81 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Alistair Winter, on 24 June 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

But you wouldn't download a car though. So...

See, this is why I wish MWO could be played offline and on private servers, with mods. Like others have said, we don't own squat. We're just renting. PGI could shut down the servers tomorrow, if they wanted to. And the 150 mechs in your mechbay, with a hundred dollars worth of camo patterns, they'd all just be a fond memory. We don't own anything.

Free2Play is the wave of the future, brah...

[TWIAFU]

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

Regardless of your stand point on nerfs to balance, which I don't believe are necessarily a bad thing, I think there is almost an ethics breach of sorts in some cases. Although PGI has the right to change material as they deem necessary, I think from a business perspective it is unethical to sell something to the public and then at a later point change that item, whatever that item may be. As if I bought a vehicle and then several months down the road the dealer showed up to swap out my rims for a smaller, less appealing set...just because they could. Obviously they would be sued over the event, or of course, shot on my front lawn.

Now I'm not writing this to highlight any particular mech, nerf or event. I just bothers me to no end that the public see's a shiny new toy that the company presents and asks them to spend hard earned money on that item only to change that item at a later point. There is no other business that could survive such a model. It is simply unethical to negatively modify something that your constituents have purchased with real money. Now if the item in question was free or purchased using a form of in game earned monetary system...that it different entirely. In that scenario changes can be made at will without any form of ethical breach in my opinion.


Like I suggested already, I do understand why changes have taken place. I just think it rides an ethical and legal line to bait and switch material that was purchased using a form of real money. It also obviously creates resistance to purchasing material in the future for many people in fear of these events taking place. One thing a business must have with its clientele...trust. Without it, any business will eventually fail.


Guess with all the random chatter on this topic I just needed to get my thoughts out of my head about this. I really don't care about nerfs or the like specifically, I just care about businesses being ethical. That's all...

Ethics have no place here when you gladly and willingly agreed to the stipulation that game items can and will change as they see fit.

Cannot be unethical when you agreed to them doing it now can it?

[MeiSooHaityu]

It is fine and ethical.

For one, anyone who acquires an item (whether in game means or purchasing) knows that it could be altered at any time. It is in the ToS and even if you never read the agreement, there is a few year history of constant balancing that should give you a clue.

Even if we look past that, you purchase something with the intent of using that item fairly, you don't purchase something in an online game to explicitly give you an unfair advantage over others. So if something is unfairly strong, it shouldn't bother you if it is toned down (or beefed up for that matter if it is lacking).

The developer can't always gauge if content is too strong or too weak when sampling with a handful of developers on a test server. All they can do is give it there best guess. If they guess wrong, they have an obligation to every player to correct the imbalance.

This has been done in gaming for as long as patching has been practical. Games like StarCraft II and DoTA still do it to try and keep things fair and balanced. Nerfing may seem unfair to the people able to gain from an imbalance, but it benefits the community as a whole.

Basically nerfibg/buffing is standard practice, it's conveyed by the developer/publisher, and it's expected.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 24 June 2015 - 12:38 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Render, on 24 June 2015 - 12:02 PM, said:

the op starts with "Regardless of your stand point on nerfs to balance"...
You guys just want someone to trash.
His point is valid.
If they knew up front they were going to nerf a Mech after they got all the sales they think they can over a period of time he is totally correct that it is unethical.
All your points are mute because you were NOT responding to the OP but what you wanted to hear.
Again... you just want to put yourself over someone else so you can feel like you are right.
That makes you wrong... and basically just a Punk!

Sorry, to be specific i am referring to the first Four people who respond and use Balance as a reason.

Its not unethical when you agreed to it....

That's like saying "yea you can pay me under minimum wage, i will sign a paper saying im ok with it" then when the first pay check comes you say

"i worked harder then this!"

SO there is no real ethics involved....when you buy something understand it may be changed and it very, very easy to change. We dont OWN anything physical they dont have to come to out house and work on it. They do it from the comfort of their office and that possibility alone SHOULD be enough to tell you make each purchase wisely and dont throw money you cannot afford or care if its wasted at things like this.

and again....all of this is in PGI's ToC or CoC or whatever....they reserve the right to **** your **** up its its too good. LOTS OF THINGS ARE LIKE THIS! Rules can and will be changed when problems exist.

His point IS NOT VALID because he said YES to all this stuff when he downloaded the game.

Edited by DarthRevis, 24 June 2015 - 12:38 PM.

[-VooDoo-]

It's an analogy people. You see one little thing you can hang your hat on and run with it all day. Mechs aren't cars...no kidding. The point is, you have a legal right in every civilized country to "get what you paid for". PERIOD. EVEN if your renting. You can't rent something and have the renter bring something different to the rentie. Now there is obviously a contractual exclusion here where the software belongs to the developer and can be changed at any time, but that doesn't mean that selling something and taking people's money only to alter that item at a later point is ethical. THAT IS THE ONLY POINT

Yes, changes are necessary. No one is disputing that, not even me...which I felt was pretty clear in the original post. Just making mention of the oddity I see that will perhaps diminish sales in the future and breed distrust among their constituents.


I know it's the internet and no one has to worry about getting punched in the face, but just cause you can be a total jerk by calling people morons, idiots and the like...doesn't mean you should.

Edited by Jazz Hands, 24 June 2015 - 12:39 PM.

[Dino Might]

Render, on 24 June 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

Good, I hope you don't, that is just dumb. The OP here did not do that either.
He specifically mentioned that he himself knows that there may be ballance issues that may require a New Mech to get nerfed.
Yet You choose to ignore that... so you are just spewing venom and trying to put yourself over another person because you think there will be no consequences. ....Punk!

Says the guy who is using ad hominem attacks to put himself over.... nevermind. Waste of keystrokes.

[GeistHrafn]

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

Now there is obviously a contractual exclusion here where the software belongs to the developer and can be changed at any time, but that doesn't mean that selling something and taking people's money only to alter that item at a later point is ethical. THAT IS THE ONLY POINT

But what everyone is trying to say is that is EXACTLY what was agreed to by every single player by playing the game. It's in the ToU. It is completely ethical, because they advised us it could or would happen.

[TWIAFU]

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

, but that doesn't mean that selling something and taking people's money only to alter that item at a later point is ethical. THAT IS THE ONLY POINT

We get that.

What your not getting is that you agreed to them doing it. You said it was OK.

Again, it is NOT unethical when you agreed to it.

[Deathlike]

All I can say is there is a purchase-meta driven philosophy that MWO/PGI is embracing, so as you continue to see more laservomit... especially moreso from the Wave 2 Resistance Pack... you can remind yourselves that balance is truly a fleeting dream.

We can't have nice things.


If only people could actually build their mechs and play them w/o penalty (C-bills wise) just for testing.. but that's certainly Lostech.

[DAYLEET]

This had to be about the balancing of a multiplayer game instead of true morally lacking practice.

There's tons of example like saying something will be exclusive when it wont, or edit and change something you bought before it is delivered but after you have paid, or setting a date for something you paid for and then say anyone who wants to pay again can have it a month before you, or try and sell something that was advertised as to never be sold again.

There's tons of example that blurs the line between dishonesty, misleading and false advertisement or outright fraudulent under the pretext that you mention you could be all those things in a end user agreement as if that would justify morally lacking business practice.


But NOOOO... this had to be about, my battlemech was much better than everyone else and i liked it like that...

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

Now I'm not writing this to highlight any particular mech,

But you did with your most excellent example...

Edited by DAYLEET, 24 June 2015 - 12:46 PM.

[Revis Volek]

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 12:38 PM, said:

It's an analogy people. You see one little thing you can hang your hat on and run with it all day. Mechs aren't cars...no kidding. The point is, you have a legal right in every civilized country to "get what you paid for". PERIOD. EVEN if your renting. You can't rent something and have the renter bring something different to the rentie. Now there is obviously a contractual exclusion here where the software belongs to the developer and can be changed at any time, but that doesn't mean that selling something and taking people's money only to alter that item at a later point is ethical. THAT IS THE ONLY POINT

Yes, changes are necessary. No one is disputing that, not even me...which I felt was pretty clear in the original post. Just making mention of the oddity I see that will perhaps diminish sales in the future and breed distrust among their constituents.


I know it's the internet and no one has to worry about getting punched in the face, but just cause you can be a total jerk by calling people morons, idiots and the like...doesn't mean you should.

You got what you paid for....

and that is ability to play this game with the stompy robots you bought.

Does not say anywhere that you are guaranteed to win, do well or even get a kill in said sprite. That said sprite will forever be an OP feature in the game or a UP one.

Said sprite would run around the maps and shoot other stuff (which it does) it would also LOOK a certain way and have a certain kind of hardpoint and loadout in its stock form (which they do) but no where in there does it say that it has to be what it was when released or does it say that PGI guaranteed you ANYTHING other then the ABILITY to play the game in said sprite which looks like a Timberwolf and acts like a Timberwolf or looks like a Raven and acts like a Raven.

And yes it may go against YOUR idea of ethics which is fine, im not here to change the way you think but i do not agree with your idea here and i do not think it is unethical to do something which players agreed to. By that i dont mean agreed to nerfs/buffs i mean agreed to play the game HOWEVER PGI has deemed its to be played.

[-VooDoo-]

Just because it's LEGAL in the user agreement doesn't make it necessarily ethical.

[MischiefSC]

It is ethical because it affects everyone. It would be unethical to say that the cash you paid means that you get to keep any op benefits. Would you say it is unethical to buff, quirk or improve it?

The point is that it would be unethical to let anyone buy an advantage.

What you are buying is early access to content.

[Lugh]

KiraOnime, on 24 June 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

It's a PVP game, balance is something you always have to keep in mind.

If you come into this sort of game and don't expect nerfs/buffs, then I strongly suggest you revisit your entire way of thinking for these games.
Nerfs/buffs are going to happen. It is not "if", it is "when".

If something comes out and it's too strong for the general balance of the game, it will get nerfed eventually.
If it's too weak, it should get buffs.

You are delusional if you think paying any sort of money will give you any kind of pass on said nerfs/buffs.

Sort of... it's a PvP game, and it's up to the players to find the balance point that best suits their playstyle. For many that is the unthinking Meta Build of Homogeneous Optimization.

What if I told you, you could put up the same or better damage numbers in Non-Meta Builds provided you play to YOUR builds strengths?

[Nathan Foxbane]

Perhaps the OP might consider this, balancing changes are made in an attempt at fair play and overall game health. If specific content is imbalanced (for better or worse, perspective may vary by individual), PGI is actually ethically obligated to the player base as a whole to change said content for the overall betterment of the game. This ethical obligation to all players (including paying players) outweighs any ethical obligation to the individual paying player.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 24 June 2015 - 12:58 PM.

[Catra Lanis]

TWIAFU, on 24 June 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

We get that.

What your not getting is that you agreed to them doing it. You said it was OK.

Again, it is NOT unethical when you agreed to it.

Just because something is legal does not mean that it can't be unethical, even deals you agree to can be unethical. Ethical or Unethical isn't dependant on those two things.

I buy the hammer of Victor Davion for X MC. Four months later it is nerfed into oblivion. Do they have the right to do it, yes absolutely. Did I know it could happen? Yes I did. Is it ethical? That depends.

[Dread Render]

you people just don't listen.
Here is a super simple version.

If PGI intentionally Unbalanced the game with an OP Mech so they can make more sales and then Nerf that Mech to Rebalance the game... That is unethical.

That is all the OP was saying as I understand it and I think it was very well said.
All you guys slaming him are just out of line. Go soak your heads in hot water for a while till the swelling goes down..

[Lyoto Machida]

Jazz Hands, on 24 June 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

Regardless of your stand point on nerfs to balance, which I don't believe are necessarily a bad thing, I think there is almost an ethics breach of sorts in some cases. Although PGI has the right to change material as they deem necessary, I think from a business perspective it is unethical to sell something to the public and then at a later point change that item, whatever that item may be. As if I bought a vehicle and then several months down the road the dealer showed up to swap out my rims for a smaller, less appealing set...just because they could. Obviously they would be sued over the event, or of course, shot on my front lawn.

Now I'm not writing this to highlight any particular mech, nerf or event. I just bothers me to no end that the public see's a shiny new toy that the company presents and asks them to spend hard earned money on that item only to change that item at a later point. There is no other business that could survive such a model. It is simply unethical to negatively modify something that your constituents have purchased with real money. Now if the item in question was free or purchased using a form of in game earned monetary system...that it different entirely. In that scenario changes can be made at will without any form of ethical breach in my opinion.


Like I suggested already, I do understand why changes have taken place. I just think it rides an ethical and legal line to bait and switch material that was purchased using a form of real money. It also obviously creates resistance to purchasing material in the future for many people in fear of these events taking place. One thing a business must have with its clientele...trust. Without it, any business will eventually fail.


Guess with all the random chatter on this topic I just needed to get my thoughts out of my head about this. I really don't care about nerfs or the like specifically, I just care about businesses being ethical. That's all...

Talk to the initial owners of BMW 335i sedans like myself when the (then) new N54 turbo motor rolled out back in 2007. BMW subtly detuned it over various software updates, citing issues that could have been resolved via hardware (turbo wastegate rattle). Much cheaper to change something via software to bandaid fix an issue than recall and replace X amount of turbo wastegates.

As far as I know, they've never faced a (successful) class action lawsuit on this...I doubt PGI would over balancing fixes either.

[Catra Lanis]

Lyoto Machida, on 24 June 2015 - 01:04 PM, said:

Talk to the initial owners of BMW 335i sedans like myself when the (then) new N54 turbo motor rolled out back in 2007. BMW subtly detuned it over various software updates, citing issues that could have been resolved via hardware (turbo wastegate rattle). Much cheaper to change something via software to bandaid fix an issue than recall and replace X amount of turbo wastegates.

As far as I know, they've never faced a (successful) class action lawsuit on this...I doubt PGI would over balancing fixes either.

I don't think OP believes that either. He is as far as I understand pointing out that it's a business model of dubious ethics and from a practical point of view can in the long run turn out to be bad for the bottom line.

[Midax]

Render, on 24 June 2015 - 12:30 PM, said:

Good, I hope you don't, that is just dumb. The OP here did not do that either.
He specifically mentioned that he himself knows that there may be ballance issues that may require a New Mech to get nerfed.
Yet You choose to ignore that... so you are just spewing venom and trying to put yourself over another person because you think there will be no consequences. ....Punk!

First of that is what he did. He started off be stating a opinion and declaring that opinion as off limits yet his entire post is built around the idea that any change to a mech after release is an ethical issue. That statement directly calls into question weather balance changes after a digital item is released is ethical. You can not argue the point that changes to items after release is ethical if you cannot discuss the reason that prompted the change. Yet he explicitly asked use to not discuss that...

Secondly I point out that there is no evidence that PGI is intentionally bait and switching with the mechs and point out that many mechs under perform which runs counter to the idea of a bait and switch. If you must put it into the car analogy then balance is like a safety recall. Changes are necessary in order for my car to continue to serve its intended purpose. I expect my car to be safe and to provided transportation. Changes to a mech is necessary for me to continue using it for its intentioned propose. As an avatar in a fair game.

Third I and many others have pointed out that the analogy with the car does not work in this case. I suppose I could have pointed out that a more apt comparison would be with computer software as it is a digital good. Sometime with computer software a feature my stop being supported or even be removed for various reasons. This however is legal because we really don't own the item, but are licensing the use of the item. However many people have trouble with the idea of software as intellectual property that is governed by copy write laws and not laws that govern physical goods.