59 replies to this topic

[Lazor Sharp]

"You apparently don't realize that a business goal is to make a profit. And then use that profit to fund other, hopefully, more profitable ventures."

Using My Money to Start another Venture, while this Venture is still a Minimum Viable Product, lacking some of the most BASIC Features after 4 years, currently in a Failed Sate With FW, etc... and falling FAR SHORT of ANY THING that a BT Potential Vision could have in this game, is gona PISS ME OFF.

It could be a extremely MORE Profitable title, if they would just develop it with some kind of Vision beyond what little they've shown, it would make MORE MONEY, way beyond any thing else PGI's could ever do to make a Profit. That they wasted OUR money on Transverse, was a SLAP IN THE FACE to almost all MWO Players.......

[cazidin]

Novakaine, on 02 December 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

Well Petey it was a dream, perhaps a vision.
Take what you will from it.
As far as trolling ........................no.
However.

"Exterminate! Exterminate! For the glory of the Daleks!" seriously, am I the ONLY one who sees that?

[MrJeffers]

Lazor Sharp, on 02 December 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

"You apparently don't realize that a business goal is to make a profit. And then use that profit to fund other, hopefully, more profitable ventures."

Using My Money to Start another Venture, while this Venture is still a Minimum Viable Product, lacking some of the most BASIC Features after 4 years, currently in a Failed Sate With FW, etc... and falling FAR SHORT of ANY THING that a BT Potential Vision could have in this game, is gona PISS ME OFF.

It could be a extremely MORE Profitable title, if they would just develop it with some kind of Vision beyond what little they've shown, it would make MORE MONEY, way beyond any thing else PGI's could ever do to make a Profit. That they wasted OUR money on Transverse, was a SLAP IN THE FACE to almost all MWO Players.......

You missed the part about 'it's not your money as soon as you use it to buy something and give it to someone else'. They didn't spend yours, or anyone Else's money on Transverse. They spent *their* money on it.

[Daelen Rottiger]

MrJeffers, on 02 December 2016 - 04:03 PM, said:

You missed the part about 'it's not your money as soon as you use it to buy something and give it to someone else'. They didn't spend yours, or anyone Else's money on Transverse. They spent *their* money on it.

Well - some people only spend money to support "this game" - if that money is used for another title they are probably going to stop spending money. In my opinion they have a right to ask and oc PGI has a right to use that money as they wish - they should at least be honest about that so ppl can make up their mind about spending instead of milking supporters with vague ideas and promises of the future. I can understand that a company wants to make profit but bullshitting your supporters may backfire...

[Admiral_Korean_Jesus]

PGI is afraid of criticism, they have proved it time and time again. They would rather sick their secret forum police on dissenters then actually engage the community. How many founders have jumped shipped waiting on PGI's false promises? How many players have been censored for speaking about their dislike of PGI's management?

Every time some one calls out Paul or Russ, they get butt hurt for lack of a better term and ban them from the forums or Twitter etc.

Hope they pull some magic out of their hat at Mechcon, or hand over the reins to Hair Brained Schemes to give MWO a proper makeover.

[MrJeffers]

Daelen Rottiger, on 02 December 2016 - 04:13 PM, said:

Well - some people only spend money to support "this game" - if that money is used for another title they are probably going to stop spending money. In my opinion they have a right to ask and oc PGI has a right to use that money as they wish - they should at least be honest about that so ppl can make up their mind about spending instead of milking supporters with vague ideas and promises of the future. I can understand that a company wants to make profit but bullshitting your supporters may backfire...

The people who feel they should have a right to know how PGI (or *any* company they purchase products from) spends the money they receive from them as customers are just being entitled, and completely unrealistic. If I, or anyone else, spends 20, 80, 240, or 500 dollars on mech packs the entitlement ends *at getting the mech pack*. That's what the money bought.

You know who gets a view and a say in what businesses do with their income? Owners and investors. We, as customers, are *neither* and the sooner people get that notion our of their head, the better.

If you don't agree with how a company is spending it's revenue you are quite entitled to vote with your pocketbook and not continue to patronize the business. But to feel 'slapped in the face' or 'bullshitted' after getting the product you paid (mech packs in this case) for with your money is just childish.

[Mole]

MrJeffers, on 02 December 2016 - 04:23 PM, said:

The people who feel they should have a right to know how PGI (or *any* company they purchase products from) spends the money they receive from them as customers are just being entitled, and completely unrealistic. If I, or anyone else, spends 20, 80, 240, or 500 dollars on mech packs the entitlement ends *at getting the mech pack*. That's what the money bought.

You know who gets a view and a say in what businesses do with their income? Owners and investors. We, as customers, are *neither* and the sooner people get that notion our of their head, the better.

If you don't agree with how a company is spending it's revenue you are quite entitled to vote with your pocketbook and not continue to patronize the business. But to feel 'slapped in the face' or 'bullshitted' after getting the product you paid (mech packs in this case) for with your money is just childish.

It's insane. It's like buying a bottle of coca cola from a convenience store and then getting pissed off when you realize you don't get a say in how the store is managed because you spent money in there once. I haven't been around long enough to know or remember if this game started as a kickstarter but if it did begin as a kickstarter the only people who have a right to complain about their money being misspent are people who invested in MWO's kickstarter and were never delivered the features that PGI promised. You should get a say if you invested into the building of the store, but you don't get a say once the store has been built and you buy a product from the store.

Edited by Mole, 02 December 2016 - 04:41 PM.

[Daelen Rottiger]

MrJeffers, on 02 December 2016 - 04:23 PM, said:

The people who feel they should have a right to know how PGI (or *any* company they purchase products from) spends the money they receive from them as customers are just being entitled, and completely unrealistic. If I, or anyone else, spends 20, 80, 240, or 500 dollars on mech packs the entitlement ends *at getting the mech pack*. That's what the money bought.

You know who gets a view and a say in what businesses do with their income? Owners and investors. We, as customers, are *neither* and the sooner people get that notion our of their head, the better.

If you don't agree with how a company is spending it's revenue you are quite entitled to vote with your pocketbook and not continue to patronize the business. But to feel 'slapped in the face' or 'bullshitted' after getting the product you paid (mech packs in this case) for with your money is just childish.

Sounds like PGI is running great business if you put it like that

I get what you are saying and I agree with the most part.

But I do understand the point of view of a dissapointed supporter as well.

I have a question: Why did the Transverse project completly fail?

[Mole]

Daelen Rottiger, on 02 December 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

I have a question: Why did the Transverse project completly fail?

Because they tried to do kickstarter after trashing their own reputation as a developer and trustworthy company.

[MrJeffers]

Daelen Rottiger, on 02 December 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

Sounds like PGI is running great business if you put it like that

I get what you are saying and I agree with the most part.

But I do understand the point of view of a dissapointed supporter as well.

I have a question: Why did the Transverse project completly fail?

I have my own opinion on why transverse failed, as I am sure many others do.

I would say it came down to these things:

1 ) PGI's low reputation with the existing client base (whom PGI likely assumed would be a big part of the funding and positive word of mouth growth).
2 ) A "new" IP that was already in a crowded target market with other well funded (and partially released) games of Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen.

[Daelen Rottiger]

MrJeffers, on 02 December 2016 - 04:46 PM, said:

I have my own opinion on why transverse failed, as I am sure many others do.

I would say it came down to these things:

1 ) PGI's low reputation with the existing client base (whom PGI likely assumed would be a big part of the funding and positive word of mouth growth).
2 ) A "new" IP that was already in a crowded target market with other well funded (and partially released) games of Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen.

For sure a mix of reasons.

My goal was to point out that supporters have expectations and in this case the constant fail to meet those expectations will drive away supporters or at least leaving them asking if they should still support this game. At the end transverse had only around 130 backers. I don't have the numbers but i think MWO has many many more founders and paying beta players who supported the development of MWO. in this buiness the way a company treats their customers and decides on how to answer such questions does matter. no matter if the supporter has "a right" to ask.

[Hunka Junk]

OK, let's do analogies.

Forget about Ford and Coca Cola.

Let's imagine a game company is selling you playing pieces for their wargame, which currently has a skirmish mode in place and the architecture for a campaign mode. The campaign mode is on display but not yet fully realized. Players continue to buy playing pieces, but the company just never really finishes the campaign mode. This company instead announces it's developing a new game, which crashes and burns when the playerbase finds out their money is being diverted to fund a new project while the initial project is still a hot mess. Playing pieces continue to sell, but the campaign mode still remains incomplete and unplayable. Could that be because very little time, effort, and resources is being reinvested back into finishing the initial project? The company has no other products, so any further titles must necessarily be funded by the sales from the initial product.

What we have here in this current situation is whether it's fair to ask said company if it's spending money on the title being paid for to be completed, or essentially whether meaningful further development of this project has ceased and time, effort, and resources are being focused elsewhere.

How's that for an anology?

Now, we have the whole argument that once the money is handed over, then you've given up your right to that money. Fair enough. Let me revise my question:

If I invest further mech money into MWO, will it be financing the completion of MWO or financing another title? If it's the latter, what kind of title is it?

[Mole]

Hunka Junk, on 02 December 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:

If I invest further mech money into MWO, will it be financing the completion of MWO or financing another title? If it's the latter, what kind of title is it?

Now that is a fair question. A question that PGI seems reluctant to answer. Which to me, IS an answer. It's like getting asked if you beat your wife and refusing to say "No" even though you never actually said yes. It's an answer that should be reflexive and easy but the hesitation shows that the real answer is something that the person being asked knows you don't wanna hear.

[Dino Might]

cazidin, on 02 December 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

"Exterminate! Exterminate! For the glory of the Daleks!" seriously, am I the ONLY one who sees that?

First thing that came to my mind!

Also, I heard from an inside source that there is work on aerotech, only in the initial strategy phase, but they are thinking about it.

[MrJeffers]

Hunka Junk, on 02 December 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:

OK, let's do analogies.

Forget about Ford and Coca Cola.

Let's imagine a game company is selling you playing pieces for their wargame, which currently has a skirmish mode in place and the architecture for a campaign mode. The campaign mode is on display but not yet fully realized. Players continue to buy playing pieces, but the company just never really finishes the campaign mode. This company instead announces it's developing a new game, which crashes and burns when the playerbase finds out their money is being diverted to fund a new project while the initial project is still a hot mess. Playing pieces continue to sell, but the campaign mode still remains incomplete and unplayable. Could that be because very little time, effort, and resources is being reinvested back into finishing the initial project? The company has no other products, so any further titles must necessarily be funded by the sales from the initial product.

What we have here in this current situation is whether it's fair to ask said company if it's spending money on the title being paid for to be completed, or essentially whether meaningful further development of this project has ceased and time, effort, and resources are being focused elsewhere.

How's that for an anology?

Now, we have the whole argument that once the money is handed over, then you've given up your right to that money. Fair enough. Let me revise my question:

If I invest further mech money into MWO, will it be financing the completion of MWO or financing another title? If it's the latter, what kind of title is it?

It's a bad analogy because the entire premise is flawed:
"If I invest further mech money into MWO..."

You are not investing any money. You are buying product. You're not an investor, you are a consumer. If you are buying something because of your future expectations, promised, real, imagined, or otherwise, you are doing yourself a disservice - because that isn't what you are buying. Your purchase is for product/services in their current state. This isn't a kickstarter or crowdfunding setup anymore.

The reality is people should be *more* worried if PGI doesn't have other revenue producing business streams. All the eggs in one basket, betting the farm, et al.

Edited by MrJeffers, 03 December 2016 - 12:49 AM.

[Hunka Junk]

MrJeffers, on 03 December 2016 - 12:25 AM, said:

It's a bad analogy because the entire premise is flawed:
"If I invest further mech money into MWO..."

You are not investing any money. You are buying product. You're not an investor, you are a consumer. If you are buying something because of your future expectations, promised, real, imagined, or otherwise, you are doing yourself a disservice - because that isn't what you are buying. Your purchase is for product/services in their current state. This isn't a kickstarter or crowdfunding setup anymore.

The reality is people should be *more* worried if PGI doesn't have other revenue producing business streams. All the eggs in one basket, betting the farm, et al.

That's simple binary logic. It's either this or it's that when the truth lies in shades of grey.

The fact is our mech money has financed the command wheel, the **** that was the long tom, and 3 months of faffing about with ED. There are absolutely a fair number of people who purchase mechs not because they're really focusing on the product but because they are trying to support PGI. It's one of many many reasons it's inappropriate to compare Ford and Coke to a F2P online game. This is a kickstarter just as much as it's still in beta.

Of course, Russ is free to stand up at Mech Con and take your position:

"Thanks for the mech packs. I owe you nothing. Now, off to Whistler!"

But I think he himself realizes that we are investors and today is the most important meeting he's ever had with his investors.

In that spirit, Mr Jeffers, I'm going to stop talking and start listening. I don't think either you or I are going to convince one of the other's position, so let's leave it at that. I've said my piece, and today is PGI's day. Let the chips fall.

Lemme get my scorecard.

PGI's Planned Announcements

___Skill Tree
___Assault Mode/Map
___All New QP Mode
___New Mech packs
___New Merchandise


All the Things the Community Wants to Know About*
*not that these are demands, but specific, definitive answers would be nice[/color]

___FP/Endgame content
___Solaris
___PVE/Co-op
___Aerotech

___MKII
___IS Omnimech
___Quadrupeds

___New Weapons
___Melee Combat
___Putting even a little bit of lore in the game
___Balancing based on performance and including explanations/justifications
___Ditch map voting
___Fix matchmaking/psr
___Color blind support

___Timeline jumps
___New game engine
___More community engagement
___Long-terms plans
___Licensing agreement

___If I invest further mech money into MWO, will it be financing the completion of MWO or financing another title? If it's the latter, what kind of title is it?

Edited by Hunka Junk, 03 December 2016 - 01:35 AM.

[MrJeffers]

Hunka Junk, on 03 December 2016 - 01:30 AM, said:

That's simple binary logic. It's either this or it's that when the truth lies in shades of grey.

The fact is our mech money has financed the command wheel, the **** that was the long tom, and 3 months of faffing about with ED. There are absolutely a fair number of people who purchase mechs not because they're really focusing on the product but because they are trying to support PGI. It's one of many many reasons it's inappropriate to compare Ford and Coke to a F2P online game. This is a kickstarter just as much as it's still in beta.

Of course, Russ is free to stand up at Mech Con and take your position:

"Thanks for the mech packs. I owe you nothing. Now, off to Whistler!"

But I think he himself realizes that we are investors and today is the most important meeting he's ever had with his investors.

In that spirit, Mr Jeffers, I'm going to stop talking and start listening. I don't think either you or I are going to convince one of the other's position, so let's leave it at that. I've said my piece, and today is PGI's day. Let the chips fall.

Lemme get my scorecard.

PGI's Planned Announcements

___Skill Tree
___Assault Mode/Map
___All New QP Mode
___New Mech packs
___New Merchandise


All the Things the Community Wants to Know About*
*not that these are demands, but specific, definitive answers would be nice[/color]

___FP/Endgame content
___Solaris
___PVE/Co-op
___Aerotech

___MKII
___IS Omnimech
___Quadrupeds

___New Weapons
___Melee Combat
___Putting even a little bit of lore in the game
___Balancing based on performance and including explanations/justifications
___Ditch map voting
___Fix matchmaking/psr
___Color blind support

___Timeline jumps
___New game engine
___More community engagement
___Long-terms plans
___Licensing agreement

___If I invest further mech money into MWO, will it be financing the completion of MWO or financing another title? If it's the latter, what kind of title is it?

You can go with the 'agree to disagree' mindset, but that only works for differences of opinion and not facts.

The irrefutable fact is: We are customers, not investors.
And PGI is going to treat is as customers, not investors. Which put the 'If I invest further mech money into MWO, will it be financing the completion of MWO or financing another title? If it's the latter, what kind of title is it? ' in the 'none of your effing business' category.

Edited by MrJeffers, 03 December 2016 - 01:59 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Don't want PGI giving your money to non-MWO related projects? Don't give your money to PGI.

I figured it was pretty simple.

[Rift Hawk]

BlueFlames, on 01 December 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

It's what happens when you burn the goodwill of your audience/community.

Perhaps but as we are currently seeing with the roughneck. Which I think was a great idea....

Some of the unrealistic expectations of this community is just as detrimental to the game as anything PGI has done over the years.

[SWANN]

Metus regem, on 02 December 2016 - 09:31 AM, said:

Honestly, no, no it wasn't. If we were share holders in PGI, then yes. It is PGI's decision where funds get allocated, and us acting like a bunch of spoiled children when they do something we don't like doesn't help the already poor relations between PGI and it's customers (us).


Let me put this into a different perspective, if you were to lease a car from Ford, lets say the Focus, what would beholden Ford to only put your funds towards another Focus, when they would rather take that money and put it towards building a new F350?

Because we all know how similar software development and car manufacturing are. Nice false equivalence you have there.