test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Detailed June 7th Changes Poll (June 7th release put on hold for reassessment)
I was hoping someone else, or the OP of the other poll, would have already created (recreated) a more detailed poll. But that didn't happen, so I slapped one together. As someone heavily invested and interested in the effects of these changes I want a more clear understanding of where people stand on this issue.
Try to understand that this is a very multilayered change so the poll is a bit overwhelming... I have read dozens of positions both on the forums AND discord channel and although It was not my intention to make this incredibly complicated with an insane number of option, these are in fact all of the positions I have read so far. So they are all being offered as an option.
To be clear: this poll is focused on the critical issues surrounding the change (Subscription removal, non-purchased Freeforms becoming locked without continued payment until-expired or LTS, and the removal of character slot acquisition).
Try to understand that this is a very multilayered change so the poll is a bit overwhelming... I have read dozens of positions both on the forums AND discord channel and although It was not my intention to make this incredibly complicated with an insane number of option, these are in fact all of the positions I have read so far. So they are all being offered as an option.
To be clear: this poll is focused on the critical issues surrounding the change (Subscription removal, non-purchased Freeforms becoming locked without continued payment until-expired or LTS, and the removal of character slot acquisition).
Detailed June 7th Changes Poll (June 7th release put on hold for reassessment) 39 votes
I AGREE with the change to subscriptions and I ALSO AGREE with the way that it affects Freeforms and Character Slot acquisition
2%
1 vote
I AGREE with the change to subscriptions but I DO NOT AGREE with the way that it affects Freeforms
15%
6 votes
I AGREE with the change to subscriptions but I DO NOT AGREE with the way that it affects Character Slot acquisition
0%
I AGREE with the change to subscriptions but I DO NOT AGREE with the way that it affects Freeform and Character Slot acquisition
33%
13 votes
I DISAGREE with the change to subscriptions and I ALSO DISAGREE with the way it affects Freeforms and Character Slot acquisition
46%
18 votes
I DISAGREE with the change to subscriptions but I AGREE with the way it affects Freeforms
0%
I DISAGREE with the change to subscriptions but I AGREE with the way it affects Character Slot acquisition
0%
I DISAGREE with the change to subscriptions but I AGREE with the way it affects Freeforms and Character Slot acquisition
0%
Other (explain your position as it relates to subscription changes, freeform changes, and character slot acquisition changes)
2%
1 vote
Post edited by folv#5303 on
0
Comments
FF slots? As in the 5000 zen ones? They won't be affected, they will stay as FF for silver players as normal. It is only normal slots that will be affected.
I was told in the past that despite the ever-shrinking playerbase freeform being gated behind a sub still drove people to subscribe, thereby providing needed revenue. So the idea of nixing said subs but still not openly granting freeform... Really odd call. Wish I could see what the endgame for that decision is/was supposed to be. I can't imagine the idea was that it would drive more $50 and $300, FF slot and LTS sales.
My Amazon author page
How to build a freeform character...the Kenpo way
Demon Keypo's Building Guide
Freeform Builds Directory (Last updated: 04/23/2016)
Serving since September, 2009 / 65 Characters, 63 Level 40's
I really can't agree more with all this. Nicely said, and nice to see a veteran player like kenpo weigh in.
Click here to check out my costumes/milleniumguardian (MG) in-game/We need more tights, stances and moods
As soulforger stated, this change doesn't affect the $50 freeform slots that are purchased from the zen store. What it would do is demote "Gold" characters which could be freeform by way of subscription back to Silver with the removal of subs (this is what would normally happen if a subscribed account ended it's subscription. But the differenc. This would force FF characters created during subscription to lose their freeform status and would require a respec into an AT. This is what the issue mostly centered around as they only two possible ways of securing those FF characters would be to either pay for LTS ($200-$300 depending on sales) or buy the unlocks at $50 a pop. So needless to say, if you had more than 4 freeforms (as many of us do) you would essentially be forced into a position where you would need to buy an LTS just to continue playing the way you were previously at $15/month.
I certainly agree. But as you stated I am not sure what the long-term business model was for this change; granting the possibility that the LTS and Freeform slots were not the intended replacement of the monthly sub loss, in what other way could they have compensated this change without those larger purchases?
Assuming that I'm not misunderstanding your position, that would essentially be the second (you agree with the subscription change and the character slot changes but not the freeform locks). But trust me, I don't blame you for not sifting through the daunting number of options and trying to figure out which one is right. Thanks for your insight either way though. So far the poll has reflected pretty close to what I would have assumed would be the consensus.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
So this is not quite what the issue is, but close. Buckle up, 'cause this is going to be a long one.
Currently, when a subscribed account cancels its subscription, all Gold characters on that account are locked, unable to be played unless a one-time retrain token is used to downgrade that character to Silver. This means that if a player does not want to continue his subscription, he must make new Silver characters to play the game at all (or, as mentioned, downgrade using the one-time, one-way conversion, which is essentially making a new character anyway as that character will not be the same as it was).
If that player decided to re-subscribe, his Silver characters would then be locked out for the duration of his subscription, making them unable to be played unless converted to Gold in the same, one-time one-way fashion. Assuming the player does not continually purchase character slots for either account state, this means that that player will at most be playing half of his characters while either subbed or playing free. Essentially, he is playing two different games and being punished for choosing one or the other. If he converts all of his characters to Gold, he is screwed and unable to play free at all. If he converts them to silver he can never sub again, even temporarily, without also purchasing more slots. In either case the player loses, and Cryptic loses not only a potential returning customer but a valuable player to fill queues and social hubs.
Now apply this reality to the vast majority of potential paying players, ones that pay for MMOs occasionally but are not committed to lifetime or permanent subscriptions, and you see why CO has always had a stagnant or dropping playerbase.
The $50 Freeform slot is no help, either. Aside from the pricetag, which back when it was introduced was already obscene--rivalling box-priced AAA titles--and has, in the era of Steam and the ability to purchase several full games for that price, become unfathomable, the FF slot also has the issue of not being a character conversion token. In seven years this has not changed at all, which is absolutely mindblowing to me. With the above character slot issue in mind, one would think that an easy, if absurdly expensive even at half-price, option would be available to mitigate that problem. No such luck. To reiterate, CO is a game where characters are king and being able to play your characters, whether free or subbed, is so essential to the experience that playing Gold vs Silver is akin to playing two completely different games.
Cryptic, if you're reading (and I hope you are), I'm going to suggest the same change to CO's model that I suggested years ago. It gained considerable traction back then and I hope this time you consider it. So here is how this mess gets fixed.
Step 1) All Gold characters, regardless of account status (excepting, of course, banned accounts), are unlocked permanently.
All of these characters retain powersets, costumes and everything else unique to them as Gold. This excludes AH slots and such, which can be unlocked via purchase, but the costumes and powersets must be intact. The characters need to be exactly as they were, playable in their entirety, for all players that had created them regardless of when and how long they subscribed. If nothing else from this suggestion or others is considered, this point absolutely must be. It is crucial to bringing old players back into the fold. Former subscribers have no reason to re-subscribe if they had a reason to end their sub in the first place. This gives them a reason to come back and check out the game properly, and pay if they feel the game is worth paying for. They've felt that way in the past, they can again, you just need to give them a chance.
Step 2) ALL characters are given the option to become Freeform characters, as they were originally designed to be.
Here's the catch, though:
Characters only have access to powersets unlocked by that account. Fresh silver account characters will only have access to free AT powers. Former Gold characters would keep any powers currently used, and would lose those powers if they respecced. Purchasing an AT would unlock that powerset to be used on any freeform character on that account, in the same way that purchasing a costume set unlocks it for all characters on that account.
This both preserves powersets as a revenue stream (even putting more value on older sets, as new players would be encouraged to purchase them rather than subscribe to unlock everything) and preserves Freeform characters as the key mechanic of the game, allowing new players to experience how the game truly plays and encouraging them to create the characters that they want to create--which would undoubtedly mean, for many, purchasing powersets to use.
Step 3) Keep the Freeform character slot option, but in this case its benefit becomes access to ALL powersets for that one character.
You could even keep its current pricetag, as it still becomes a value purchase for those that are willing to pay.
Subscriptions as they are now are obviously not working, and I highly doubt that in the seven years since F2P went live if they ever worked as planned. Opening freeforms to all players, as the game was originally intended to be played, is the way to rejuvenate the playerbase and bring in more potential customers. Unlocking Gold characters is the only way that former players will give the game another shot.
At this point it is clear that you have nothing to lose trying these changes, so at least give them the consideration they deserve, unlike when they were first posted back on the old boards.
I don't know if any of you at Cryptic remember me. I love this game, and have since long before it launched. I was the one that made that lengthy post about soloing the Mega-Destroid and other bosses with nothing but Crippling Axe Kick. I had one of the first level 40s on live (Lariat), brought over my SG from CoH (Millenium Universe) and supported the game as much as I possibly could, which is why when the F2P changes were first announced I was heartbroken, as I was a few days ago with this new announcement. The original change kept me away for years, but not permanently. I'd come back every so often and sub, or play my silvers while wishing I could play my old characters. I even bit the bullet recently and downgraded Lariat to Silver just to play her, a decision I immensely regret as she is no longer the character I loved.
I'm glad you're listening to the feedback now, and I really hope something good comes of all of this. I really do want to support CO more, but if I can't play my characters or play the game as it was meant to be played I just can't do that either. Please consider my suggestions.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
It exists until "all characters will be freeform by default" is in writing. "We're looking into it" doesn't mean anything other than the changes might not go live as-is. The only thing that was confirmed to change is that it won't go live on the 7th. That's great, it means we have time to convince them of a better solution, but it's not a better solution in itself.
Thanks for the elaboration. I finally got a chance to read through it after work.
You and many other players have a perspective that I just have little-to-no insight on considering I lack experience. I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of how some of this content relates to the overall appeal/value of the game, and that absolutely needs to be considered when deciding which content to paywall (obviously and understandably, they need a way to make money). Also, as you touched base on, there may need to be a considerable focus given to understanding why certain players may have left and what it would take to bring them back. Again, I have no affiliation with long-term players that have left so I don't know the reasons as to why they would have taken off in the first place; there may be nothing that can be done for most of these players to return. For all I know, they left because they did everything they intended to do and are simply tired of the game. Not much can change that aside from an extreme influx of attractive content which is likely not going to be something we will be getting in the near future with all the discussion that needs to take place in wake of this last week. But, again, you would likely know far more than me at what the potential of players returning would be.
I can sum up how it affects me simply. Every time I come back to the game I play my silvers and wish I could be playing my Golds. Sometimes I re-sub and play my Golds, but I also want to play my silvers, so I feel punished either way. I get upset about it and stop playing for a while once again. Occasionally I'll consider coming back, but realize I'll have to pick between my characters and decide against it until inevitably I'm drawn back in regardless.
That's the experience of someone that really does want to play and support the game, now imagine someone that's more on the fence, or was turned off entirely by the restrictions. There's no way those players come back if they can't play all of their characters. No way at all.
Actually nothing is confirmed whatsoever. We have no idea what they'll do, and until they give us information on that then we're literally talking about nothing. We don't even know if subs will be ended anymore at this point, they could reverse their position on the entire plan.
I guess all you really need to decide is how long your intense debate will continue, cause I think you're gonna run out of steam at some point if we don't hear anything for like a month.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Um... So which is it? Does the issue no longer exist, or is "nothing confirmed whatsoever"? You used the idea that it was "a non-issue" to troll him in his first post. Then went right back on that statement and used the idea that "nothing is confirmed" to troll him in your second post. These are contradictory statements used one right after the other and you know it, lol. You are the absolute undisputed master of nonsense posting.
But anyways, on topic, there will still remain the 'potential' of an issue for the exact reason you stated... the second time. Until a consensus is met between the developers as far as what needs to be done and then that conclusion is relayed to the players then you can fully expect to see people continuing to discuss the situation. I'm sure you are right that people will run out of steam, sure. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.
It no longer exists because it hasn't been confirmed. So, unitl it has been confirmed, it doesn't exist. Like...aliens in real life. Meanwhile, we are free to debate the issue all we want. Hopefuly, Cryptic listens well enough to us to make this move done in a way people will be happy with.
That's the hope, and why we need to keep discussing it so that Cryptic has as clear a picture as possible of what the players will accept and endorse versus what they will not.
I've been following the discussions and they have made the picture less clear as opposed to more. There does not appear to be consensus on what players will endorse vs not.
To start, a lot of people are confused about what the changes were going to be so their comments are completely off. Rightly so... since the changes were pretty confusing. Anything that needs a massive FAQ section is by definition going to be confusing for many people. I think that's one of few things most people might agree on.
And even those who are less confused have different agendas, economic means, degrees of investment in CO, and perspectives. Summing up what players will endorse looks pretty messy at the moment.
PARSER USAGE GUIDE: click here for an easy how-to ٩(๑･ิᴗ･ิ)۶٩(･ิᴗ･ิ๑)۶
Spectre beats Eido in an SG run: VIDEO HERE
Like anything else, player discussion generally isn't all that helpful. All you get is ten different people saying ten different things and running circles around each other trying to say their idea is best, generally with very shallow knowledge of why it would or wouldn't be.
What's important is that they got the one piece of information that matters: Sub's FFs becoming permanently locked is bad.
Discuss all you like, won't nobody stop ya, but don't pretend to be doing it with some high-minded purpose. It's just business as usual, us dogs all barking at each other.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Man, you are a riot.
'Discussion' is the main component of what influenced the halting and reassessment of the June 7th update release according to the dev's themselves. What are you even on about?
Even I could follow Spinny's logic on that one. You may have skipped over the middle paragraph in that post you quoted. The player discussion they mentioned is all of the ideas on the best way to handle the dropping of subscriptions. While there's no harm in kicking around ideas with each other, anyone thinking that the developers and management is going to implement any uniformed ideas a player comes up with would have to be slightly delusional.
Your suggestion that it may have no effect is unwarranted considering that we just saw something changed to the contrary. So I disagree. We should continue to voice our concerns and offer specific suggestions so that the dev's have an idea of what parts of the change we are concerned about. Is your assertion that the dev's simply don't care about player opinions whatsoever?
They're not really concerned with player opinions or ideas. What they're concerned about is whether their business decisions will lead to increased revenue. For all their blunders, they still have more relevant information about those things than we do. Not only are players uninformed, but they're often very self-centered in their suggestions, prone to claiming things they want have less value than they actually do, and saying that giving out freebies is a really great idea.
Like I said, feel free to discuss, but don't bother trying to characterize the discussion as something important. We're not "in on the process" by any stretch.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Oh, I must have missed when they asked for all of that player input during the year they were planning this change.
So, no. They don't care. Player opinions on business matters and implementation are uninformed. Want an example? You keep using the word "devs" as if they're decision makers. They aren't.
The original plan was ill conceived, and the company acted on the feedback given.
But there's a huge conceptual gap between giving feedback and giving elaborate suggestions with nothing to back them up. Some of the suggestions have been more detailed that the original FAQ for crying out loud. And NO, they do not care about those posts.
I'm not saying to not discuss them. Go ahead. But don't be surprised when the thing you get is not on anyone's wish list.
If that's the case, then they are terrible dev's. So be it if that is what happens. But there is no reason hold out on hope that they are actually working through the feedback to come up with a solution that is at least somewhat in response to common interest. Again, especially since they've made the right move so far by considering the launch of the changes. But you likely have more experience then I do with this, and if your assumption is that they are just a crappy group of people that couldn't give two craps about our thoughts even considering the recent controversy then, again, so be it.
No, they're normal devs, and you're unrealistic in your expectations.
Look, let's say that the forum arrives at a consensus of a reasonable way of doing away with subscriptions that will make everyone happy and make PWE lots of money. Even if we all sit here and agree on such a plan, we still won't know that it's something they can actually implement. Because we don't see the whole picture.
We don't know their technical limitations.
We don't know their staffing limitations.
We don't know their budgetary limitations.
We don't know the legal limitations of each country they operate in.
We don't know their motive for dropping subs in the first place, so how can we address their perceived business needs that prompted the change?
Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Don't get your hopes up.
Do go ahead and discuss it. They may actually pluck an idea or two out of the discussion. I'm not Spinny, and I'm not the one telling people not to float ideas here. Though Spinny isn't being unreasonable in the basic assertion that what you suggest will largely be ignored, if that's what they're suggesting. In fact, if I think any MMO company is likely to look to the player base for suggestions, it's this one. They've been good about listening to feedback in the past, they have a dev who used to be a player, and they've got a small staff. Any larger company would have already thought of every single option anyone's posted by this point, but that's less likely the case here.
So, by all means, brainstorm. Just don't get your hopes up on getting a long list of things you want to line up.
I am responding directly to you. My issue with Spinny is that they asserted that the issues no longer exist (as a passive aggressive way of disparaging a long suggestion offered by someone else as they seem to do in most threads on here), and then immediately goes on to say that nothing is known whatsoever so we can't make assertions. That is a clear contradiction.
But what are you suggesting are my expectations? I can almost guarantee that if they actually managed to come to the decision to halt release it's because they are generally concerned about the well-being of the game if they were to roll it out as is. If people just simply said, "This is stupid, don't release it", then they would have absolutely nothing to go on with their reassessment of these changes. So far, and this seems clear from multiple polls and individual posts, this is what it seems we can conclude:
1. Most players are not okay with the locking/demoting/what-have-you of FF toons from subbed accounts when subs are made obsolete.
2. Players seem somewhat divided on the issue of costume unlocks being changed and the cap being re-enforced (leaning in favor of its planned removal, and re-enforcement from what I've seen)
3. Players also seem split on the removal of subs and the addition of premium packs
This is information that would not be made clearly obvious without the specific explanation of the individual player. This was the issue I took with the original poll as well; it didn't offer much insight into the complexity of these changes because it's not a simple good or bad response when trying to decide what's worth keeping and what's a terrible idea. I will repeat myself here. If your assertion is that this information is absolutely worthless to the dev's, and that our individual points of view are invalid when taken in context of the larger picture, then so be it. Given all that has happened so far, I disagree. That being said, I do submit to the reality that I could end up being wrong when all is said and done. But so could you.
I was responding to a particular post of yours to Spinny. I apologize for getting into the middle of it. But that particular post seemed to be pointing to the futility of making these laundry list posts of suggestions.
Well, since you were arguing against my point about the laundry lists of suggestions being useful, I assumed you were under the impression that the devs might actually be looking to those laundry lists of suggestions for ideas. Which they probably aren't. (Though more likely for these guys than most games.) Reading further in your post, perhaps I was wrong. I don't know. I think maybe your expectation is to come to the forums and find someone to argue with.
1. Agree. They seem to have noticed that this is a problem.
2. Those are two different issues. First, the costume unlock having the account wide slots removed as an option. The cap being enforces is the account character slot cap, which was bypassed by slots generated when hitting 40 on a character while subscribed. The costume unlock has nothing to do with the subs going away. (Other than a sign of something else being pushed from the parent company to the studio, perhaps.)
3. The players may have an opinion on the removal of subs and the addition of premium packs, but it's going to happen. Just because the delayed the roll out to address issue 1, doesn't mean they're going to shift gears at this point and decide not to get rid of subs. They may try to make it an easier pill to swallow, but if they have to, they're going to stuff the pill into a hotdog and try to trick you into eating it.
I agree. You could be wrong.
I'm not. I'm only asserting that the company isn't going to pay much heed to these laundry lists of ideas. I'm not saying they aren't trying to accommodate the players and make the change better, just that anyone thinking they're going to scrap the plan they've already announced and go with completely different suggestions is being unrealistic. Though I don't know that people who make those posts really expect the devs to follow their suggestions. I think they're just trying to give the devs an idea of what would make them happy. Which I think is an OK thing to do.
Here's my prediction:
1. We're going to see subs go away and get the premium pack.
2. The devs will attempt to find a way to convert gold freeform slots into special freeform slots.
3. If they can do this, that's about all the change we'll see to the original plan. No predictions on if they'll set limits or charge any money for the conversions. That could fall out either way.
4. If they can't find a way to convert those slots, they'll modify the premium pack in some way as compensation. I expect they're smart enough to make it fairly generous given the feedback.
Really? Because I've been here fighting in favor of these changes not going through since last week and i've made my intentions pretty clear so far as to why that is. People told me that was pointless as well and some even suggested that everyone just forget about it and stop wasting time considering devs have ignored players in the past, but here we are with the halted release. More recently I have been trying to find consensus between players mostly for my own interest. The only time I jump in an argument is when people needlessly tell others to not voice their opinions (even if in detail) for one reason or another. Also, and I created this thread for discussions on this very topic and to vote on our individual thought processes on the changes [based on the multi-varied options]. Don't get me wrong though, if someone wants to argue then I'll stick with it until I feel I've been proven wrong and change my viewpoint; and that has happened a few times already in the last few days.
As far as I understand, they are not two different issues because the way the cap has been abused is through use of the level 40 unlocks. You can't change one without affecting the other assuming there is no way for them to fix the unlocks after hitting cap since it hasn't been done in 10 years. And just because this doesn't have to do with the "sub" portion of these changes doesn't mean it's unrelated. Especially considering we've been talking about all of these changes as one unit (as this poll obviously demonstrates).
Right, so what is the issue? Why even pipe in just to discourage the discussions/suggestions to begin with? (less so in your case, just so we are clear on that. Again.. I am defending my initial rebuttal of what I perceive to be contradictions formed from needless nay-saying)
I can inform you with 100% certainty our devs are actually concerned about player opinions. Probably the higher-ups at pwe aren't that much, but our devs are.
I don't expect them to follow my suggestions, just as I didn't expect it when I posted pretty much the same ones the first time. I have more hope now than I did then, as they've had seven years to see the results of the original model and actually seem to be listening at least somewhat this time around.
Some things don't change. People being apathetic to/supporting Cryptic's decisions because they think it doesn't affect them, or trusting Cryptic to do what's best for the game (whether it actually is the best thing or not) even if it means screwing older or newer players, or simply asserting that the devs don't care what we think (CO was one of the last MMOs to launch after an actual public beta test rather than a marketing beta, during which time they most definitely listened to suggestions and feedback; they didn't listen about the conversion, but that was quite a while later) are a staple of every community in Cryptic's games.
The idea that enticing players to return to the game by letting them play their characters is "giving out freebies" is one I'll never understand and am amazed has survived this long.
It's pretty much guaranteed that PWE is behind the decision to drop subs, but the manner in which it was (or is) going to happen smells entirely of Cryptic. It's the same indifferent attitude toward lapsed/former subs and potential new players that they had back then, before PWE got involved at all. This time, at least, the commotion seems to have had some impact. Hopefully it's enough to affect real change rather than cheap consolations.
Once you get to a certain point, all these people having all these resources sucked up by all of these characters and costumes is going to begin to affect overall performance, and the stability of everything. It's more of a preventative measure than anything else, before it gets any worse.
I am not entirely against the concept of enforcing the cap as it was already something put in place that just never worked properly (though I understand why certain players are not comfortable with that change considering this game offers little else than character creation for many who aren't interested in the end game). But the removal of the character unlocks a decade later for those of us who haven't reached cap feels like a bit of a low blow. Again, this issue is a minor one for me so I am not going to go into it much further than that. It's by no means a deal breaker for me.
But I've heard this argument that its eating up resources many times, but I question that concerns validity. Have the dev's specifically spoken about this out of curiosity? World Of Warcraft is an older title, and even if every account ever made had only one single toon, that would still be significantly (and I mean quite significantly) more characters than this title would ever have. This game has a smaller population than most MMORPG's I've played (WoW, TOR, LOTRO, CoH, Guild Wars 2, etc.). All of that being said, not a single person I play with is even at cap yet. I doubt MOST players active right now have reached/breached cap either, so it's not like we are talking about every single person in this game is sporting 100+ toons (which again, in and MMO I hardly see how that's a concern considering it's goal is to reach as large an audience as possible).
This is the only game where I have even heard that the number-of-toons-created is directly related to resources being sucked up in any meaningful way. And if the number of created toons is actually affecting the games overall performance, you can toss the idea of "growth" out the window because 3 new players reaching cap is going to be equal to one veteran player sitting at 160'ish. So if this game doubled in size, apparently that would mean that all resources are eaten up and the game collapses. I just highly doubt that. But I am genuinely curious if I'm wrong.
However, when you understand that they have to do it to solve the problem, it stops feeling like a low blow.
Yes.
Is owned by a company that has a kabillion dollars to spend on their servers and so makes a horrible comparison to CO.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
A. Me continuing to spend money on the game while creating, say, 30 more characters
or
B. Me no longer playing the game while my account remains active with its 138 characters
Meanwhile, the 'resources' required for my 30 extra characters will be used on 30 free accounts made by people who play the game for a week before abandoning it entirely. Obviously they want someone playing the game and using resources, right? Doesn't seem to benefit anyone by running off dedicated customers who have paid/will continue to pay for the ability to make new characters. If you run a restaurant, and you can give a seat at a table to a toddler or a hungry 300-pounder, who do you want using your valuable space?
"We require more minerals" doesn't really work for me as a reason to remove the main draw of the game for many people who have supported the game for the last ~10 years.
I hope you didn't mean to speak for folv here, and perhaps meant:
Or maybe even:
I'd be disappointed to learn it was:
I get that change is coming, and some players want to get others to understand that there will be some capabilities or possibilities that will go away, and that such may be the price of the game surviving. But dismissing other players' reactions to these changes only demoralizes people further. That doesn't serve the game's or the community's goals at all.
On a related note, it'd be nice for the devs to actually lay out the argument for why things are taken away so that some otherwise frustrated or annoyed players might get on board with them. Now, we just get "it was always meant to be that way. No further comment will be forthcoming on this matter. Thank you." Minus the "thank you".
It's probably more like the hungry 300-pounder has sat down at the all-you-can-eat buffet, and won't stop filling his plate. I totally get it, but dude you admittedly have 138 characters, which is crazy generous of Cryptic to let people do that, and for so long. I can't think of any game still around that would allow that many character slots for one player. I also get that it feels like maybe you're losing out, but really you still come out on top. If you multiply the number of slots you have by the current cost of those slots, you have more than gotten your moneys worth.
Don't get me wrong, I'm really sad about the changes. And most of us are just shooting ideas at CO in hopes this transition will be a little less disappointing for us all. But in the end they are doing what they must to keep the doors open. And the all-you-can-eat buffet is shutting down. It was a nice time while we had it, but it's over.
My fingers are still crossed that those of us who spent a lot of money on this game over the years, get a bone tossed our way. But I have no faith that unlimited slots forever, will continue to be part of a game that wishes to stay viable for the next few years.
Agreed.
That "it's meant to be that way" can used arbitrarily. Without further clarification it's a meaningless statement (as far as I am concerned).
Why is it generous? They aren't giving anything out for free; they've 'given' me something that I paid for and that has encouraged me to continue spending money on the game. I'm not coming out ahead, I'm simply getting what I paid for.
I can't say it matters what other games do/have done/will do. Other games might have more meaningful content that makes it more enjoyable to play just one character. Other games may encourage or discourage different play styles or approaches to the game. I don't know, and don't really care. This particular game draws 90% of its appeal (to me, and many other players) from the ability to make new characters. This particular game also awarded new free character slots to subscribers and LTS-ers for the entirety of its lifespan (until, possibly, now). What the guys down the street are doing is immaterial.
(I hope this didn't come across as personal or angry at you, riverocean. But in the absence of proof that my large roster is actually a major problem for the game, I don't understand why it's generous for a company to do what I've paid, and am paying, them to do.)
None of this is really offering any tangible information to the contrary. Simply saying, "yes" does not necessarily mean that it's true. Do you mind giving some references to dev quotes that lead you to believe this? Also I listed many MMO's, not just WoW, so what about those (CoH, TOR, GW2, etc.)? And as has already been stated, unless I see some sort of information directly from the dev's themselves saying that there is a memory-based issue due to large numbers of character creation, then it shouldn't be used as an assertion to defend other statements. But i've given you dozens of call-to-actions in terms of producing some evidence of your conclusions to no avail, so I likely won't be holding my breath.
This is the bottom line. With no direct communication, our minds will wander as we inevitably try to come up with solutions that we each feel doesn't end up ripping us off so to speak. I honestly didn't know this until after this whole situation started up, but several veterans of this game seemed to already have had a very negative view of the company for one reason or another. Those claims may be justified, and they may not be. But it certainly further muddies the waters for those of us that are concerned. I am basing my decisions off of the information presented to me as most of us should be. So far, that information (the ones with actual references to events that have taken place and things that have been said) has not inspired much confidence. I'm not sure what else can be expected of us as both gamers and consumers. So, as was stated, without tangible rebuttals given (with quotes/references to the claims being made) the concerns we only increase as time goes on without much word from the devs.
Gee I dunno, how could an infinite amount of something be generous.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
I have an infinite amount of cell phone data on my current plan. I need it for work, so I am willing to pay extremely well for it. Do you consider my data plan "generous" just because it offers an infinite amount of something? I pay for it.. that's how this works. But it's not like that concept hasn't already been explained to you.
And by that same logic, are you insinuating that if they remove this feature that it would make the devs selfish/greedy? (as opposed to being generous)
Yes. There's a reason you chose this one over a less generous one after all.
No. When someone is giving you an endless amount of something and then stops, you would have to want to look like a spoiled brat to imply that that makes them selfish. In fact, simply implying that a person can only be being generous or greedy makes you seem just like that... a spoiled brat.
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
I just specifically stated that the reason I pay an extremely high price for my data plan is because it's needed for my line of work. It's not generous. They are gouging me. I am actually starting to wonder if you honestly just aren't understanding what we are trying to explain here.
But regardless, I don't hold them to this entirely irrelevant standard of "generosity" either way, I was just posing the question to you. But I can see you won't fault them either way, so no point leading you down that rabbit hole. At the end of the day, it's a business arrangement. Period. I want to play their game, and they want my money. If they offer me value for the money, I will gladly pay. That's how this works and it's far more preferable that way. It's difficult to actually discuss this issue when you seem to act as if these devs are some charitable, virtuous group that can't not be held to the merit of their reputation, actions, and decisions. You make conversations that should be about the games value and function more personal than practical. But i'm sure you have your reasons for that.