to go back to the original point they had however many weeks of talk about the c-store and the exclusives before they did it, and they can browse any of about 15 threads since it happened. i dont think they are in short supply of feedback here
I'll be honest with you here. Despite my own personal feelings about the issue, this is nowhere near as crazy as salesgate was. I've never seen anything as out of control as that one.
Most of the objectors on this one are compartively civil. I'm fairly certain no one attempted to edit Cryptic's wikipedia entry or BBB rating over this. Well if they did, at least they were pretty quiet about it.
Ya it was rather chaotic and that wiki thing was down right stupid. Agree it isn't that bad but it does make one think back.
to go back to the original point they had however many weeks of talk about the c-store and the exclusives before they did it, and they can browse any of about 15 threads since it happened. i dont think they are in short supply of feedback here
I don't think this forum has ever been shy about feedback.
That is just an excuse. And you're dealing with business ethics here, which Cryptic seriously lacks. There's a reason why people like Zinc and Jack are "representing" Cryptic to the public. It is Cryptic's ethical obligation to correct slip-ups from their representatives. When the company won't back what is presented to the public, you better darn well believe that the public will be POed. If that doesn't happen, any sleazy two-bit company can hide behind the excuse that their representatives made a mistake that their customers will pay for.
that is not an excuse that is a fact. sometime employees TRIBBLE up. sometimes those TRIBBLE ups can be huge, so huge that a company mite have to bite the bullet, and tick off some people. this could be one of those times. that is part of the reason why devs should not be allowed to talk except for a select few of them.
In regards to this thread ... feedback is feedback. I may not agree with your stance on the issue, but you are very much welcome to continue to ask Cryptic the questions you are asking. And maybe they'll respond. Maybe they'll even come up with some sort of olive branch to extend to the customers they made unhappy with this move.
The only way to find out is to keep pressing them for things.
The one danger is ... forum mods might start moving or combining or locking threads they feel are redundant.
That happens a lot around here. So just be prepared.
But overall ... if this feedback is something really important to you ... keep at it. I think, even with all of the emotional backlash to this or other past decisions they've made ... the company itself shows they are far more willing to listen to and react to their fans/customers desires.
I base this off of my experiences with other gaming companies. I think Cryptic, even when they make decisions that anger their players ... are more flexible and communicate more than ... say ... Blizzard or Sony.
So even if I disagree completely with your position ... I still wish you luck in giving your feedback and on your quest for some sort of recognition or olive branch or "compensation" for the frustration they caused you.
I'm going to be honest with you blackavaar. as a person who grew up around business. my parents have had a few small business. some of them approaching large business.
one thing you have to understand about business. if it is not said by the boss / owner of the business, then it should be taken with a grain of salt. why? well you see in this case, the dev was not the one in charge ( to my knowledge, now if it was zinc, jack, or one of the atari CEOs then you would have reason to say they betrayed you ) that dev was not in the know, because that dev is not the person making the decision. he was speaking when the should of not been speaking. the only person who could of said that, and it would be betrayal, would be Zinc, Jack, or as I said one of the Atari CEOs. why, because they are the ones who decide what happen not the normal devs.
in my opinion you were not betrayed, but you are a victim of an employee speaking out on stuff that he should not be speaking about.
also thank you for finishing your color guide.
You keep talking about the post by Daeke as if he was the only dev that ever said that. He was not. That's just the only one that anyone can still find. Several devs responded to different posts on the subject and all of them said the same thing he did, as did the STO devs that attended the Meet & Greet at the ST Convention. It wasn't one employee, it was the company's standard reply as parroted by all of their employees.
And you're welcome. I hope everyone continues to use and enjoy it, even if I am not going to be here to see it.
Most of the objectors on this one are compartively civil. I'm fairly certain no one attempted to edit Cryptic's wikipedia entry or BBB rating over this. Well if they did, at least they were pretty quiet about it.
I tried to ignore the entire debacle as it all seemed so ridiculous. Spent no time on the forums and cut off Zone chat when I played while it was going on. Got flamed enough for being vocally anti-Skillcap in beta that I didn't really feel the need to sit through more bile and vitriol. I take it I missed something entertaining there...?
Both outcomes leaves people complaining on the forums. And really this outcome has fewer, because right now all sorts of (ex)exclusivers are complaining, and they might be complaining in a month, in two months, in 6 months, but eventually, all will realize that no amount of complaining will put the cat back into the bag.
That's arguing from a fallacy. You're assuming that there are only two outcomes when many have been suggesting alternatives and compromises, such as similar but unique items. In those suggestions, pre-order people still get their exclusives, and new players get something interesting and similar, but not identical.
Arguing that everyone should have something that was meant to be unique is just the "I want it!" syndrome. I don't have ToS Mirror Universe outfits because I did not do the lifetime CO sub, and I'm perfectly comfortable in letting those who sprung for it keep it as something unique that I'll never have. But then again, that brings up old arguments. Bottom line is, there were alternatives and compromises available. Yet Cryptic followed the easy money like they've always done.
If you can count on Cryptic for anything, it's that they'll follow the path of least resistance for obtaining more profit, regardless of how it may TRIBBLE over their subscribers.
I tried to ignore the entire debacle as it all seemed so ridiculous. Spent no time on the forums and cut off Zone chat when I played while it was going on. Got flamed enough for being vocally anti-Skillcap in beta that I didn't really feel the need to sit through more bile and vitriol. I take it I missed something entertaining there...?
If you thought the skill cap debate was bad, should have been here for sale gate. Best not to really go into, but needless to say it went viral fast. Its probably a good thing you missed it.
That's arguing from a fallacy. You're assuming that there are only two outcomes when many have been suggesting alternatives and compromises, such as similar but unique items. In those suggestions, pre-order people still get their exclusives, and new players get something interesting and similar, but not identical.
Arguing that everyone should have something that was meant to be unique is just the "I want it!" syndrome. I don't have ToS Mirror Universe outfits because I did not do the lifetime CO sub, and I'm perfectly comfortable in letting those who sprung for it keep it as something unique that I'll never have. But then again, that brings up old arguments. Bottom line is, there were alternatives and compromises available. Yet Cryptic followed the easy money like they've always done.
If you can count on Cryptic for anything, it's that they'll follow the path of least resistance for obtaining more profit, regardless of how it may TRIBBLE over their subscribers.
If the majority of the people wanted the items then why not let them have them. (Full disclosure: I bought 7 copies for the items but not the COLTS)
Now, as far as the compromises, I must say that I read about the compromises and was fine with them as long as it was compensation for the people based on the principle of the situation. IF it was just based because people wanted to have these items and were unhappy because they were no longer special then no I wasn't for that.
In any case, the whole thing isn't or wasn't black and white.
You keep talking about the post by Daeke as if he was the only dev that ever said that. He was not. Several devs responded to different posts on the subject and all of them said the same thing he did, as did the STO devs that attended the Meet & Greet at the ST Convention. It wasn't one employee, it was the company's standard reply as parroted by all of their employees.
And you're welcome. I hope everyone continues to use and enjoy it, even if I am not going to be here to see it.
:cool:
in that case I would agree, you have a right to be mad. as for betrayed, I still would not go that far. you have to remember that cryptic is not a charity that are out to make money. the problem with that is the fact that stuff changes. sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. this isn't anything new, and for all we know, this could of been atari's idea. ( the true driving force behind all the bad decisions )
personally I wouldn't quit over this. ( and yes nearly all of my items are now for sale on the c-store ) I don't blame you for wanting to leave the forums ( I've been trying for months ) but if you like the game, and like star trek. why quit. you don't have to spend money on the C-store, and you have a lifetime sub, so you can come and go as you please.
also i would say you could write a letter to one of head devs, but that mite get me in trouble.
no matter what you decide . you can always come back at anytime, and you are welcome aboard my ship no matter what.
If the majority of the people wanted the items then why not let them have them. (Full disclosure: I bought 7 copies for the items but not the COLTS)
The majority of people might want every item you have on your characters. Why not let them have it? The majority wants a level-capped RA5. Why not let them have it instead of being forced to level-up themselves? I assume you see problem in logic with that argument?
In any case, the whole thing isn't or wasn't black and white.
I agree. But "I want it" is not a valid argument. "I want it" because it would help grow the STO community, better the game, etc., etc. would be a better argument but that doesn't applies to trinkets in a C-Store.
Arguing that everyone should have something that was meant to be unique is just the "I want it!" syndrome.
Conversely arguing that only a small group of people should have access eternally to something iconic that the pre-order FAQ establishes was likely a timed deal could just as easily be described as the "I don't want you to have it!" syndrome.
The road of dismissing the other's argument as simple desire and not a concrete objective argument free from bias runs both ways.
I agree. But "I want it" is not a valid argument. "I want it" because it would help grow the STO community, better the game, etc., etc. would be a better argument but that doesn't applies to trinkets in a C-Store.
I would argue that disseminating these items, on the whole, could make the game better, if you define a better Star Trek game as one that it thematically more like Star Trek, and could expand the community. Many of these items are very much iconic, they are "Star Trek." By expanding the pool of people who have them, you expand how "Trek" the game is in the eyes of it's population, thus increasing the quality in the eyes of many Star Trek fans looking for a Star Trek game. This might very well draw in late adopters who, for instance, are mostly a fans of The Next Generation, who might be otherwise put off by being unable to use the uniform they sees as their vision of Star Trek.
These trinkets make a difference to that end, all while you dismiss them as trinkets. Atmosphere can be important. Games like BioShock and Alan Wake try to sell themselves almost exclusively on it, and more familiar Trek-canon stuff, makes for a more recognizably Trek atmosphere.
If you thought the skill cap debate was bad, should have been here for sale gate. Best not to really go into, but needless to say it went viral fast. Its probably a good thing you missed it.
Oh, I was there for the beginning of it. Enough to know that I didn't want to be a part of it. Just curious as to the more inane shenanigans that I might have missed.
The majority of people might want every item you have on your characters. Why not let them have it? The majority wants a level-capped RA5. Why not let them have it instead of being forced to level-up themselves? I assume you see problem in logic with that argument?
Item gathering and levelling your character are game mechanics and changing them would break all of the content up to endgame. The other is a bunch of shiny bells and whistles (trinkets by your own estimation) that don't really effect game play to any appreciable degree, or if they do should never have been included for that reason.
Sorry, but your analogy is a bad one and does not apply. I'll let you decide which of these are the apples, and which are the oranges.
Bonus Items Into the C-Store thread was closed and unstickied.
It's funny how they say "we're evaluating the feedback" and then go ahead and release the patch with their C-Store Mega Update before they could possibly finish evaluating everything said. And then the thread is just summarily closed and unstickied in the hopes that it would be buried in the confusion?
We're not morons, Cryptic. And we have long memories. This betrayal will not be forgotten and there is nothing you can do to redeem yourselves.
And btw, Mega update? Mega? Seriously? You made the Caitians and changed a few colors on Bird of Prey Bridge Pack I in order to make II. Without the exclusive items that were already in the game there is nothing Mega about that update. In fact, even with them, there is nothing Mega about it. You're pumping up the idjits like an announcer at a monster truck rally and you don't have anything half as kool.
Do not bother trolling or flaming this post. I will not respond to your ire.
:cool:
Here is the bottom line. Cryptic is gonna do whatever they think will bring in money. They have shown they couldn't care less about current subscribers. Especially lifers. Already got our money after all.
I have a lifetime thing and I am happy they put some of the cool items up for people. If people want to pay real money and help fund further game development I am all for it. Lets face it if anyone spent 300 bucks just to get a couple items thats just stupid. You buy a lifetime to get a lifetime subscription not for a costume or something.
I for one could care less hell offer playable borg too might as well.
Conversely arguing that only a small group of people should have access eternally to something iconic that the pre-order FAQ establishes was likely a timed deal could just as easily be described as the "I don't want you to have it!" syndrome.
The road of dismissing the other's argument as simple desire and not a concrete objective argument free from bias runs both ways.
EVE did exclusives. WoW did it. And they're exponentially more successful than STO. You do the math. Cryptic promised "exclusive" items. Not "exclusive only for a few months". The promise is broken. And I could really care less whether someone else gets a Red Matter Capacitor or not since those pre-order don't have much in-game value. It's still the principle of what Cryptic did, even in spite of players saying "oh, gimme gimme!".
Cryptic promised "exclusive" items. Not "exclusive only for a few months". The promise is broken.
On this point, I disagree. The items were exclusive. They were exclusive for a time. They never promised they would never be available on the c-store even going so far as putting it in the FAQ after launch. I realize that some people did not understand that they were only going to be exclusive for a time. However many other industries use this same marketing tactic.
Call it unethical or anti consumer or what have you if you need to however it doesn't change the fact it is commonly used, probably due to the fact it works and is not illegal. The point is people were not intentionally misled. Nor were they lied to nor were they promised anything.
This discussion has almost been beat to death honestly. In any case, the EULA/TOS says they can do it and the FAQ said they were going to do it so they did it. Some may consider that bad business or a bad way to do business. Ok, I can see that however, you can't say you were lied to or mislead when you (in general) have to take a measure of personal responsibility in the matter.
On this point, I disagree. The items were exclusive. They were exclusive for a time. They never promised they would never be available on the c-store even going so far as putting it in the FAQ after launch. I realize that some people did not understand that they were only going to be exclusive for a time. However many other industries use this same marketing tactic.
When Blizzard calls something "exclusive" they mean it. There are items that are still "exclusive" and will never be available again. It's called living up to you marketing. And people respect Blizzard for that. And if anything in the future is offered as an "exclusive" bonus/promo item for something, people can trust Blizzard that's what it really means.
As for Cryptic, well, no one will ever trust their "deals" or any other marketing cr@p that comes from them again. It will all be just hot air. Who's to say they won't be giving the C-Store items away for free at a later date when they're begging subscribers to stick around?
When Blizzard calls something "exclusive" they mean it. There are items that are still "exclusive" and will never be available again. It's called living up to you marketing. And people respect Blizzard for that. And if anything in the future is offered as an "exclusive" bonus/promo item for something, people can trust Blizzard that's what it really means.
As for Cryptic, well, no one will ever trust their "deals" or any other marketing cr@p that comes from them again. It will all be just hot air. Who's to say they won't be giving the C-Store items away for free at a later date when they're begging subscribers to stick around?
You still basically dodged what I was saying. Actually no Blizzard has done the same thing. Not to the extent of Cryptic but they have done. Case in point. The Panda bear in the little hat. (Don't remember his name) You can get him in the Blizzard equivalent of the c-store or the Blizz store or what ever that thing is called.
The point is, it is common practice in almost all industries. It is a marketing ploy. Same with limited time offer. I can't recall how many times I have seen limited time offer and it be offered again for the same price, this time as regular. So it does happen. It isn't illegal nor are people lied to or miss led.
Like I said, if you want to make the claim it is just bad business then sure I can go with that but I am not so sure how bad it can be if it works and they keep doing it. However for the sake of argument I will be willing to say that I can see the point of claiming it is just all around bad ju ju.
On this point, I disagree. The items were exclusive. They were exclusive for a time. They never promised they would never be available on the c-store even going so far as putting it in the FAQ after launch. I realize that some people did not understand that they were only going to be exclusive for a time. However many other industries use this same marketing tactic.
Call it unethical or anti consumer or what have you if you need to however it doesn't change the fact it is commonly used, probably due to the fact it works and is not illegal. The point is people were not intentionally misled. Nor were they lied to nor were they promised anything.
This discussion has almost been beat to death honestly. In any case, the EULA/TOS says they can do it and the FAQ said they were going to do it so they did it. Some may consider that bad business or a bad way to do business. Ok, I can see that however, you can't say you were lied to or mislead when you (in general) have to take a measure of personal responsibility in the matter.
And to be as personally responsible as possible in one's future interactions with the company, one should never, ever, put any degree of trust or faith in anything anyone associated with Cryptic says, suggests, or implies, whether implicitly or indirectly, in any manner, shape, or form, ever again.
Pretty much what it boils down to, huh.
"And I will continue to remind you that nothing said before launch, or even now, is a "promise" and to continue to construe it as such is just playing to human nature." -- coderanger
ex·clu·sive
Pronunciation: \iks-ˈklü-siv, -ziv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1515
1 a : excluding or having power to exclude b : limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group
2 a : excluding others from participation b : snobbishly aloof
3 a : accepting or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage (as of the upper class) b : stylish, fashionable c : restricted in distribution, use, or appeal because of expense
4 a : single, sole <exclusive jurisdiction> b : whole, undivided <his exclusive attention>
ex·clu·sive·ly adverb
ex·clu·sive·ness noun
unique
Pronunciation: \yu̇-ˈnēk\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Latin unicus, from unus one more at one
Date: 1602
1 : being the only one : sole <his unique concern was his own comfort> <I can't walk away with a unique copy. Suppose I lost it? Kingsley Amis> <the unique factorization of a number into prime factors>
2 a : being without a like or equal : unequaled <could stare at the flames, each one new, violent, unique Robert Coover> b : distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1 <this is not a condition unique to California Ronald Reagan>
3 : unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch J. D. Salinger>
synonyms see strange
unique·ly adverb
unique·ness noun
Neither of those definitions says anything about limited time.
Forget it. I don't care any more.
That's arguing from a fallacy. You're assuming that there are only two outcomes when many have been suggesting alternatives and compromises, such as similar but unique items. In those suggestions, pre-order people still get their exclusives, and new players get something interesting and similar, but not identical.
Arguing that everyone should have something that was meant to be unique is just the "I want it!" syndrome. I don't have ToS Mirror Universe outfits because I did not do the lifetime CO sub, and I'm perfectly comfortable in letting those who sprung for it keep it as something unique that I'll never have. But then again, that brings up old arguments. Bottom line is, there were alternatives and compromises available. Yet Cryptic followed the easy money like they've always done.
If you can count on Cryptic for anything, it's that they'll follow the path of least resistance for obtaining more profit, regardless of how it may TRIBBLE over their subscribers.
How does a compromise for a DS9 or TNG movie or Wrath of Khan uniform look like?
How does a compromise for Borg BO look like?
How does a compromise for TOS Enterprise look like?
Sure, they could create an Undine BO or something like that. But guess what - it's still not a Borg. People will keep asking for it.
Maybe you can give them the NX-Enterprise. That would be neat. But it's not the TOS Enterprise. People will keep asking for it.
There aren't compromises of that kind.
The only compromise I can think of would involve giving the people with such pre-order gifts some bonus cryptic points and maybe a unique title ("I bought this game 5 times and all I got was this lousy title" perhaps?). Maybe they can even get another "time-limited exclusive".
ex·clu·sive
Pronunciation: \iks-ˈklü-siv, -ziv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1515 1 a : excluding or having power to exclude b : limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group
2 a : excluding others from participation b : snobbishly aloof
3 a : accepting or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage (as of the upper class) b : stylish, fashionable c : restricted in distribution, use, or appeal because of expense
4 a : single, sole <exclusive jurisdiction> b : whole, undivided <his exclusive attention>
ex·clu·sive·ly adverb
ex·clu·sive·ness noun
unique
Pronunciation: \yu̇-ˈnēk\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Latin unicus, from unus one more at one
Date: 1602
1 : being the only one : sole <his unique concern was his own comfort> <I can't walk away with a unique copy. Suppose I lost it? Kingsley Amis> <the unique factorization of a number into prime factors>
2 a : being without a like or equal : unequaled <could stare at the flames, each one new, violent, unique Robert Coover> b : distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1 <this is not a condition unique to California Ronald Reagan>
3 : unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch J. D. Salinger>
synonyms see strange
unique·ly adverb
unique·ness noun
Neither of those definitions says anything about limited time.
Forget it. I don't care any more.
:cool:
(Red) Exclusive definition #1 tells us that items can be restricted to a person or group.
(Red) Unique definition #1 tells us the strictest since only applies when their is only one (sole) and says nothing about exclusive otherwise.
(Green) Explains that Unique is : distinctively characteristic. ( this definition applies when the first of one or sole does not apply) This definition applies due to the large amount of the copies available of each single item , and would not apply if only (one) were in of each item was available in existence.
Vendor exclusives are still offered by vendors, it may be Cryptic's wasy of phasing out vendor exclusives over time by offering then in the C- Store
In the Case of the MU set there was one post that said, "Lifetime subscribers will also receive an exclusive Mirror Universe costume set for Star Trek Online." Rekhan the marketing guy, stated that this was an exclusive bundling offer to the STO community and that was the correction that explained the only time exclusive and MU set were ever placed together and was never in the Champions post on the Champions forum. http://forums.champions-online.com/announcement.php?f=2&a=7 (no mention of the word exclusive in reference with the MU set) and were named as incentives in the STO posts.
Being that I have $500.00 invested in Cryptic and this title I feel in no way "screwed" over. We all got what we paid for with several "Unique" incentives. This is a Epic Win for the current and future community members for they will be able to enjoy the "unique" "Trek" experience!
Comments
Yeah it was extremely shameful behavior.
LOL I understand EXACTLY where you are coming from.
Ya it was rather chaotic and that wiki thing was down right stupid. Agree it isn't that bad but it does make one think back.
I don't think this forum has ever been shy about feedback.
that is not an excuse that is a fact. sometime employees TRIBBLE up. sometimes those TRIBBLE ups can be huge, so huge that a company mite have to bite the bullet, and tick off some people. this could be one of those times. that is part of the reason why devs should not be allowed to talk except for a select few of them.
Thank you, Chum.
You keep talking about the post by Daeke as if he was the only dev that ever said that. He was not. That's just the only one that anyone can still find. Several devs responded to different posts on the subject and all of them said the same thing he did, as did the STO devs that attended the Meet & Greet at the ST Convention. It wasn't one employee, it was the company's standard reply as parroted by all of their employees.
And you're welcome. I hope everyone continues to use and enjoy it, even if I am not going to be here to see it.
:cool:
I tried to ignore the entire debacle as it all seemed so ridiculous. Spent no time on the forums and cut off Zone chat when I played while it was going on. Got flamed enough for being vocally anti-Skillcap in beta that I didn't really feel the need to sit through more bile and vitriol. I take it I missed something entertaining there...?
That's arguing from a fallacy. You're assuming that there are only two outcomes when many have been suggesting alternatives and compromises, such as similar but unique items. In those suggestions, pre-order people still get their exclusives, and new players get something interesting and similar, but not identical.
Arguing that everyone should have something that was meant to be unique is just the "I want it!" syndrome. I don't have ToS Mirror Universe outfits because I did not do the lifetime CO sub, and I'm perfectly comfortable in letting those who sprung for it keep it as something unique that I'll never have. But then again, that brings up old arguments. Bottom line is, there were alternatives and compromises available. Yet Cryptic followed the easy money like they've always done.
If you can count on Cryptic for anything, it's that they'll follow the path of least resistance for obtaining more profit, regardless of how it may TRIBBLE over their subscribers.
If you thought the skill cap debate was bad, should have been here for sale gate. Best not to really go into, but needless to say it went viral fast. Its probably a good thing you missed it.
I saw this and thought of you.
http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/doughnut-bread-pudding/Detail.aspx
Hehe, that's blasphemy! Donuts shall not be pudding!
If the majority of the people wanted the items then why not let them have them. (Full disclosure: I bought 7 copies for the items but not the COLTS)
Now, as far as the compromises, I must say that I read about the compromises and was fine with them as long as it was compensation for the people based on the principle of the situation. IF it was just based because people wanted to have these items and were unhappy because they were no longer special then no I wasn't for that.
In any case, the whole thing isn't or wasn't black and white.
CBAccessGate had sharp, pointy, prickly things and wasn't fun at all. We would have died for even the thought of donuts then: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=29485
That is what you took from that?
Look at the ingredients. 4 STALE doughnuts.
in that case I would agree, you have a right to be mad. as for betrayed, I still would not go that far. you have to remember that cryptic is not a charity that are out to make money. the problem with that is the fact that stuff changes. sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worst. this isn't anything new, and for all we know, this could of been atari's idea. ( the true driving force behind all the bad decisions )
personally I wouldn't quit over this. ( and yes nearly all of my items are now for sale on the c-store ) I don't blame you for wanting to leave the forums ( I've been trying for months ) but if you like the game, and like star trek. why quit. you don't have to spend money on the C-store, and you have a lifetime sub, so you can come and go as you please.
also i would say you could write a letter to one of head devs, but that mite get me in trouble.
no matter what you decide . you can always come back at anytime, and you are welcome aboard my ship no matter what.
The majority of people might want every item you have on your characters. Why not let them have it? The majority wants a level-capped RA5. Why not let them have it instead of being forced to level-up themselves? I assume you see problem in logic with that argument?
I agree. But "I want it" is not a valid argument. "I want it" because it would help grow the STO community, better the game, etc., etc. would be a better argument but that doesn't applies to trinkets in a C-Store.
Conversely arguing that only a small group of people should have access eternally to something iconic that the pre-order FAQ establishes was likely a timed deal could just as easily be described as the "I don't want you to have it!" syndrome.
The road of dismissing the other's argument as simple desire and not a concrete objective argument free from bias runs both ways.
I would argue that disseminating these items, on the whole, could make the game better, if you define a better Star Trek game as one that it thematically more like Star Trek, and could expand the community. Many of these items are very much iconic, they are "Star Trek." By expanding the pool of people who have them, you expand how "Trek" the game is in the eyes of it's population, thus increasing the quality in the eyes of many Star Trek fans looking for a Star Trek game. This might very well draw in late adopters who, for instance, are mostly a fans of The Next Generation, who might be otherwise put off by being unable to use the uniform they sees as their vision of Star Trek.
These trinkets make a difference to that end, all while you dismiss them as trinkets. Atmosphere can be important. Games like BioShock and Alan Wake try to sell themselves almost exclusively on it, and more familiar Trek-canon stuff, makes for a more recognizably Trek atmosphere.
Oh, I was there for the beginning of it. Enough to know that I didn't want to be a part of it. Just curious as to the more inane shenanigans that I might have missed.
Item gathering and levelling your character are game mechanics and changing them would break all of the content up to endgame. The other is a bunch of shiny bells and whistles (trinkets by your own estimation) that don't really effect game play to any appreciable degree, or if they do should never have been included for that reason.
Sorry, but your analogy is a bad one and does not apply. I'll let you decide which of these are the apples, and which are the oranges.
Here is the bottom line. Cryptic is gonna do whatever they think will bring in money. They have shown they couldn't care less about current subscribers. Especially lifers. Already got our money after all.
I for one could care less hell offer playable borg too might as well.
My analogy is bad? I was talking about the game, items, etc. No analogy. Perhaps you misread that?
...
EVE did exclusives. WoW did it. And they're exponentially more successful than STO. You do the math. Cryptic promised "exclusive" items. Not "exclusive only for a few months". The promise is broken. And I could really care less whether someone else gets a Red Matter Capacitor or not since those pre-order don't have much in-game value. It's still the principle of what Cryptic did, even in spite of players saying "oh, gimme gimme!".
On this point, I disagree. The items were exclusive. They were exclusive for a time. They never promised they would never be available on the c-store even going so far as putting it in the FAQ after launch. I realize that some people did not understand that they were only going to be exclusive for a time. However many other industries use this same marketing tactic.
Call it unethical or anti consumer or what have you if you need to however it doesn't change the fact it is commonly used, probably due to the fact it works and is not illegal. The point is people were not intentionally misled. Nor were they lied to nor were they promised anything.
This discussion has almost been beat to death honestly. In any case, the EULA/TOS says they can do it and the FAQ said they were going to do it so they did it. Some may consider that bad business or a bad way to do business. Ok, I can see that however, you can't say you were lied to or mislead when you (in general) have to take a measure of personal responsibility in the matter.
When Blizzard calls something "exclusive" they mean it. There are items that are still "exclusive" and will never be available again. It's called living up to you marketing. And people respect Blizzard for that. And if anything in the future is offered as an "exclusive" bonus/promo item for something, people can trust Blizzard that's what it really means.
As for Cryptic, well, no one will ever trust their "deals" or any other marketing cr@p that comes from them again. It will all be just hot air. Who's to say they won't be giving the C-Store items away for free at a later date when they're begging subscribers to stick around?
You still basically dodged what I was saying. Actually no Blizzard has done the same thing. Not to the extent of Cryptic but they have done. Case in point. The Panda bear in the little hat. (Don't remember his name) You can get him in the Blizzard equivalent of the c-store or the Blizz store or what ever that thing is called.
The point is, it is common practice in almost all industries. It is a marketing ploy. Same with limited time offer. I can't recall how many times I have seen limited time offer and it be offered again for the same price, this time as regular. So it does happen. It isn't illegal nor are people lied to or miss led.
Like I said, if you want to make the claim it is just bad business then sure I can go with that but I am not so sure how bad it can be if it works and they keep doing it. However for the sake of argument I will be willing to say that I can see the point of claiming it is just all around bad ju ju.
And to be as personally responsible as possible in one's future interactions with the company, one should never, ever, put any degree of trust or faith in anything anyone associated with Cryptic says, suggests, or implies, whether implicitly or indirectly, in any manner, shape, or form, ever again.
Pretty much what it boils down to, huh.
"And I will continue to remind you that nothing said before launch, or even now, is a "promise" and to continue to construe it as such is just playing to human nature." -- coderanger
Pronunciation: \iks-ˈklü-siv, -ziv\
Function: adjective
Date: 1515
1 a : excluding or having power to exclude b : limiting or limited to possession, control, or use by a single individual or group
2 a : excluding others from participation b : snobbishly aloof
3 a : accepting or soliciting only a socially restricted patronage (as of the upper class) b : stylish, fashionable c : restricted in distribution, use, or appeal because of expense
4 a : single, sole <exclusive jurisdiction> b : whole, undivided <his exclusive attention>
ex·clu·sive·ly adverb
ex·clu·sive·ness noun
unique
Pronunciation: \yu̇-ˈnēk\
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Latin unicus, from unus one more at one
Date: 1602
1 : being the only one : sole <his unique concern was his own comfort> <I can't walk away with a unique copy. Suppose I lost it? Kingsley Amis> <the unique factorization of a number into prime factors>
2 a : being without a like or equal : unequaled <could stare at the flames, each one new, violent, unique Robert Coover> b : distinctively characteristic : peculiar 1 <this is not a condition unique to California Ronald Reagan>
3 : unusual <a very unique ball-point pen> <we were fairly unique, the sixty of us, in that there wasn't one good mixer in the bunch J. D. Salinger>
synonyms see strange
unique·ly adverb
unique·ness noun
Neither of those definitions says anything about limited time.
Forget it. I don't care any more.
:cool:
How does a compromise for a DS9 or TNG movie or Wrath of Khan uniform look like?
How does a compromise for Borg BO look like?
How does a compromise for TOS Enterprise look like?
Sure, they could create an Undine BO or something like that. But guess what - it's still not a Borg. People will keep asking for it.
Maybe you can give them the NX-Enterprise. That would be neat. But it's not the TOS Enterprise. People will keep asking for it.
There aren't compromises of that kind.
The only compromise I can think of would involve giving the people with such pre-order gifts some bonus cryptic points and maybe a unique title ("I bought this game 5 times and all I got was this lousy title" perhaps?). Maybe they can even get another "time-limited exclusive".
(Red) Exclusive definition #1 tells us that items can be restricted to a person or group.
(Red) Unique definition #1 tells us the strictest since only applies when their is only one (sole) and says nothing about exclusive otherwise.
(Green) Explains that Unique is : distinctively characteristic. ( this definition applies when the first of one or sole does not apply) This definition applies due to the large amount of the copies available of each single item , and would not apply if only (one) were in of each item was available in existence.
Vendor exclusives are still offered by vendors, it may be Cryptic's wasy of phasing out vendor exclusives over time by offering then in the C- Store
In the Case of the MU set there was one post that said, "Lifetime subscribers will also receive an exclusive Mirror Universe costume set for Star Trek Online." Rekhan the marketing guy, stated that this was an exclusive bundling offer to the STO community and that was the correction that explained the only time exclusive and MU set were ever placed together and was never in the Champions post on the Champions forum. http://forums.champions-online.com/announcement.php?f=2&a=7 (no mention of the word exclusive in reference with the MU set) and were named as incentives in the STO posts.
Being that I have $500.00 invested in Cryptic and this title I feel in no way "screwed" over. We all got what we paid for with several "Unique" incentives. This is a Epic Win for the current and future community members for they will be able to enjoy the "unique" "Trek" experience!
Thank You.