dearbluey wrote: Some analogies are completely irrelevant. I understand the ire against the changes but comparing this to a car purchase is just as silly as the anti-piracy "You wouldn't download a car" message that started up a few years back.
zeeke wrote: dearbluey wrote: Some analogies are completely irrelevant. I understand the ire against the changes but comparing this to a car purchase is just as silly as the anti-piracy "You wouldn't download a car" message that started up a few years back. Agreed, a movie cost $20 and just the covers for a 4 star is five times that. I should have compared it to a house.
dearbluey wrote: zeeke wrote: dearbluey wrote: Some analogies are completely irrelevant. I understand the ire against the changes but comparing this to a car purchase is just as silly as the anti-piracy "You wouldn't download a car" message that started up a few years back. Agreed, a movie cost $20 and just the covers for a 4 star is five times that. I should have compared it to a house. Or how about compare it to other, similar digital goods?
zeeke wrote: Ok let's compare it to another digital good about the same cost, 6 month of Netflix. But after you pay for it you can not watch House of Cards, only Gilmore Girls.
gamar wrote: zeeke wrote: Ok let's compare it to another digital good about the same cost, 6 month of Netflix. But after you pay for it you can not watch House of Cards, only Gilmore Girls. Netflix adds and removes shows all the time you dingus
dearbluey wrote: zeeke wrote: Ok let's compare it to another digital good about the same cost, 6 month of Netflix. But after you pay for it you can not watch House of Cards, only Gilmore Girls. And they do this all the time. Shows go on and off Netflix pretty regularly, as contracts are renegotiated and usage stats are collated. There are still ten thousand (made up number) other things you can watch, if you choose to continue the service. I wouldn't judge a person, but if House of Cards was the only reason the person had a monthly netflix subscription, well... Oh, and @CoolB76, all I'm trying to do is encourage more reasonable and accurate comparisons. If you think me doing so is white-knighting, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I'm not trying to beat him - you can't win an Internet argument - but maybe Zeeke should be comparing this to other online game microtransactions/game changes?
CoolB76 wrote: dearbluey wrote: zeeke wrote: Ok let's compare it to another digital good about the same cost, 6 month of Netflix. But after you pay for it you can not watch House of Cards, only Gilmore Girls. And they do this all the time. Shows go on and off Netflix pretty regularly, as contracts are renegotiated and usage stats are collated. There are still ten thousand (made up number) other things you can watch, if you choose to continue the service. I wouldn't judge a person, but if House of Cards was the only reason the person had a monthly netflix subscription, well... Oh, and @CoolB76, all I'm trying to do is encourage more reasonable and accurate comparisons. If you think me doing so is white-knighting, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I'm not trying to beat him - you can't win an Internet argument - but maybe Zeeke should be comparing this to other online game microtransactions/game changes? Sometimes more outlandish arguments make the point sink in a little better.
dearbluey wrote: CoolB76 wrote: dearbluey wrote: zeeke wrote: Ok let's compare it to another digital good about the same cost, 6 month of Netflix. But after you pay for it you can not watch House of Cards, only Gilmore Girls. And they do this all the time. Shows go on and off Netflix pretty regularly, as contracts are renegotiated and usage stats are collated. There are still ten thousand (made up number) other things you can watch, if you choose to continue the service. I wouldn't judge a person, but if House of Cards was the only reason the person had a monthly netflix subscription, well... Oh, and @CoolB76, all I'm trying to do is encourage more reasonable and accurate comparisons. If you think me doing so is white-knighting, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I'm not trying to beat him - you can't win an Internet argument - but maybe Zeeke should be comparing this to other online game microtransactions/game changes? Sometimes more outlandish arguments make the point sink in a little better. Politicians think that, too. It generally makes them sound ignorant to people with common sense.
zeeke wrote: Keep the **** in check here, there is nothing micro about the transactions that need to happen to cover and level a 4 star, either in cash or hours.
zeeke wrote: I will give you that Netflix changes shows around, but not their top content. Think of it as HBO go then and they replace Game of Thrones with Seeker. What it's still fantasy right?
zeeke wrote: Back to the issue at hand, just because other games have similar things happen to them doesn't make it right. If you seriously think that there is a difference to a company's commitment to its customers just because they are selling digital goods instead of physical ones I seriously hope you never end up working on my bank.
Lloyd Christmas wrote: There are unfortunately car dealers that do even worse things. They finance vehicles to people with bad credit knowing they will have trouble making the payment. When the car buyer misses one payment the dealer repossesses the car but the buyer is still responsible to pay off the loan in full but they no longer have the car. The dealer can then sell the same car to another person and be receiving payments for the same car from multiple people. Point being there are worse things going on in the world. At least with the OP's original analogy he was left with a Nissan Micra...
dearbluey wrote: zeeke wrote: Keep the **** in check here, there is nothing micro about the transactions that need to happen to cover and level a 4 star, either in cash or hours. Like Cool with his "Good thing this isn't political" swing, you're quibbling here. I referred to the expression microtransactions because that's what they're commonly known as. If you prefer, I can call them "in-app purchases" going forward, which is another name that's commonly used. Then can we move on from picking splinters? zeeke wrote: I will give you that Netflix changes shows around, but not their top content. Think of it as HBO go then and they replace Game of Thrones with Seeker. What it's still fantasy right? Every single show that Netflix doesn't personally create, they have to renegotiate their contracts on a periodic basis - at any time they can decide the purchase price is too high for the digital rights and drop the show from its streaming service. Game of Thrones is an HBO show - they don't have to negotiate with themselves. So yes, Netflix's top content - ALL their content that they don't make themselves - can be changed up or moved off of instant watch. The fact that right now they see it worth the price to keep particular shows is no indication of future performance. zeeke wrote: Back to the issue at hand, just because other games have similar things happen to them doesn't make it right. If you seriously think that there is a difference to a company's commitment to its customers just because they are selling digital goods instead of physical ones I seriously hope you never end up working on my bank. Zeeke, I'll lay out my opinion on the matter here in full (and it's just, you know, my opinion. Nobody has to share it.) to clarify my position. Since the very start of online gaming, the developers and programmers have adjusted, tweaked or otherwise changed the games they offer. Not every game, obviously, but a darn good percentage. Things get buffed, nerfed, or just switched around on a fairly regular basis across the whole online gaming platform. Blizzard, for example, tweaks and adjusts (and at the occasion of their Expansions, outright change) their Starcraft, Diablo, Hearthstone and World of Warcraft properties. People not only pay money for the games, but in the case of Hearthstone are able to pay for extra packs of cards, and in WoW pay a monthly fee of, what, $14.95? - and Blizzard nerfs and buffs all the time. Other online games do the same thing. Mobile games, same thing. It's not just something that happens every once in a while, it's the industry standard ever since the industry began. And the reason they do this is because they are committed to their customer base, not because they don't care for them. Why? Because for an online game to thrive, it can't stay stagnant. Change has to be made - it's a good thing. Adjustments, tweaks, even major changes to the way the game is played are a shock to get used to but for the overall health of the game they keep things dynamic and moving. Sure, sometimes the river is serene and other times it gets rough as hell, but the boat's in good condition and will keep sailing on regardless. Ultimately, people will be unhappy with change. They're used to something. It works for them. They are invested in it. They don't see why it has to change. But the gaming companies (all of them, not just this one) MUST look beyond the now and keep moving. It's not just a good thing, it's a needed thing. Does this mean I agree with or like every change and iteration the game goes through? Heck no - I was notably irked by the True Healing/Burst of Health change last year. But I realized that it was a necessary change for the game to evolve. Right now, X-Force is The Character To Have for both PvE and PvP (again, opinion may vary) and that's something that will change shortly and we will need to adjust to a new way of playing. Or, you know, stop playing. Valid option. Are there other things that the developers could change/adjust/fix/add? Sure. Absolutely. But they have to take into account time, complexity, the Word of God (Marvel) and whether a change will indeed be for the benefit of the game or not and whether they can actually devote the resources to it. Do they always get the adjustments right? Nope. X-force is a prime example - they buffed him up not THAT long ago, and now are correcting their miscalculation. Did they go too far in the opposite direction? Probably. Time will tell. Also take into account that every single person has their own personal opinion on how the game should be adjusted "for the better". Except we're not the next of kin who get to decide whether and where to operate - we're in the waiting room with our own issues. I'm not a white knight for the company, honestly. I'm just a guy who understands why things have to change, and doesn't become emotionally invested in them because of that. I've been through far too many changes in far too many games to not understand it. I know that was a lot of blah blah blah, but I hope it helps you see where I'm coming from on the issue.TL:DR - Change is healthy, worrying, common, frustrating, and good. Not everything works as intended first time around, or even second. Patience. Understanding. Pizza with pineapple. Things will settle down.