The difference here is that there was an expectation when Cryptic sold the old ships that they were endgame ships. Cryptic is not selling a spreadsheet application or a PC. The fleet ships are not upgrades in that sense. Rather, Cryptic is devaluing what they sold us before in order to get us to pay more to revalue it.
Before PWE bought Cryptic, endgame ships (be they c-store or EC store) were balanced and customers who bought them had the expectation that they would remain balanced. Cryptic introducing new ships that break that balance and encourage people to buy them to have the most powerful ship might not quite be enough evidence to prove breach of implied contract, but it certainly is enough evidence to make many of the people who spent a lot of money on end game ships to feel that Cryptic does not value us as customers.
...
This isn't how I remember it. Remember the whole Gal-X is OP discussions? Even after that, when new T5's were being released people always complained each time. Cryptic even responded that to make money new shinies needed to be better than previous shinies and it was inevitable.
I also think anyone believing the T5.5 ships were going to remain top tier was sadly mistaken. Cryptic did say they weren't going to do it deliberately. But they also hinted at it being inevitable, quoting the eventual release of fleet admirals as one unavoidable hurdle.
Their compromise (bear in mind I haven't seen in personally) seems to be to allow you to upgrade instead of simply paying for a new one. If true, be thankful they did something to lessen the blow. They could have done nothing.
Kobayashi Maru
Join Date: Sept 2008
"Holographic tissue paper for the holographic runny nose. Don't give them to patients." - The Doctor
the catch being:
'but pay to win'
or
'pay to keep playing' as opposed to feeding paying players and unfortunately Lifers are Not considered paying players, just suckers that trusted someone that business is conning people out of their money (F2P).
@OP:
So yeah I think PWI values their customers, equal to exactly as much money they think they can get from them. Though they obviously place no value for those that have already paid them money.
the catch being:
'but pay to win'
or
'pay to keep playing' as opposed to feeding paying players and unfortunately Lifers are Not considered paying players, just suckers that trusted someone that business is conning people out of their money (F2P).
@OP:
So yeah I think PWI values their customers, equal to exactly as much money they think they can get from them. Though they obviously place no value for those that have already paid them money.
There is no lie. You can play all of the game for free. More so than pretty much any other F2P game out there.
There is a classic false expectation among many that they can (and should) get something for nothing, and that unless they are given everything for nothing, that the company involved is somehow lying or is otherwise immoral.
There is no lie. You can play all of the game for free. More so than pretty much any other F2P game out there.
There is a classic false expectation among many that they can (and should) get something for nothing, and that unless they are given everything for nothing, that the company involved is somehow lying or is otherwise immoral.
Sooo are you saying I'm a Liar or just Dumb?
BTW, a number of people value their time so investing their time in a game is how they are 'paying' for it.
Also, I'm a Lifer and even I can't play all the game for what I've paid, so your first sentence is clearly a Lie.{EDIT: or just Really biased and inaccurate due to your perspective of reality}
Furthermore, a company that betrays there agreements IS untrustworthy and lying (in their agreements) and immoral doesn't apply as it simply means 'does not follow a moral standard' without actually stating (or implying by context) which moral standard.
mor?al (m?rl, mr-)
adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.
1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.
BTW, a number of people value their time so investing their time in a game is how they are 'paying' for it.
Also, I'm a Lifer and even I can't play all the game for what I've paid, so your first sentence is clearly a Lie.
Furthermore, a company that betrays there agreements IS untrustworthy and lying (in their agreements) and immoral doesn't apply as it simply means 'does not follow a moral standard' without actually stating (or implying by context) which moral standard.
People going to a movie are investing their time too. Does that mean they should watch for free? I invest time living in an apartment, guess that should be free too?
What part of the game can't you play? You get a stipend so even though you might not get every ship for free immediately, over time you get every ship (and that is assuming that 'playing' equates to 'every aspect of play').
Playing a game does not equate to 'getting everything available in the game.' Only the winning team gets the pennant. In many cases, the worst teams actually get compensated with better draft picks that the best or middle teams don't get.
Whiny people are whiny. Feedback ? I am a creator myself. There is no democracy in art. I don't do what people want. I do what I want, and if it happens for some to like it, and pay for it, all the better. This means dedidcation to your art.
Update totally broken ? Yes the server had problems, but now, only the Foundry is missing and the new content is playable, and all day today I have not found a single game crashing bug. Yes the dialog UI is slow, and I get disconnects, this is because of the amount of people play now. Still to say that the update is totally broken ... come on.
If the game is bad, it's not because of these. But it isn't bad, I'd say it is even too good, creates addiction and the frustrated addicts than turn againts their masters. And whine. Anyway I am not trying to put well with the devs or anyone, but gladly help you see the speck of sawdust in your eyes, and the beams in mine are none of your business.
Whatever we deny or embrace, we belong togheter./ Pat Benatar
Whiny people are whiny. Feedback ? I am a creator myself. There is no democracy in art. I don't do what people want. I do what I want, and if it happens for some to like it, and pay for it, all the better. This means dedidcation to your art.
This reminds me of all the fights on the Bioware network over Mass Effect 3
Side one: Mass Effect 3 is Art... Leave mass effect 3 devs alone.
Side two: Mass Effect 3 is a product, and in a free market the consumer should rule. Leave consumers alone.
lol good times.
But to be fair. coming from a business stand point of view. while art is good and all. when your trying to sell your art in pieces. you have to produce a product that the consumer is willing to buy, and in this case buy over and over. I know video games are sometimes seen as art, but at the same time they are a product that they expect us to keep on buying as a repeat business. If that art is not what the majority consumers wants or not to their liking then a company can change the art / product to keep consumers happy. At least that is what they SHOULD do if they want to get the most money.
Being an artist is good and all, but if your art is not selling because of how you choose to make it. your choice is simple. fix it to produce money or join the starving artist club.
This isn't how I remember it. Remember the whole Gal-X is OP discussions? Even after that, when new T5's were being released people always complained each time. Cryptic even responded that to make money new shinies needed to be better than previous shinies and it was inevitable.
I also think anyone believing the T5.5 ships were going to remain top tier was sadly mistaken. Cryptic did say they weren't going to do it deliberately. But they also hinted at it being inevitable, quoting the eventual release of fleet admirals as one unavoidable hurdle.
Their compromise (bear in mind I haven't seen in personally) seems to be to allow you to upgrade instead of simply paying for a new one. If true, be thankful they did something to lessen the blow. They could have done nothing.
There were always some balancing issues, but it was never the case before that Cryptic intentionally made new ships more powerful than ships people had already paid for.
Cryptic basically had a choice with how to handle new endgame ships introduced into the game:
One option was what they used to do before F2P, make a reasonable attempt to balance every new ship with every old ship. This model showed that they cared about the money that consumers were paying and would give them a product that was useful for the life of the game. This had the added benefit of fitting in better with the Trek experience, because it allowed us to fly whatever ship we wished to, whether in an STF, PvP, or PvE without worrying that our ship was not up to snuff in terms of the game mechanics. Heck, they even made sure that the new VA ships were balanced with the old ship.
The second option was to introduce ever new powerful ships, making players upgrade every few months in order to be able to maximize their STF/PvP abilities. This has the advantage of probably moving ships more quickly to fans who just want to win (as opposed to Trek fans who like the ship for canon reasons), but it has the disadvantage of showing that Cryptic/PWE cares more about generating new sales than customer loyalty. Regardless of ethics, this is probably not a very good long-term business strategy.
So no, I am not thankful that Cryptic will allow me to upgrade my ships for $15 instead of having to pay $60. I am just thankful that I have put no money into this game since F2P.
I still like the game and I am sure the developers worked very hard on Season 6, but I really dislike the way Cryptic has begun to treat its paying customers. If they want my money, they need to show me that they value the money I already spent on the game as much as they value the money of new customers.
Comments
This isn't how I remember it. Remember the whole Gal-X is OP discussions? Even after that, when new T5's were being released people always complained each time. Cryptic even responded that to make money new shinies needed to be better than previous shinies and it was inevitable.
I also think anyone believing the T5.5 ships were going to remain top tier was sadly mistaken. Cryptic did say they weren't going to do it deliberately. But they also hinted at it being inevitable, quoting the eventual release of fleet admirals as one unavoidable hurdle.
Their compromise (bear in mind I haven't seen in personally) seems to be to allow you to upgrade instead of simply paying for a new one. If true, be thankful they did something to lessen the blow. They could have done nothing.
Join Date: Sept 2008
"Holographic tissue paper for the holographic runny nose. Don't give them to patients." - The Doctor
the catch being:
'but pay to win'
or
'pay to keep playing' as opposed to feeding paying players and unfortunately Lifers are Not considered paying players, just suckers that trusted someone that business is conning people out of their money (F2P).
@OP:
So yeah I think PWI values their customers, equal to exactly as much money they think they can get from them. Though they obviously place no value for those that have already paid them money.
There is no lie. You can play all of the game for free. More so than pretty much any other F2P game out there.
There is a classic false expectation among many that they can (and should) get something for nothing, and that unless they are given everything for nothing, that the company involved is somehow lying or is otherwise immoral.
Sooo are you saying I'm a Liar or just Dumb?
BTW, a number of people value their time so investing their time in a game is how they are 'paying' for it.
Also, I'm a Lifer and even I can't play all the game for what I've paid, so your first sentence is clearly a Lie.{EDIT: or just Really biased and inaccurate due to your perspective of reality}
Furthermore, a company that betrays there agreements IS untrustworthy and lying (in their agreements) and immoral doesn't apply as it simply means 'does not follow a moral standard' without actually stating (or implying by context) which moral standard.
People going to a movie are investing their time too. Does that mean they should watch for free? I invest time living in an apartment, guess that should be free too?
What part of the game can't you play? You get a stipend so even though you might not get every ship for free immediately, over time you get every ship (and that is assuming that 'playing' equates to 'every aspect of play').
Playing a game does not equate to 'getting everything available in the game.' Only the winning team gets the pennant. In many cases, the worst teams actually get compensated with better draft picks that the best or middle teams don't get.
Update totally broken ? Yes the server had problems, but now, only the Foundry is missing and the new content is playable, and all day today I have not found a single game crashing bug. Yes the dialog UI is slow, and I get disconnects, this is because of the amount of people play now. Still to say that the update is totally broken ... come on.
If the game is bad, it's not because of these. But it isn't bad, I'd say it is even too good, creates addiction and the frustrated addicts than turn againts their masters. And whine. Anyway I am not trying to put well with the devs or anyone, but gladly help you see the speck of sawdust in your eyes, and the beams in mine are none of your business.
This reminds me of all the fights on the Bioware network over Mass Effect 3
Side one: Mass Effect 3 is Art... Leave mass effect 3 devs alone.
Side two: Mass Effect 3 is a product, and in a free market the consumer should rule. Leave consumers alone.
lol good times.
But to be fair. coming from a business stand point of view. while art is good and all. when your trying to sell your art in pieces. you have to produce a product that the consumer is willing to buy, and in this case buy over and over. I know video games are sometimes seen as art, but at the same time they are a product that they expect us to keep on buying as a repeat business. If that art is not what the majority consumers wants or not to their liking then a company can change the art / product to keep consumers happy. At least that is what they SHOULD do if they want to get the most money.
Being an artist is good and all, but if your art is not selling because of how you choose to make it. your choice is simple. fix it to produce money or join the starving artist club.
There were always some balancing issues, but it was never the case before that Cryptic intentionally made new ships more powerful than ships people had already paid for.
Cryptic basically had a choice with how to handle new endgame ships introduced into the game:
One option was what they used to do before F2P, make a reasonable attempt to balance every new ship with every old ship. This model showed that they cared about the money that consumers were paying and would give them a product that was useful for the life of the game. This had the added benefit of fitting in better with the Trek experience, because it allowed us to fly whatever ship we wished to, whether in an STF, PvP, or PvE without worrying that our ship was not up to snuff in terms of the game mechanics. Heck, they even made sure that the new VA ships were balanced with the old ship.
The second option was to introduce ever new powerful ships, making players upgrade every few months in order to be able to maximize their STF/PvP abilities. This has the advantage of probably moving ships more quickly to fans who just want to win (as opposed to Trek fans who like the ship for canon reasons), but it has the disadvantage of showing that Cryptic/PWE cares more about generating new sales than customer loyalty. Regardless of ethics, this is probably not a very good long-term business strategy.
So no, I am not thankful that Cryptic will allow me to upgrade my ships for $15 instead of having to pay $60. I am just thankful that I have put no money into this game since F2P.
I still like the game and I am sure the developers worked very hard on Season 6, but I really dislike the way Cryptic has begun to treat its paying customers. If they want my money, they need to show me that they value the money I already spent on the game as much as they value the money of new customers.