the sale offer has ended."
- Phoenix FAQ

That's pretty definite, don't you think?

Yea Kinda like "Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd Person" Quote by Bryan Ekman 3/21/2013" ??

I have not voted, I have not decided which way I will vote. Part does not see the harm in re-offering the phoenix pack in reality it probably would not bring a lot of income since all of those mechs are already released, but people might want the { versions to earn some more money in game.

The other part of me remembers what the environment of MWO was at the time, release dates missed, next to 0 communication from the devs, features pushed back with no noticed or continued promises of features to come 90 days... One of the reasons I choose to spend money at that time was the never going to released again, heck I even after I bought I requested a refund, but changed my mind before IGP/PGI executed it , once again because the were never going to be released again... so yeah I am not sure how I am going to vote.

[Joseph Mallan]

Reptilizer, on 20 May 2015 - 05:57 AM, said:

"Ultima ratio regum" anyone

Now one might think that such a disclaimer in a less trustworthy company would keep people from spending money there.
Sounds like a disclaimer (which sadly is common) allowing scams of any sort at least.
Even more reason to make me believe i can hold them up to their word, right?

Listen to what is said. BUT READ what is legal. And pay little mind to faulty generalizations. More often than not even the "trustworthy" companies have this same disclaimer on file with your OK on it.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 20 May 2015 - 06:09 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

Yes voters are essentially contract breakers as well. I can't respect someone who doesn't respect the contract. In essence, it puts you in bed with the underhanded party.

This is an all-or-nothing kind of contract. If everyone's not on board, then you can't break it. From what I'm seeing, there's a lot of people who aren't on board.

So now that I voted yes, I'm suddenly a criminal? I'm not allowed to have this opinion?
But I guess that does state that you do not respect the votes at all.
Which begs the question, why do you expect people to respect your opinion and vote then?

[Joseph Mallan]

TKSax, on 20 May 2015 - 06:04 AM, said:

Yea Kinda like "Players will never be forced to use or play against other players using 3rd Person" Quote by Bryan Ekman 3/21/2013" ??

I have not voted, I have not decided which way I will vote. Part does not see the harm in re-offering the phoenix pack in reality it probably would not bring a lot of income since all of those mechs are already released, but people might want the { versions to earn some more money in game.

The other part of me remembers what the environment of MWO was at the time, release dates missed, next to 0 communication from the devs, features pushed back with no noticed or continued promises of features to come 90 days... One of the reasons I choose to spend money at that time was the never going to released again, heck I even after I bought I requested a refund, but changed my mind before IGP/PGI executed it , once again because the were never going to be released again... so yeah I am not sure how I am going to vote.

Vote teh way you eventually feel.

Nightmare1, on 20 May 2015 - 05:31 AM, said:

Yes voters are essentially contract breakers as well. I can't respect someone who doesn't respect the contract. In essence, it puts you in bed with the underhanded party.

This is an all-or-nothing kind of contract. If everyone's not on board, then you can't break it. From what I'm seeing, there's a lot of people who aren't on board.

Wrong.

What someone voting yes has done is acknowledged:

Quote

2. Content. We may, from time to time at our sole discretion and without notice or liability, create, amend, change, or delete any content from the PGI Offerings.

[Savage Wolf]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 May 2015 - 06:12 AM, said:

2. Content. We may, from time to time at our sole discretion and without notice or liability, create, amend, change, or delete any content from the PGI Offerings.

Good. They were smart enough to actually ensure they could change stuff. Well then, that should close the whole discussion of broken promises in the event of a Yes.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 20 May 2015 - 06:16 AM.

[TercieI]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 May 2015 - 05:49 AM, said:

With a disclaimer that they can make changes to the game at any time and for any reason they deem necessary. So many people seem to forget they have to accept 'nothing is etched in stone' before even loading the game.

This is not a game change though. That language doesn't give them the right to change terms of sale.

Look, I'm not personally worked up about this, but at a time when PGI is apparently trying to restore their image, this is a cloth eared move. With a rep for not keeping promises, this is distasteful to many however it ends, not least because of the "same old PGI" aspect of it.

Edited by Terciel1976, 20 May 2015 - 06:17 AM.

[Bilbo]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 May 2015 - 06:12 AM, said:

...
What someone voting yes has done is acknowledged:

I just don't care if they release them again whether they have an expressed right to do so or not.

[Savage Wolf]

Terciel1976, on 20 May 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

This is not a game change though. That language doesn't give them the right to change terms of sale.

The section is about content. The mechs are content, so it applies.

[Reptilizer]

Joseph Mallan, on 20 May 2015 - 06:05 AM, said:

Listen to what is said. BUT READ what is legal. And pay little mind to faulty generalizations. More often than not even the "trustworthy" companies have this same disclaimer on file with your OK on it.

I like to generalize as much as some other posters here it seems *cough*.

But keeping it simple:

• This clause is a last resort method, not a standard for company operations. Usually ending customer/company relationships when something goes horribly wrong -> e.g. supplier of services goes bankrupt etc.
  
• This clause is also not applying to past contracts but to provided content. This may be nitpicking but i would say we have a case here when somebody is bored...

[TKSax]

Savage Wolf, on 20 May 2015 - 06:19 AM, said:

The section is about content. The mechs are content, so it applies.

Yes the mechs are content but the Sale agreements are not content, so I do not think this would apply.

[Reptilizer]

Savage Wolf, on 20 May 2015 - 06:19 AM, said:

The section is about content. The mechs are content, so it applies.

The mechs are. A one time exclusive sale is not.
Meaning: They may change the P-mechs to five tiny pixels if they want to, but the can not put those five pixels on sale again.

[TKSax]

I personally think this was just a bad idea in many ways, just reading the threads you can see why.

Something I saw in another thread makes sense though, as in if they ever decide to offer and "exclusive" pack again, why would I want to but if I can look back and see the offered their first "exclusive" pack for sale again. Are they going to let people buy more Gold Timberwolfs again even though they sold out???

[Savage Wolf]

Reptilizer, on 20 May 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

But keeping it simple

Though it isn't. It never is.

Reptilizer, on 20 May 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

This clause is a last resort method, not a standard for company operations. Usually ending customer/company relationships when something goes horribly wrong -> e.g. supplier of services goes bankrupt etc.

Actually they could technically not even fix a broken skin without this line because that would mean changing a piece of content, paid or otherwise.

Reptilizer, on 20 May 2015 - 06:23 AM, said:

This clause is also not applying to past contracts but to provided content. This may be nitpicking but i would say we have a case here when somebody is bored...

If this line was present when the Phoenix packs were sold, then it applies.