I look at it this way I have 2 LT acounts and what I saved from not buying the stuff I got on the C-Store is great.
The 2 copys I have are Game Stop saved me 800 points and Amazon saved me 480 points. I payed $300 for each LT account on top of buying the 2 copys of the game. I feel that I came out ahard on this.
Im a little unsure where you learnt maths!!
I spent £120 on a CO LT, £24 on one STO box set, £40 on a STO digital download.
Not including the services it would require 6720 cryptic points to buy every other item in the store (Fed & Klingon). I could buy 7000 points for £52.50. I personally dont see where you have come out ahead!!
I am pretty sure someone could have bought the basic game and all the items and saved money whilst having more perks than you as a LT member/Collector!
Words are cheap. When you start that next mmo I'll be sure everyone on the forums knows you will be shilling their exclusives a couple months after launch,
Dude, give it a rest already. Don't you have something better to do with your time?
I was going by what the offer on the website said. I didn't realize the community rep was touting it as exlusive on the forums.
I'm not really upset that they're offering it in the C-store. I just think they should advertised it more accurately.
That's the core of the issue. Not that the stuff is on CStore but that the advertising was deceptive. To anyone who's taken marketing classes in college, they know that it doesn't take a tinfoil hat to think that it may have been deliberately deceptive.
You read an "exclusive" story in the Sunday newspaper by Monday that story is no longer "exclusive" and every other newspaper is running it or a commentary on it.
I don't get upset by fluff or lack of it, cos thats all it is...fluff.
What upsets me more is that there seems to be more emphasis on fluff than fixing the problems with the game. That dev creating a new skin for this or that would be better employed squishing bugs or even better, making ground combat fun to play!
It is not stupid to try to see the best in people, or to have at least a modicum of faith in humanity. The word to use here is "idealistic." I will take my idealism to the grave. I may be cynical, but that's only because I'm an idealist.
So, you understand that you weren't sure about the wording in the ad, decided to be "idealistic" and take a leap of faith, gave the "deceptive ad" the benefit of the doubt without asking for any further details or information, and then felt burned because you didn't understand what was meant in the first place?
That's the core of the issue. Not that the stuff is on CStore but that the advertising was deceptive. To anyone who's taken marketing classes in college, they know that it doesn't take a tinfoil hat to think that it may have been deliberately deceptive.
I didn't find it deceptive at all. I read enough (astonishingly - the very same information you had access to) to understand that the 'exclusivity' of the items had to do with getting early access to them.
Bottom line. It's your opinion that the advertising was 'deliberately deceptive'. This is probably because:
a.) Either you didn't read enough information about what was being offered, or...
b.) You failed to comprehend the information, or...
c.) You disregarded information that did not jive with your preconceived notion of what the offer was.
In any of the above cases, it wasn't some other entity being 'deliberately deceptive'. It was you not being a good consumer.
So, you understand that you weren't sure about the wording in the ad, decided to be "idealistic" and take a leap of faith, gave the "deceptive ad" the benefit of the doubt without asking for any further details or information, and then felt burned because you didn't understand what was meant in the first place?
Again you've misunderstood what I have said. I am done trying to explain it to you. Either you're genuinely incapable of comprehending what I've said, genuinely incapable of reading what I've said outside of the haet tinted glasses of "call the waaaambulance", or you're just trolling. Any way it goes, I'm done.
If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry. But in that case, please try to read what I've said with an open mind.
In a potentially futile effort to help you understand. I understood what could happen. I chose to buy what I bought being fully cognoscente of it. Many people likely did not, however, understand the possibilities. I also understood that Cryptic is in the business to gain customers, not lose them. Customer loyalty is a fickle thing.
The caveat emptor nature of your attitude is not a valid response. Have you ever been "burned" by someone? I'm assuming you have, you'd have to live under a rock to not have that happen. Did you trust that person again? I would hope not. Now, does the fact that you trusted them, knowing that they could burn you, and you got burned mean that you're at fault? No, it does not. I am not in control of Cryptic's actions. The responsibility for Cryptic's actions are their own.
What is my responsibility, however, is not trusting them so readily in the future. Does not trusting them and even publicly saying that I don't trust them mean that I'm a crybaby? No. Being a crybaby would involve a much less civil tone than I've taken here. A crybaby would make demands. If you review everything I have said in this thread, I have made no demands, only laments.
Exactly. Blame the victim. Here's the practical consequence of victim blaming:
That girl that got TRIBBLE? Yeah, she had it coming to her. She shouldn't have been dressing that way. The people who bought those cyanide laced Excedrin back in the 80s? Totally their fault. It wasn't at all the store's fault for not making sure that people aren't tampering with the drugs and drug companies should not have been required to start placing tamper evident safety seals on everything. Oh and the people who invested in ZZZZ Best? Completely and totally their fault for being ripped off in a modified Ponzi scam. They should have known better than to invest in a company whose name was deliberately chosen to appear last in the yellow pages. It certainly was not Barry Minkow's fault for running the Ponzi scam in the first place.
And again you're misunderstanding what is being said to you. Those who did not fully understand what they were buying should place the blame for their purchase decision where it belongs - on themselves. It's utterly fascinating that people would shell out $200 soley for a sight-unseen in-game item for a game that didn't even exist yet without asking for more details first.
Yes, I have been burned before. I also took responsibility for my part in being burned. I don't run around blaming others for my mistakes. I also learn from mistakes, which is something others here might want to try.
Exactly. Blame the victim. Here's the practical consequence of victim blaming:
That girl that got TRIBBLE? Yeah, she had it coming to her. She shouldn't have been dressing that way. The people who bought those cyanide laced Excedrin back in the 80s? Totally their fault. It wasn't at all the store's fault for not making sure that people aren't tampering with the drugs and drug companies should not have been required to start placing tamper evident safety seals on everything. Oh and the people who invested in ZZZZ Best? Completely and totally their fault for being ripped off in a modified Ponzi scam. They should have known better than to invest in a company whose name was deliberately chosen to appear last in the yellow pages. It certainly was not Barry Minkow's fault for running the Ponzi scam in the first place.
Are you really trying to compare losing "exclusivity" of some in-game costume pieces to being TRIBBLE, poisoned, or financially ruined? REALLY?
Are you really trying to compare losing "exclusivity" of some in-game costume pieces to being TRIBBLE, poisoned, or financially ruined? REALLY?
Thank you for taking what I've said out of context. Thank you so much. I do very much appreciate it.
While you're hung up on severity of the example crimes listed, I'm busy taking the victim blaming aspect of caveat emptor to it's logical conclusion to show why caveat emptor is not a good position to maintain.
Yes, I have been burned before. I also took responsibility for my part in being burned. I don't run around blaming others for my mistakes. I also learn from mistakes, which is something others here might want to try.
But did you blame yourself and only yourself for every single time someone intentionally deceived you? You're probably wondering why it's "intentional deception". Well, aside from that's what they teach in Marketing 101, there were representatives on the forums who were answering questions people asked. One of the questions was whether the uniform would ever be obtainable any other way. The answer came back that no, the only way to get it would be to have a CO lifetime account.
Mind you this was not in direct contradiction to the find print at the time that I myself purchased the CO LTS. There was nothing indicating that it would eventually be resold in the CStore, though I did anticipate it. There were also the community reps confirming that it would be exclusive in the common usage without any clever omission of "at the moment" immediately following he word "exclusive".
So yes, it was in fact deceptive. Yet, since the "yes it is truely exclusive to the CO LTS" stuff was not in any kind of legally binding contract or on any official propaganda, they're probably legally in the clear. That does not, however, absolve them of the ensuing bad reputation.
Oh, the only thing I'm blaming Cryptic for is ruining my ability to trust their sales pitches anymore.
This is an interesting tactic: wait until everyone who has proven you wrong logs off, then make the claim again. Because, you know, if there's nobody around to show you that you're wrong, you must be right.
QED
Oh now that's a brilliant tactic: using appeal to ridicule, setting up a straw man, grossly misrepresenting the opposition, and claiming to have special knowledge of the opposition's motives all in one breath. Surely all of those fallacies together must amount to something.
By the way, posting 3 and 10 minutes after a post is not "waiting until everyone who has proven me wrong logs off, then making the claim again." They also have not proven me wrong because my only point the whole time has been that Cryptic has muddied their own reputation. We see this on the forums and time will tell about how long the reputation remains muddied as well as how much they continue to muddy it in the future.
If you want to see how muddy Cryptic's reputation is, just look them up on the BBB or google for reviews of their games and see how little enthusiasm the press has for Cryptic and their business tactics.
Actually, that's not my tactic at all. If you look at the time between the posts I'm responding to, I'm actually barely keeping up. Of course, I know that you're just trying to goad me. It's not going to work.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. So feel free to use the tactic that you falsely ascribe to me.
But did you blame yourself and only yourself for every single time someone intentionally deceived you? You're probably wondering why it's "intentional deception". Well, aside from that's what they teach in Marketing 101, there were representatives on the forums who were answering questions people asked. One of the questions was whether the uniform would ever be obtainable any other way. The answer came back that no, the only way to get it would be to have a CO lifetime account.
Mind you this was not in direct contradiction to the find print at the time that I myself purchased the CO LTS. There was nothing indicating that it would eventually be resold in the CStore, though I did anticipate it. There were also the community reps confirming that it would be exclusive in the common usage without any clever omission of "at the moment" immediately following he word "exclusive".
So yes, it was in fact deceptive. Yet, since the "yes it is truely exclusive to the CO LTS" stuff was not in any kind of legally binding contract or on any official propaganda, they're probably legally in the clear. That does not, however, absolve them of the ensuing bad reputation.
Oh, the only thing I'm blaming Cryptic for is ruining my ability to trust their sales pitches anymore.
Caveat Venditor.
Caveat Whogivesascrap. I swear, if something so TRIBBLE as this gets your panties in such a bunch you're driven to rant and rave about it for over 12 hours I really hate to think what real life does to you.
And again you're misunderstanding what is being said to you. Those who did not fully understand what they were buying should place the blame for their purchase decision where it belongs - on themselves. It's utterly fascinating that people would shell out $200 soley for a sight-unseen in-game item for a game that didn't even exist yet without asking for more details first.
Yes, I have been burned before. I also took responsibility for my part in being burned. I don't run around blaming others for my mistakes. I also learn from mistakes, which is something others here might want to try.
Wasn't learning from mistake exactly the point of the OP? Reread the title again.
Also stop going on about people not asking for more details, when ample evidence has been shown that people did exactly that and recieved responses on it. People often discount the sources (such as Daeke) in hindsight, but at the time, there was no evidence that he was doing his job incorrectly as Community manager.
Another contributing factor is one of built trust. I don't think many consumers would make such a purchase on a company they never dealt with. We had years of history with Cryptic in CoH that showed them as a company who's word you could trust, who valued the long term customer over the quick buck. If it were SOE, I think people wouldn't have given them the same faith.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it should without saying that if we had to make those purchases today, knowing what we do know of the company currently, many people would make entirely different choices. Because the consumer trust just isn't there anymore. People would make their purchases expecting the worst.
Did our blind optimism in Cryptic set us up for a fall? You may have a solid point there. We did let trust get in the way of our decision process. Which, from what I can see, is exactly the point Metallurgist was trying to make. We are indeed learning from our mistakes.
Caveat Whogivesascrap. I swear, if something so TRIBBLE as this gets your panties in such a bunch you're driven to rant and rave about it for over 12 hours I really hate to think what real life does to you.
Actually, I haven't been ranting and raving about it for so long. I hardly said anything past the, I believe it was second page. Then another 50 or so pages went by before I had much else to say. Please, get your facts straight before making accusations.
Oh now that's a brilliant tactic: using appeal to ridicule, setting up a straw man, grossly misrepresenting the opposition, and claiming to have special knowledge of the opposition's motives all in one breath. Surely all of those fallacies together must amount to something.
Actually, that's not my tactic at all. If you look at the time between the posts I'm responding to, I'm actually barely keeping up. Of course, I know that you're just trying to goad me. It's not going to work.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. So feel free to use the tactic that you falsely ascribe to me.
Actually, yes. You do not realize that there are times when the proper response to an argument is scorn and ridicule.
This is exactly the case with your argument. It comes down to this: you interpreted a marketing offer in the best possible way you could, and although the company fulfilled the terms of that offer completely, are upset that they did not share your interpretation.
It is ridiculous to assume that anyone, let alone a company, is obliged to fulfill your wishful thinking. So yes, your argument only deserves ridicule.
[haetful statements]. So yes, your argument only deserves ridicule.
No, sorry, but ridicule is always a red herring and is never a valid response to an argument as it contributes nothing to the point at hand. Also, what are you ridiculing exactly? Trust has been lost, you take issue with that? Too bad. Pretending like people have lost trust in Cryptic doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Did our blind optimism in Cryptic set us up for a fall? You may have a solid point there. We did let trust get in the way of our decision process. Which, from what I can see, is exactly the point Metallurgist was trying to make. We are indeed learning from our mistakes.
Thank you, that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Although what's amusing is the number of people who think I've "got my panties in a bunch", am "being a cry baby" and various other unhelpful things. I've made no demands. Only pointed out that today - technically yesterday now - customer loyalty has gone down hill a bit.
Anyway really off to bed this time. Hubby's going to kill me for going to bed at 10am. I was up all night trying to harvest rare metal clusters for my paladin on Everquest2. Gasp, yes I'm playing again. Despite SOE's fopaux with NGE, the exclusive collector's edition goggles are still exclusive to collector's edition. And... I've never been burned on EQ2... And... I'm considering reapplying to be a Guide there, used to be a Guide back in the day. It was a lot of fun.
I'm fairly new to MMOs, so I'm not as familiar with "the QQ," as my friends call it, but people need to calm down. The word "exclusive" in gaming especially refers to something time limited. It's true for console exclusive games that come out for other systems months later simply because game companies want to make money. They make money by selling things, and cordoning off part of their potential customer base doesn't make sense. These "exclusivity" deals are just as a sort of political partnership (like between game company X and Sony/Microsoft/Gamestop), or to promote consumers buying a product they might be more excited about at launch, when it will make the company the most money. Metallurgist seems to understand this, but still be disappointed that it happened "too soon." It is indeed pretty soon, but I don't understand how the level of disappointment scales with time.
The way I see it, my preorder got me certain costumes. I preordered because I wanted those bonuses. Paying extra for the collector's edition gets me other bonuses. The bonus you get is having something extra, not ensuring that someone else can't. I used to work at Gamestop (ugh), and often there would be pre-order bonuses, which in those days were usually just posters, shirts, or hats. In the case of an unpopular game that got few pre-orders, the extra swag would just be given away after release to buyers. Does it make sense for someone who pre-ordered, and got their t-shirt demand that someone who did not pre-order be denied a shirt to somehow artificially make the shirt they own more "rare" and "special"?
I think MMOs often have us think in terms of scarcity/value-- if everyone has purple gear, suddenly it's less valuable for everyone else who has it. Other people having Borg Tribbles or DS9 costumes doesn't mean you don't get to have them anymore, this isn't some crazy zero-sum game. It seems like sometimes MMO players get hung up on things like exclusivity, optional microtransactions, and the dreaded "lack of content." Ultimately, those things miss the point: either you are having fun playing the game, and it is worth your money, or it isn't, and you should quit. My experience is not changed one bit by other people having the option to buy the one thing I got with my pre-order, and so I have trouble understanding some of the indignation at being "bamboozled by crafty marketing lies".
Comments
I was going by what the offer on the website said. I didn't realize the community rep was touting it as exlusive on the forums.
I'm not really upset that they're offering it in the C-store. I just think they should advertised it more accurately.
Im a little unsure where you learnt maths!!
I spent £120 on a CO LT, £24 on one STO box set, £40 on a STO digital download.
Not including the services it would require 6720 cryptic points to buy every other item in the store (Fed & Klingon). I could buy 7000 points for £52.50. I personally dont see where you have come out ahead!!
I am pretty sure someone could have bought the basic game and all the items and saved money whilst having more perks than you as a LT member/Collector!
Dude, give it a rest already. Don't you have something better to do with your time?
That's the core of the issue. Not that the stuff is on CStore but that the advertising was deceptive. To anyone who's taken marketing classes in college, they know that it doesn't take a tinfoil hat to think that it may have been deliberately deceptive.
I don't get upset by fluff or lack of it, cos thats all it is...fluff.
What upsets me more is that there seems to be more emphasis on fluff than fixing the problems with the game. That dev creating a new skin for this or that would be better employed squishing bugs or even better, making ground combat fun to play!
So, you understand that you weren't sure about the wording in the ad, decided to be "idealistic" and take a leap of faith, gave the "deceptive ad" the benefit of the doubt without asking for any further details or information, and then felt burned because you didn't understand what was meant in the first place?
I didn't find it deceptive at all. I read enough (astonishingly - the very same information you had access to) to understand that the 'exclusivity' of the items had to do with getting early access to them.
Bottom line. It's your opinion that the advertising was 'deliberately deceptive'. This is probably because:
a.) Either you didn't read enough information about what was being offered, or...
b.) You failed to comprehend the information, or...
c.) You disregarded information that did not jive with your preconceived notion of what the offer was.
In any of the above cases, it wasn't some other entity being 'deliberately deceptive'. It was you not being a good consumer.
Caveat Emptor.
Again you've misunderstood what I have said. I am done trying to explain it to you. Either you're genuinely incapable of comprehending what I've said, genuinely incapable of reading what I've said outside of the haet tinted glasses of "call the waaaambulance", or you're just trolling. Any way it goes, I'm done.
If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry. But in that case, please try to read what I've said with an open mind.
In a potentially futile effort to help you understand. I understood what could happen. I chose to buy what I bought being fully cognoscente of it. Many people likely did not, however, understand the possibilities. I also understood that Cryptic is in the business to gain customers, not lose them. Customer loyalty is a fickle thing.
The caveat emptor nature of your attitude is not a valid response. Have you ever been "burned" by someone? I'm assuming you have, you'd have to live under a rock to not have that happen. Did you trust that person again? I would hope not. Now, does the fact that you trusted them, knowing that they could burn you, and you got burned mean that you're at fault? No, it does not. I am not in control of Cryptic's actions. The responsibility for Cryptic's actions are their own.
What is my responsibility, however, is not trusting them so readily in the future. Does not trusting them and even publicly saying that I don't trust them mean that I'm a crybaby? No. Being a crybaby would involve a much less civil tone than I've taken here. A crybaby would make demands. If you review everything I have said in this thread, I have made no demands, only laments.
Exactly. Blame the victim. Here's the practical consequence of victim blaming:
That girl that got TRIBBLE? Yeah, she had it coming to her. She shouldn't have been dressing that way. The people who bought those cyanide laced Excedrin back in the 80s? Totally their fault. It wasn't at all the store's fault for not making sure that people aren't tampering with the drugs and drug companies should not have been required to start placing tamper evident safety seals on everything. Oh and the people who invested in ZZZZ Best? Completely and totally their fault for being ripped off in a modified Ponzi scam. They should have known better than to invest in a company whose name was deliberately chosen to appear last in the yellow pages. It certainly was not Barry Minkow's fault for running the Ponzi scam in the first place.
And again you're misunderstanding what is being said to you. Those who did not fully understand what they were buying should place the blame for their purchase decision where it belongs - on themselves. It's utterly fascinating that people would shell out $200 soley for a sight-unseen in-game item for a game that didn't even exist yet without asking for more details first.
Yes, I have been burned before. I also took responsibility for my part in being burned. I don't run around blaming others for my mistakes. I also learn from mistakes, which is something others here might want to try.
Are you really trying to compare losing "exclusivity" of some in-game costume pieces to being TRIBBLE, poisoned, or financially ruined? REALLY?
Thank you for taking what I've said out of context. Thank you so much. I do very much appreciate it.
While you're hung up on severity of the example crimes listed, I'm busy taking the victim blaming aspect of caveat emptor to it's logical conclusion to show why caveat emptor is not a good position to maintain.
Caveat Venditor.
But did you blame yourself and only yourself for every single time someone intentionally deceived you? You're probably wondering why it's "intentional deception". Well, aside from that's what they teach in Marketing 101, there were representatives on the forums who were answering questions people asked. One of the questions was whether the uniform would ever be obtainable any other way. The answer came back that no, the only way to get it would be to have a CO lifetime account.
Mind you this was not in direct contradiction to the find print at the time that I myself purchased the CO LTS. There was nothing indicating that it would eventually be resold in the CStore, though I did anticipate it. There were also the community reps confirming that it would be exclusive in the common usage without any clever omission of "at the moment" immediately following he word "exclusive".
So yes, it was in fact deceptive. Yet, since the "yes it is truely exclusive to the CO LTS" stuff was not in any kind of legally binding contract or on any official propaganda, they're probably legally in the clear. That does not, however, absolve them of the ensuing bad reputation.
Oh, the only thing I'm blaming Cryptic for is ruining my ability to trust their sales pitches anymore.
Caveat Venditor.
Oh now that's a brilliant tactic: using appeal to ridicule, setting up a straw man, grossly misrepresenting the opposition, and claiming to have special knowledge of the opposition's motives all in one breath. Surely all of those fallacies together must amount to something.
By the way, posting 3 and 10 minutes after a post is not "waiting until everyone who has proven me wrong logs off, then making the claim again." They also have not proven me wrong because my only point the whole time has been that Cryptic has muddied their own reputation. We see this on the forums and time will tell about how long the reputation remains muddied as well as how much they continue to muddy it in the future.
If you want to see how muddy Cryptic's reputation is, just look them up on the BBB or google for reviews of their games and see how little enthusiasm the press has for Cryptic and their business tactics.
Actually, that's not my tactic at all. If you look at the time between the posts I'm responding to, I'm actually barely keeping up. Of course, I know that you're just trying to goad me. It's not going to work.
Anyway, I'm off to bed. So feel free to use the tactic that you falsely ascribe to me.
Caveat Whogivesascrap. I swear, if something so TRIBBLE as this gets your panties in such a bunch you're driven to rant and rave about it for over 12 hours I really hate to think what real life does to you.
Wasn't learning from mistake exactly the point of the OP? Reread the title again.
Also stop going on about people not asking for more details, when ample evidence has been shown that people did exactly that and recieved responses on it. People often discount the sources (such as Daeke) in hindsight, but at the time, there was no evidence that he was doing his job incorrectly as Community manager.
Another contributing factor is one of built trust. I don't think many consumers would make such a purchase on a company they never dealt with. We had years of history with Cryptic in CoH that showed them as a company who's word you could trust, who valued the long term customer over the quick buck. If it were SOE, I think people wouldn't have given them the same faith.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and it should without saying that if we had to make those purchases today, knowing what we do know of the company currently, many people would make entirely different choices. Because the consumer trust just isn't there anymore. People would make their purchases expecting the worst.
Did our blind optimism in Cryptic set us up for a fall? You may have a solid point there. We did let trust get in the way of our decision process. Which, from what I can see, is exactly the point Metallurgist was trying to make. We are indeed learning from our mistakes.
Actually, I haven't been ranting and raving about it for so long. I hardly said anything past the, I believe it was second page. Then another 50 or so pages went by before I had much else to say. Please, get your facts straight before making accusations.
Wait, you can buy the Connie in the C-Store now?!?!?
Actually, yes. You do not realize that there are times when the proper response to an argument is scorn and ridicule.
This is exactly the case with your argument. It comes down to this: you interpreted a marketing offer in the best possible way you could, and although the company fulfilled the terms of that offer completely, are upset that they did not share your interpretation.
It is ridiculous to assume that anyone, let alone a company, is obliged to fulfill your wishful thinking. So yes, your argument only deserves ridicule.
Yep. Comes as an "item", which when you equip it, gives you a free TOS Connie; essentially, you get two ships!
No, sorry, but ridicule is always a red herring and is never a valid response to an argument as it contributes nothing to the point at hand. Also, what are you ridiculing exactly? Trust has been lost, you take issue with that? Too bad. Pretending like people have lost trust in Cryptic doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Thank you, that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying. Although what's amusing is the number of people who think I've "got my panties in a bunch", am "being a cry baby" and various other unhelpful things. I've made no demands. Only pointed out that today - technically yesterday now - customer loyalty has gone down hill a bit.
Anyway really off to bed this time. Hubby's going to kill me for going to bed at 10am. I was up all night trying to harvest rare metal clusters for my paladin on Everquest2. Gasp, yes I'm playing again. Despite SOE's fopaux with NGE, the exclusive collector's edition goggles are still exclusive to collector's edition. And... I've never been burned on EQ2... And... I'm considering reapplying to be a Guide there, used to be a Guide back in the day. It was a lot of fun.
anyway, nite nite.
Oh please. WOW has the most by far.
The way I see it, my preorder got me certain costumes. I preordered because I wanted those bonuses. Paying extra for the collector's edition gets me other bonuses. The bonus you get is having something extra, not ensuring that someone else can't. I used to work at Gamestop (ugh), and often there would be pre-order bonuses, which in those days were usually just posters, shirts, or hats. In the case of an unpopular game that got few pre-orders, the extra swag would just be given away after release to buyers. Does it make sense for someone who pre-ordered, and got their t-shirt demand that someone who did not pre-order be denied a shirt to somehow artificially make the shirt they own more "rare" and "special"?
I think MMOs often have us think in terms of scarcity/value-- if everyone has purple gear, suddenly it's less valuable for everyone else who has it. Other people having Borg Tribbles or DS9 costumes doesn't mean you don't get to have them anymore, this isn't some crazy zero-sum game. It seems like sometimes MMO players get hung up on things like exclusivity, optional microtransactions, and the dreaded "lack of content." Ultimately, those things miss the point: either you are having fun playing the game, and it is worth your money, or it isn't, and you should quit. My experience is not changed one bit by other people having the option to buy the one thing I got with my pre-order, and so I have trouble understanding some of the indignation at being "bamboozled by crafty marketing lies".