Question for the X-men about motivation.

mouser

WorldRunner wrote:

I must say I'm rather pleased that this thread was derailed into an argument for/against Sentry as well as discussion about conspiracies and what some of us spend our money on other than this game rather than a flame war vs Xmen and the subsequent pissing contest

GJ Everyone

In all fairness, your previous posts in this thread contributed more to the derailing then addressing the question posed by the thread creator.

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

It's cause naz, or whatever he changed his name a dozen times since then, hasn't come in to fan the flames yet

I can maybe see the money thing, but the rapid fire name changes is the REAL mystery of the x-men. Especially how they get responses back from the CS in less than a week

It's interesting that people outside of X-men seem to always have all the information and theories about what goes on here. No wonder why they're almost never factual.

Naz hasn't changed his name. He's not currently playing due to personal reasons. He's not listed in any team as of right now by his own choice. His name hasn't changed. He's not currently playing right now simple as that. I'm not going to speak for the guy.... But he's had zero name changes and isn't sandboxed (Because apparently people thought that too)

Spoit

WorldRunner wrote:

Spoit wrote:

It's cause naz, or whatever he changed his name a dozen times since then, hasn't come in to fan the flames yet

I can maybe see the money thing, but the rapid fire name changes is the REAL mystery of the x-men. Especially how they get responses back from the CS in less than a week

It's interesting that people outside of X-men seem to always have all the information and theories about what goes on here. No wonder why they're almost never factual.

Naz hasn't changed his name. He's not currently playing due to personal reasons. He's not listed in any team as of right now by his own choice. His name hasn't changed. He's not currently playing right now simple as that. I'm not going to speak for the guy.... But he's had zero name changes and isn't sandboxed (Because apparently people thought that too)

I could have sworn he came back to post as skrinot or something like that?

Kelbris

Spoit wrote:

WorldRunner wrote:

Spoit wrote:

It's cause naz, or whatever he changed his name a dozen times since then, hasn't come in to fan the flames yet

I can maybe see the money thing, but the rapid fire name changes is the REAL mystery of the x-men. Especially how they get responses back from the CS in less than a week

It's interesting that people outside of X-men seem to always have all the information and theories about what goes on here. No wonder why they're almost never factual.

Naz hasn't changed his name. He's not currently playing due to personal reasons. He's not listed in any team as of right now by his own choice. His name hasn't changed. He's not currently playing right now simple as that. I'm not going to speak for the guy.... But he's had zero name changes and isn't sandboxed (Because apparently people thought that too) :roll:

I could have sworn he came back to post as skrinot or something like that?

That was Emeryt

HairyDave

Naz got forum banned for excessive, and unnecessary, female genital references but I don't remember any mention of sandboxing.

franckynight

WorldRunner wrote:

Spoit wrote:

It's cause naz, or whatever he changed his name a dozen times since then, hasn't come in to fan the flames yet

I can maybe see the money thing, but the rapid fire name changes is the REAL mystery of the x-men. Especially how they get responses back from the CS in less than a week

It's interesting that people outside of X-men seem to always have all the information and theories about what goes on here. No wonder why they're almost never factual.

Naz hasn't changed his name. He's not currently playing due to personal reasons. He's not listed in any team as of right now by his own choice. His name hasn't changed. He's not currently playing right now simple as that. I'm not going to speak for the guy.... But he's had zero name changes and isn't sandboxed (Because apparently people thought that too)

Dont want to be a jerk here.. but some of the name changing antics are questionnable.. flozier.. give mehdy (in reference to stalker 7).. franckykebab.. i love the fact that one of your pals is a great fan of us but still, its childish.. i think myself to pay tribute to him and renaming nocashflo98..

hurcules

Spoit wrote:

WorldRunner wrote:

I must say I'm rather pleased that this thread was derailed into an argument for/against Sentry as well as discussion about conspiracies and what some of us spend our money on other than this game rather than a flame war vs Xmen and the subsequent pissing contest

GJ Everyone

It's cause naz, or whatever he changed his name a dozen times since then, hasn't come in to fan the flames yet

I can maybe see the money thing, but the rapid fire name changes is the REAL mystery of the x-men. Especially how they get responses back from the CS in less than a week

Wouldn't you give your best customers better than average service? Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Kelbris

hurcules wrote:

Spoit wrote:

WorldRunner wrote:

I must say I'm rather pleased that this thread was derailed into an argument for/against Sentry as well as discussion about conspiracies and what some of us spend our money on other than this game rather than a flame war vs Xmen and the subsequent pissing contest

GJ Everyone

It's cause naz, or whatever he changed his name a dozen times since then, hasn't come in to fan the flames yet

I can maybe see the money thing, but the rapid fire name changes is the REAL mystery of the x-men. Especially how they get responses back from the CS in less than a week

Wouldn't you give your best customers better than average service? Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Customers?

... Seriously?

It's like the **** community enables the developers to treat this more like a business than a game.

This whole relationship is so **** strange. It's like the bigger whales feel like they're shareholders.

daveomite

Haha!

Someone said D3, response and customer in the same sentence!

Silly kid. Tricks are for rabbits.

Unknown

Kelbris wrote:

Customers?

... Seriously?

It's like the tinykitty community enables the developers to treat this more like a business than a game.

This whole relationship is so tinykitty strange. It's like the bigger whales feel like they're shareholders.

Every game is a business. No money = no game. When you buy a Nick Fury cover one is not delivered to a child in a 3rd world country ala Toms Shoes. Perhaps there's an exception or two out there but every game that was ever created was done to make money first and foremost.

Unknown

WorldRunner wrote:

:twisted:

Kelbris wrote:

Customers?

... Seriously?

It's like the tinykitty community enables the developers to treat this more like a business than a game.

This whole relationship is so tinykitty strange. It's like the bigger whales feel like they're shareholders.

Every game is a business. No money = no game. When you buy a Nick Fury cover one is not delivered to a child in a 3rd world country ala Toms Shoes. Perhaps there's an exception or two out there but every game that was ever created was done to make money first and foremost.

This is what kills a game. It has to be a game first and profitable as well, not a profit machine that can be played as well.

Game designers for the last 40 years don't go in thinking, ok we need to make money, now lets strap a game around it. The artists, creative, story writers, fight mechanic designers etc. are proud of the game they make. And ALL of the best games were designed to be a great game first and then figuring out how to monetize(price it) afterwords.

Tetris. Super Mario Bros. Etc. Etc. Marketing is always part of the profit machine but the games until micro-purchases were added were definitely not created to make money first and foremost. Unless you have the view that all creative entertainment is purely to make money. Of course artists need to eat but they choose their profession to do something they can be proud of.

The best games make money because it's a great game, not because of clever monetization. People don't play if the game is sub par

Unknown

HairyDave wrote:

Naz got forum banned for excessive, and unnecessary, female genital references but I don't remember any mention of sandboxing.

He's probably is hiding under a name change, but you know what, I think 100% of the community likes him hidden so lets keep it that way

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

HairyDave wrote:

Naz got forum banned for excessive, and unnecessary, female genital references but I don't remember any mention of sandboxing.

He's probably is hiding under a name change, but you know what, I think 100% of the community likes him hidden so lets keep it that way

Seriously, Naz has RL stuff going on. We are still the X-men, Naz or no.

Unknown

LoreNYC wrote:

WorldRunner wrote:

:twisted:

Kelbris wrote:

Customers?

... Seriously?

It's like the tinykitty community enables the developers to treat this more like a business than a game.

This whole relationship is so tinykitty strange. It's like the bigger whales feel like they're shareholders.

Every game is a business. No money = no game. When you buy a Nick Fury cover one is not delivered to a child in a 3rd world country ala Toms Shoes. Perhaps there's an exception or two out there but every game that was ever created was done to make money first and foremost.

This is what kills a game. It has to be a game first and profitable as well, not a profit machine that can be played as well.

Game designers for the last 40 years don't go in thinking, ok we need to make money, now lets strap a game around it. The artists, creative, story writers, fight mechanic designers etc. are proud of the game they make. And ALL of the best games were designed to be a great game first and then figuring out how to monetize(price it) afterwords.

Tetris. Super Mario Bros. Etc. Etc. Marketing is always part of the profit machine but the games until micro-purchases were added were definitely not created to make money first and foremost. Unless you have the view that all creative entertainment is purely to make money. Of course artists need to eat but they choose their profession to do something they can be proud of.

The best games make money because it's a great game, not because of clever monetization. People don't play if the game is sub par

I suspect they act to show "nice figures" for investors/companies that could merge/buy D3P.

Their monetization is typical of that kind of strategy. Let's see if that is the case in the future/that ever happens.

GothicKratos

Kelbris wrote:

Customers?

... Seriously?

Yes, customers. Even Free-to-Play consumers are still customers. They are providing a service - plain and simple. Free-to-Play players still make contributions, even if you don't realize it (currency is not the only metric companies value, believe it or not).

LoreNYC wrote:

This is what kills a game. It has to be a game first and profitable as well, not a profit machine that can be played as well.

Game designers for the last 40 years don't go in thinking, ok we need to make money, now lets strap a game around it. The artists, creative, story writers, fight mechanic designers etc. are proud of the game they make. And ALL of the best games were designed to be a great game first and then figuring out how to monetize(price it) afterwords.

Tetris. Super Mario Bros. Etc. Etc. Marketing is always part of the profit machine but the games until micro-purchases were added were definitely not created to make money first and foremost. Unless you have the view that all creative entertainment is purely to make money. Of course artists need to eat but they choose their profession to do something they can be proud of.

The best games make money because it's a great game, not because of clever monetization. People don't play if the game is sub par

This is hyperbolic and realistically a fallibly, borderline fallacious statement. You're practically comparing apples to oranges. Comparing MPQ to Tetris is like comparing porn to intercourse - yeah they're related and have some things in common, but ultimately, they are not the same thing and do not attempt to maintain the same goals or policies. This logic is about as baffling to me as when folks try to compare World of Warcraft to Final Fantasy to try and deem which is the "true RPG". Just stop it.

Truth be told, this is as bewildering to me as the whole "it's on the disc and I bought the disc, so I am entitled to every 0 and 1 on it" argument. Please, please, please stop it.

When you buy a normal game, you pay for it up-front and out of pocket. You expect a polished, finished product. You expect to receive what you see on the package - let it be online play, offline content, what-have-you. When you purchase a normal game from Steam (or whatever other PC game point-of-sale protocol you're purchasing from), you pay for it up-front and out of pocket. You expect a polished, finished product. You expect to receive what you see in the description - let it be online play, offline content, what-have-you. When you rent a normal game (psychical disc or online), you pay for it up-front and out of pocket. You expect a polished, finished product. You expect to receive what you see on the package/in the description - let it be online play, offline content, what-have-you.

When you download a free-to-play game, you're not paying a dime. You never have to pay a dime. You should not expect a perfect game.

Let's not even get into the financing prospect of the whole debacle. When Activision Studios wants a new Call of Duty game, they throw a metric shitton of money at Sledgehammer Games or Treyarch (or Infinity Ward in the past) and say, "Hey, make us a game". Do you think Marvel phoned up D3--- scratch that, realistically, we're talking about Demiurge Studios-- and went, "Here, have some money, make us a game"? Not likely. The likely scenario is that Demiurge Studios went to D3/Namco with an idea, that they made and maintained off their own pocket. They likely still do to an extreme degree.

A Free-to-Play game is absolutely not the same thing as a normal game title. The process is not the same. Maintaining it is not the same. Profiting off of it is not the same. It is not the same.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

Truth be told, this is as bewildering to me as the whole "it's on the disc and I bought the disc, so I am entitled to every 0 and 1 on it" argument. Please, please, please stop it.

So let me get this straight. If some company, let's just arbitrarily call them Capcom, releases a game that you buy, and then later on tries to charge you more money to access content that's on the disc to the game that you already paid for, you're cool with this? Because I'm not.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

When you download a free-to-play game, you're not paying a dime. You never have to pay a dime. You should not expect a perfect game.

Fair enough.

Please tell me what I am entitled to once I have put money into the F2P game ?

Many other games (even the ones you can buy in Brick and Mortar stores) have patches to correct bugs. Many other games have updates, sequels... I don't see much difference between a packaged game and a F2P game.

GothicKratos

Thugpatrol wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Truth be told, this is as bewildering to me as the whole "it's on the disc and I bought the disc, so I am entitled to every 0 and 1 on it" argument. Please, please, please stop it.

So let me get this straight. If some company, let's just arbitrarily call them Capcom, releases a game that you buy, and then later on tries to charge you more money to access content that's on the disc to the game that you already paid for, you're cool with this? Because I'm not.

Absolutely. Content on a dic is not always meant for pure consumption. Plain and simple. Live and learn from the whole Freddy Krueger/Mortal Kombat debacle - the content I assume you're talking about (Shuma and Jill) were on the disc for ease of use. No one ever told you they were part of the game. No one ever mislead you to believe this. No one is forcing you to buy them. It's there so if you purchase them, you're not forced to download their information and store it on your console (there are also technical reasons to do with read times and relaying information). It harms you in absolutely no way other than you feel entitled to it. You're paying GameStop (or whatever retailer) for the ability to play a game. You're paying for a service. This service happens to be on a disc. It'd be like claiming you have the right to redistribute a CD or DVD because you bought the DVD or CD and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. It doesn't work that way.

If I want to complain about an activity that a company we're calling Capcom is doing, I'd be pointing fingers at UMvC3 - which was basically everything they promised us in patches wrapped up into a new game, but even then, I can justify it from a business point-of-view by simply thinking about how many manhours likely went into doing all that work and even if a lot of developers do it because they enjoy it, they're certainly not doing it for free, nor is the company housing their project. It is my favorite thing in the world? Not at all. Justifiable? Yes. Is it a money grab? No.

arktos1971 wrote:

Fair enough.

Please tell me what I am entitled to once I have put money into the F2P game ?

You're entitled to what you paid for. ISO-8, Hero Points, what-have-you. You're paying for a good/service, plain and simple. It'd be arguably different if you were donating the money on good faith, like people did with Minecraft during it's inception, but even then, it's exactly that - good faith. It'd be like donating to the Red Cross and then getting mad and demanding a refund when you see that some little kids passed away. That's not how it works. Spending money in any game does not make you a VIP. You're not now a developer or programmer. You're not now a shareholder. You're not now special. You are a customer that paid for a good or service. Should you have a voice? Definitely - and you do. No one is oppressing you. No one (in theory) is ignoring you. As I pointed out with the Daken point, the developers are paying attention - but their opinions will not always line up with ours. To further prove my point, the sticky thread addressing the bug with stats - that took not even a day? That's pretty impressive by most standards, especially for a small studio.

arktos1971 wrote:

Many other games (even the ones you can buy in Brick and Mortar stores) have patches to correct bugs. Many other games have updates, sequels... I don't see much difference between a packaged game and a F2P game.

Yes, they do. Companies like Activision do give the studios that work on their games money to maintain and release post-release patches. This money is generally recuperated by post-release downloadable content. Can a Free-to-Play game really do that? No.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Truth be told, this is as bewildering to me as the whole "it's on the disc and I bought the disc, so I am entitled to every 0 and 1 on it" argument. Please, please, please stop it.

So let me get this straight. If some company, let's just arbitrarily call them Capcom, releases a game that you buy, and then later on tries to charge you more money to access content that's on the disc to the game that you already paid for, you're cool with this? Because I'm not.

Absolutely. Content on a dic is not always meant for pure consumption. Plain and simple. Live and learn from the whole Freddy Krueger/Mortal Kombat debacle - the content I assume you're talking about (Shuma and Jill) were on the disc for ease of use. No one ever told you they were part of the game. No one ever mislead you to believe this. No one is forcing you to buy them. It's there so if you purchase them, you're not forced to download their information and store it on your console (there are also technical reasons to do with read times and relaying information). It harms you in absolutely no way other than you feel entitled to it. You're paying GameStop (or whatever retailer) for the ability to play a game. You're paying for a service. This service happens to be on a disc. It'd be like claiming you have the right to redistribute a CD or DVD because you bought the DVD or CD and you should be able to do whatever you want with it. It doesn't work that way.

Specifically the issue I was alluding to was completed content shipped on a disc to be released later as DLC for an additional cost. Capcom has tried versions of this a few times, the most egregious being the Street Fighter x Tekken debacle where characters were on the disc, supposedly exclusive to the Vita version, then released for paid DLC later on other platforms. 2K tried something similar with the Bioshock 2 multiplayer, except nobody cared because it was basically junk to begin with.

Now, you're taking a very academic approach to this, but there's basically three different issues here and you're smashing them all together. One is legal, and that's a really sticky subject. Getting back to your argument about 1s and 0s and who owns them, that's a really good question, one that's still being hashed out in a lot of different courtrooms in a lot of different jurisdictions. Cases have been brought against companies by consumers, and the word that's usually bandied about is fraud, basically misrepresenting what exactly it is that was being sold, and these cases have had various outcomes. Much is still to be decided, and the wheels of justice turn very slowly on complicated matters like this. So you're not wrong in what you're saying, but you're not completely right either, because the proverbial jury is still very much out.

The second issue is moral, because you can does that mean you should? Most companies operate fairly amorally, doing what is most profitable rather than what is subjectively "right", but public perception is a part of doing business and that brings us to issue number three. When you, as a company, engage in behavior like this that people perceive as being shady, you run the risk of pissing off the people who you rely on to give you money so you can put food on your table, keep the lights on in the office, and buy shiny new sports cars for your latest mid-life crisis. Capcom is going through this right now. Part of their problem is that the quality of their products has declined severely, but a solid component of their current woes is that they've destroyed the trust they once had among their most ardent supporters.

Why do you think EA pulled the plug on their online pass program? Because they suddenly realized the error of their ways? Because they were overcome by the spirit of Christmas and decided gaming should be free for all the good little boys and girls? Tinykitty no. It was costing them money and they were taking too many PR hits. So you can preach the merits of these decisions, siting rational from easing the download burden to version compatibility to content not being part of the core product, all of which have been tried at one point of another, and you can make your academic argument supporting their rights to do it, and the courts may even back up their legal rights to carry on. But if people get pissed off and stop buying their products because they operate in a way that appears to be extremely shady, does it really matter if they were totally in the right when they go out of business?

GothicKratos

Thugpatrol wrote:

Specifically the issue I was alluding to was completed content shipped on a disc to be released later as DLC for an additional cost. Capcom has tried versions of this a few times, the most egregious being the Street Fighter x Tekken debacle where characters were on the disc, supposedly exclusive to the Vita version, then released for paid DLC later on other platforms. 2K tried something similar with the Bioshock 2 multiplayer, except nobody cared because it was basically junk to begin with.

I do often forget this game even exists. I didn't enjoy it, so I missed most of this excitement. What I will say, is this is less a question of content on disc and more a question of ethical choices. I say this because one could easily argue that Megaman and crew being on discs outside of Vita/PS3 does you no harm as an Xbox player. Why care? On the other hand, they did imply they would be exclusive to that platform, and then they released it other places for money. That's poor business ethics. It has nothing to do with content on a disc (at at least very little). Obviously this is a pretty ill-willed choice by whatever company realistically implemented this (likely Capcom), but it's not a 0s and 1s issue.

Thugpatrol wrote:

Now, you're taking a very academic approach to this, but there's basically three different issues here and you're smashing them all together. One is legal, and that's a really sticky subject. Getting back to your argument about 1s and 0s and who owns them, that's a really good question, one that's still being hashed out in a lot of different courtrooms in a lot of different jurisdictions. Cases have been brought against companies by consumers, and the word that's usually bandied about is fraud, basically misrepresenting what exactly it is that was being sold, and these cases have had various outcomes. Much is still to be decided, and the wheels of justice turn very slowly on complicated matters like this. So you're not wrong in what you're saying, but you're not completely right either, because the proverbial jury is still very much out.

I concur, though honestly, legality/courtroom aside, what I stated below is simply how I feel. It has nothing to do with copyright laws (especially so, since I believe these laws are broken beyond belief) or anything of the like. I list three solid examples of situations that content was on a disc that was either strictly not for consumption and/or was there for the benefit of the consumer, right off the top of my head. Grand Theft Auto (the infamous "nude patch"), Marvel Vs Capcom 3 (to circumvent the issues Mortal Kombat 3 had/less disk space usage/better read and response times), and Pokemon (special/event Pokemon).

Speaking of Pokemon, and all of that aside, it's kind of the quasi elephant in the room, and I generally try and point it out in these discussions. Pokemon cartridges generally include a few Pokemon and a dozen (if not more) variations of other Pokemon that are simply not available in-game (the Dog Trio for Plat/White/Black comes to mind), or cannot be access without something attained outside the game (Rotom/Darkrai in Platinum), or are only attainable through "events" - which generally require you to visit a specific retailer like GameStop - to attain (Jirachi for Plat/White/Black). There's no internet petitions for these things. Most people I know like these things. The big difference, of course, is money. GameFreaks has never (as far as I know) put a price tag on any of this content (unless you count the couple of times that older game versions were required - Black2/White2 come to mind).

Do you agree, at their core, these are comparable? What examples would you give for poor usage for on-disc content, of this manner? I'd be willing to bet it had more to do with an ill-willed decision from a company than the content being on the disc.

Thugpatrol wrote:

The second issue is moral, because you can does that mean you should? Most companies operate fairly amorally, doing what is most profitable rather than what is subjectively "right", but public perception is a part of doing business and that brings us to issue number three. When you, as a company, engage in behavior like this that people perceive as being shady, you run the risk of pissing off the people who you rely on to give you money so you can put food on your table, keep the lights on in the office, and buy shiny new sports cars for your latest mid-life crisis. Capcom is going through this right now. Part of their problem is that the quality of their products has declined severely, but a solid component of their current woes is that they've destroyed the trust they once had among their most ardent supporters.

Absolutely. Plenty of companies are going through this same thing; Microsoft, Sony, Capcom, Mediacom, Time Warner. Morality is a huge staple of good business. The company I work for (GZK - they own and operate Arby's here in the Dayton, Ohio area) has a little saying that I agree with whole-heartedly; "The customer is not always right, but the customer is always the customer". We have a strict policy of never telling a customer "no". We don't have to give them exactly what they want, because, let's face it, people are pigheaded sometimes, especially if they feel like they've been wronged. Yes, we'll totally up-size all your fries (heck, we'll probably do that without you even asking first), and give you a free turnover and shake, but are we going to give you four sandwiches and four shakes for free because there wasn't any pickles on one of your sandwiches? Probably not (and yes, this really happened - they wanted a free fry and shake for everyone she had bought for because "they had to wait for her to come back and get her food fixed"). Your number one job as a service-provider is to make sure your customers are contented. If they aren't, you're going to probably lose business.

Thugpatrol wrote:

Why do you think EA pulled the plug on their online pass program? Because they suddenly realized the error of their ways? Because they were overcome by the spirit of Christmas and decided gaming should be free for all the good little boys and girls? Tinykitty no. It was costing them money and they were taking too many PR hits. So you can preach the merits of these decisions, siting rational from easing the download burden to version compatibility to content not being part of the core product, all of which have been tried at one point of another, and you can make your academic argument supporting their rights to do it, and the courts may even back up their legal rights to carry on. But if people get pissed off and stop buying their products because they operate in a way that appears to be extremely shady, does it really matter if they were totally in the right when they go out of business?

EA's Online Pass program is a complete orange to the subject at hand. There are lots of ill-willed corporate decisions I can get behind defaming - content being on a disc is not one of them. If history has taught us anything, a witch hunt doesn't solve anything.