As I've stated in the past (without going back and necro'ing old threads) the current subscriber reward system is flawed. It's caused no end of contention between players. By your own standards, these rewards are only available to those who met the requirements, yet those who didn't meet the requirements feel cheated because they can't have those things as well.

What I suggest is a revamp of this flawed reward system into a vetted system so everyone has the opportunity, should they invest the time, to get these rewards.

Make Nico Okarr, HK-55, Shae Vizla and Darth Hexid vet rewards. (Ordered as they were introduced into the game).

• 12 months of subscription time for Nico Okarr (including his pistols and jacket).
  
• 18 months of subscription time for HK-55 (including the bonus chapter and Z0-0M).
  
• 24 months of subscription time for Shae Vizla.
  
• 30 months of subscription time for Darth Hexid.
  

Subscription times can be cumulative*, instead of consecutive, to appease all those that feel entitled to have things others have, but weren't around to get them.

*Meaning someone can subscribe for 7 months, leave for however long, come back and subscribe for another 5 months and receive Nico.

Edited: 04/03/2018 - The above listed companions are just "First Draft" suggestions. There are several other good ideas for rewards in this thread as well.

I still think there's nothing wrong with "limited time promotions" as done in every other industry, where specific promos can and do comeback without much fuss, nor with early access to a thing being given as a reward, with the understanding that the gen pop will get it later (although, make "early access" mean what it's supposed to, as opposed to a poorly concealed beta).

That being said, your suggestion is fair enough. Except for the time periods. Why exactly are they so long? If you're trying to go for some misguided "make people make up for not giving the company money years ago" plan, that won't work. Niko for example required four months of subscription. But what stopped someone from subbing for those four months, getting him, then leaving for two years? If you try to match someone today with someone like that, you're making the newbie pay more. Hardly fair, is it? The "sub for as long as it originally took" plan is about where the line can be drawn for that sort of suggestion.

I still think there's nothing wrong with "limited time promotions" as done in every other industry, where specific promos can and do comeback without much fuss, nor with early access to a thing being given as a reward, with the understanding that the gen pop will get it later (although, make "early access" mean what it's supposed to, as opposed to a poorly concealed beta).

 

That being said, your suggestion is fair enough. Except for the time periods. Why exactly are they so long? If you're trying to go for some misguided "make people make up for not giving the company money years ago" plan, that won't work. Niko for example required four months of subscription. But what stopped someone from subbing for those four months, getting him, then leaving for two years? If you try to match someone today with someone like that, you're making the newbie pay more. Hardly fair, is it? The "sub for as long as it originally took" plan is about where the line can be drawn for that sort of suggestion.

That was just an example. It would be acceptable for them to be reduced by 6 months, but leaving them in 6 month increments. 6 months instead of 12, 12 instead of 18, etc. I think it's more than fair to be honest. What's the other alternative? Beg on the forums? Argue over and over with people about who deserves what? These arguments have been going on for years and it's getting old. That's why they become so volatile so quickly.

Remember the times would be cumulative, not consecutive. You do understand what cumulative means? If someone does leave for 2 years, they don't have to start over from scratch. Any previously paid subscription time would count when they came back.

That was just an example. It would be acceptable for them to be reduced by 6 months, but leaving them in 6 month increments. 6 months instead of 12, 12 instead of 18, etc. I think it's more than fair to be honest. What's the other alternative? Beg on the forums? Argue over and over with people about who deserves what? These arguments have been going on for years and it's getting old. That's why they become so volatile so quickly.

 

Remember the times would be cumulative, not consecutive. You do understand what cumulative means? If someone does leave for 2 years, they don't have to start over from scratch. Any previously paid subscription time would count when they came back.

You miss the point. Obtaining Nico the first time required 4 months of sub. Why should it require six months (or more) now, cumulative or otherwise? Again one could've subbed for those four months only, and then left for two years. Making his Nico obtained after spending $60 while someone starting now would have to spend $80. I'm on board with the cumulative plan (would it also be retroactive?), but the time required should be comparable to what the original requirement was, if you go this route.

I, as I've stated here many times, have all the companions and HKs and Purple/Black crystals and little astro droids. Bringing these things back for more players in any way possible, especially the one's with snippets of story and achievements connected to them, is the right thing to do. The system you outline above would be fine, just giving them away for nothing on a certain day or week for current subs would be fine (like was done before,) Cartel Market, in game credits, a new Dark vs Light event (cringe,) whatever the developers choose to do.

And, If they choose to not ever use these assets again in any way it would not be the worst decision we' ve seen them make or opportunity we've seen them squander.

I, as I've stated here many times, have all the companions and HKs and Purple/Black crystals and little astro droids. Bringing these things back for more players in any way possible, especially the one's with snippets of story and achievements connected to them, is the right thing to do. The system you outline above would be fine, just giving them away for nothing on a certain day or week for current subs would be fine (like was done before,) Cartel Market, in game credits, a new Dark vs Light event (cringe,) whatever the developers choose to do.

 

And, If they choose to not ever use these assets again in any way it would not be the worst decision we' ve seen them make or opportunity we've seen them squander.

Yeah, while that wasn't the greatest, I do think there's something to the idea of making them tied to actually playing the game. As it stands, from one point of view, the sub rewards are mere "thanks for showing up" trophies. You could tie them in to certain in-game achievements, or create new ones for them to make them more meaningful. And make them only available to be earned by subs to keep the "give the company money" element.

I think a system such as this would be an improvement. I don't have a particular interest in most sub rewards, but I do believe that any form of content would be much better off being obtainable than not. Whether this is constant or in a recurring fashion or requirements such as in the OP, as long as any player at any time can decide that they want something, and determine what they need to do to get it.

I think that the approach we've seen so far has done little more than cause agitation, disappointment and combativeness.

Make Nico Okarr, HK-55, Shae Vizla and Darth Hexid vet rewards. (Ordered as they were introduced into the game).

 

• 12 months of subscription time for Nico Okarr (including his pistols and jacket).
  
• 18 months of subscription time for HK-55 (including the bonus chapter and Z0-0M).
  
• 24 months of subscription time for Shae Vizla.
  
• 30 months of subscription time for Darth Hexid.
  

OK, but what do you offer the people who already got them? (Also: Darth Hexid was a gameplay(1) reward, not a subscriber reward.)

(1) No, not *much* gameplay, not like Master Ranos, but not zero either.

Yeah, while that wasn't the greatest, I do think there's something to the idea of making them tied to actually playing the game. As it stands, from one point of view, the sub rewards are mere "thanks for showing up" trophies. You could tie them in to certain in-game achievements, or create new ones for them to make them more meaningful. And make them only available to be earned by subs to keep the "give the company money" element.

It's worse than that. The *subscriber* rewards weren't even "thanks for showing up" trophies. All you had to do was help pay the bills. You didn't have to actually play the game. At least for Darth Hexid you had to do *something* in-game to qualify, even if it wasn't much.

That being said, your suggestion is fair enough. Except for the time periods. Why exactly are they so long?

One of the "pro-return the rewards" most persuasive argument is to generate more revenue from an old item already in the game. In all fairness, the people asking for those rewards to return are posying here, which means they are subs. Most are saying they would spend the money to get certain (ones they want) items if they could be brought back.

Many of you have already read my thoughts on bringing back the (old reward) items, so I'll leave them out of this.

For those that haven't seen this, the site or launcher malfunctioned a couple days ago advertising HK-55 as a subscriber reward (sub by January whatever) ... Eric addressed this here

Hey folks,

 

In this case there was a back-end issue that caused our launcher images to "break" and display some fairly old ones. The team has resolved the issue now and they are back to normal. Apologies for any confusion.

 

-eric

 

PS - Unrelated, your interest in being able to earn those rewards again has been noted.

The bottom statement should be interesting.

You miss the point. Obtaining Nico the first time required 4 months of sub. Why should it require six months (or more) now, cumulative or otherwise? Again one could've subbed for those four months only, and then left for two years. Making his Nico obtained after spending $60 while someone starting now would have to spend $80. I'm on board with the cumulative plan (would it also be retroactive?), but the time required should be comparable to what the original requirement was, if you go this route.

Because 6 months is a nice round number.

Eric addressed this here

 

 

 

The bottom statement should be interesting.

All that statement did was add fuel to an already volatile argument.

Because 6 months is a nice round number.

I think a point worth considering is that if these rewards were brought back (made obtainable to those that didn't qualify the first time), shouldn't they require a little more effort (for lack of a better word) than they did the first time around?

In life, when a person is given a "second chance" at something, he also has more to prove.

As Steve pointed out, what now do they give the people that already have the items? Nothing? They're rewarding subscription time in this model, but only to people that didn't sub earlier (at the necessary times). People that already have them still aren't getting an extra subscription incentive here while people that don't have them are.

One of the "pro-return the rewards" most persuasive argument is to generate more revenue from an old item already in the game. In all fairness, the people asking for those rewards to return are posying here, which means they are subs. Most are saying they would spend the money to get certain (ones they want) items if they could be brought back.

I think most implied a CC purchase with those types of statements. And I think contrary to other arguments that have been made about it, CCs do imply a level of revenue for the company, even if it is indirect. Even if people have stocked up CCs from months of subscription and/or referral links, that's still $15/month x however many months x however many people if a referral is used. CCs aren't always generated by direct cash infusions but apart from a handful of once-per-account achievements, they are generated by money going into BioWare's account nonetheless.

Because 6 months is a nice round number.

Unfortunately I think we're a little past nice.

All that statement did was add fuel to an already volatile argument.

Like I said before the volatility only came from one place, even if both sides have a hand in it now.

What about a veteran system which is based on the number of months you have played and sub. SWG had that and every reward was available to anyone once they reach that tier.

If I recall correct the system was something like this

3 Months

6 Months

9 Months

12 Months

etc. Every 3 months you get a choice of a different item(s) or you can choose something from the lower tiers but eventually everyone was eligible for the rewards. It was just based on the number of months you played/sub.

I think a point worth considering is that if these rewards were brought back (made obtainable to those that didn't qualify the first time), shouldn't they require a little more effort (for lack of a better word) than they did the first time around?

 

In life, when a person is given a "second chance" at something, he also has more to prove.

 

As Steve pointed out, what now do they give the people that already have the items? Nothing? They're rewarding subscription time in this model, but only to people that didn't sub earlier (at the necessary times). People that already have them still aren't getting an extra subscription incentive here while people that don't have them are.

No, your 'second chance' analogy fails miserably, this isn't about learning life lessons, we are talking about Bioware making more money to keep the lights on using existing assets and whether or not a vocal minority (of players and forum posters) will unsub or, some have even claimed, file suit if so.

As far as people that already have it give out Cartel Coins or a new thing and have people that weren't on time constantly chasing the 'lost' rewards, I don't really think it matters even if they get nothing because these same people, myself included here, have been playing the same game and paying for it for 3 years with very, very little content added to it. I know I've been passing on gear for some time now but newer players sure are rollin need.

I think a point worth considering is that if these rewards were brought back (made obtainable to those that didn't qualify the first time), shouldn't they require a little more effort (for lack of a better word) than they did the first time around?

 

In life, when a person is given a "second chance" at something, he also has more to prove.

 

As Steve pointed out, what now do they give the people that already have the items? Nothing? They're rewarding subscription time in this model, but only to people that didn't sub earlier (at the necessary times). People that already have them still aren't getting an extra subscription incentive here while people that don't have them are.

A little more effort than "none at all" is just that- a little. Tying to a gameplay achievement is "more effort" enough.

I think you'll find this sentiment of "punishing" those who didn't get the shinies the first time around is the crux of your problem.

There is nothing to "prove" for anyone, whether they had the shinies or not. There is only supply, demand and incentive.

I'm not sure the question of what should people who already have the shinies get is relevant either, since "second chance to get x" does not imply the existence of y necessarily. This isn't an event, like DvL we're talking about. Although if we're talking about general incentive programs going forward, I think CC boosts every couple of months (6 months if you prefer) of consecutive subscription will do well enough. Devs don't have to do anything special and everyone gets rewarded the same. You could have tiers:

-Sub for six consecutive months: 500 bonus CCs paid out on the sixth month, on top of the monthly complementary amount

-Sub for a consecutive year: 1000 bonus CCs paid out on the twelfth month, on top of the monthly complementary amount.

etc. The numbers given are just examples.

No, your 'second chance' analogy fails miserably, this isn't about learning life lessons, we are talking about Bioware making more money to keep the lights on using existing assets and whether or not a vocal minority (of players and forum posters) will unsub or, some have even claimed, file suit if so.

 

It was a weak analogy, no doubt. But as you said, we are talking about Bioware making money. Personally, I don't think past subscriber awards are enough to swing the balance. So there is the conundrum ... renege on your past claims to squeeze a few more drops out a raisin or come up with something that would appeal to all current game supporters.

A little more effort than "none at all" is just that- a little. Tying to a gameplay achievement is "more effort" enough.

 

I think you'll find this sentiment of "punishing" those who didn't get the shinies the first time around is the crux of your problem.

You don't work for your money (subscription cost)? Believe me, there's effort. If not, why wasn't everybody else subbed since launch? Everybody here (that can post on these forums) had the ability to earn money (50 cents / day) to sub for the last 6 years. People that were here at launch likely spent the time following this game's development ... more effort. Some helped with beta ... more effort (the latter two being more about effort to be aware of the game when it launched). But nobody that can post on these forums was completely incapable of earning money during the last 6 years.

Finally, not being rewarded is not "punishment." I have not proposed any punishment whatsoever. Are you being punished if you're F2P? Are you being punished if someone says "good post," to me, but not to you? Let's not be ridiculous.

+1/ signed

As a few have mentioned, this was the reward system in SWG. It worked well. The thing, there was usually multiple awards requiring choice. You didnt get everything, unless purchased (flaw) from others. Vets with longer longevity/subscriptions have access to the most recent/newest rewards. You could alwYs choose prevkous rewards at the expense of current rewards...choice.

Ashur

It was a weak analogy, no doubt. But as you said, we are talking about Bioware making money. Personally, I don't think past subscriber awards are enough to swing the balance. So there is the conundrum ... renege on your past claims to squeeze a few more drops out a raisin or come up with something that would appeal to all current game supporters.

There is no conundrum because there is no reneg.

No one promised you "muh exclusives" for eternity.

You don't work for your money (subscription cost)? Believe me, there's effort. If not, why wasn't everybody else subbed since launch? Everybody here (that can post on these forums) had the ability to earn money (50 cents / day) to sub for the last 6 years. People that were here at launch likely spent the time following this game's development ... more effort. Some helped with beta ... more effort (the latter two being more about effort to be aware of the game when it launched). But nobody that can post on these forums was completely incapable of earning money during the last 6 years.

 

Finally, not being rewarded is not "punishment." I have not proposed any punishment whatsoever. Are you being punished if you're F2P? Are you being punished if someone says "good post," to me, but not to you? Let's not be ridiculous.

What a ridiculous analogy. My work is not in question here. I pay money and am "rewarded' (odd way of putting it, next thing you'll tell me is I'm "rewarded" with a burger for buying a Big Mac) with full access to the game. Just as I didn't pay $15x (where x is the number of months needed for a given shiny) for that shiny, but rather for the full access to the game, neither is any discrete effort to be singled out in getting the shiny, which is given entirely as a bonus, and again, just for showing up. You don't go to a party for the door prizes, you go for the party for the party. By that same token, the effort to get a door prize =/= get dressed, go to party. The effort is zero. It was simply handed to you for being in the right place at the right time.

"Reward" is beginning to be a misnomer. The shinies were a reward. Now they may be something else. Another cash shop item or a reward for a new activity. You don't get to decide which, or at all really. And so, perhaps punishment is the wrong word as that implies you have the authority to do so. I think spite is a better word.

Simply put, the "reward" is what Bioware called it, not me. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. If it's so easy, like you imply, to sub for the rewards (no effort), then you (and everybody else) should have subbed --- again, not my policy (those were Bioware's terms and conditions for their "rewards.")

As for your analogy, I'm sure some people go to the party for the party. If there will be prizes, however, there may be some that only go for that reason, or that is the deciding factor. It doesn't have to be all one or the other. If it was, there would never be "prizes," would there?

I think the one thing we agree on is this isn't my decision to make. The decisions were already made. People are asking for them to un-make those decisions. I take no joy in anybody's disappointment (regardless of your implications that I have "spite" as you put it). I just think a company should stay as true to their word as possible. Furthermore, I don't believe there's a financial benefit for Bioware to renege.

A related thought ... I keep hearing about a vocal minority regarding this subject ... I wonder just whom that is? It would be weird, IMO, for a bunch of subs to be suggesting (in the suggestion forum) every week or two with a new thread that Bioware keep true to promises they made that they have stayed true to for 6 years + so far. I just don't see why people would be requesting things they already have.

Keep on spinning it your way, though. We'll keep on bumping these threads.

Simply put, the "reward" is what Bioware called it, not me. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them. If it's so easy, like you imply, to sub for the rewards (no effort), then you (and everybody else) should have subbed --- again, not my policy (those were Bioware's terms and conditions for their "rewards.")

Well done using past tense. You understand that this was the case. We are now discussing the possibilities of a new case.

As for your analogy, I'm sure some people go to the party for the party. If there will be prizes, however, there may be some that only go for that reason, or that is the deciding factor. It doesn't have to be all one or the other. If it was, there would never be "prizes," would there?

Irrelevant. The party is sold as the party.

I think the one thing we agree on is this isn't my decision to make. The decisions were already made. People are asking for them to un-make those decisions. I take no joy in anybody's disappointment (regardless of your implications that I have "spite" as you put it). I just think a company should stay as true to their word as possible. Furthermore, I don't believe there's a financial benefit for Bioware to renege.

You're not making any sense. You can't un-make a decision. The decison has been made and is in the past. Now some people are calling for a new decision.

As to BioWare and their word, they've stomped that into the mud several times already and on issues far more important. Not that it matters, since there isn't a word to break in this case. No one promised you exclusivity until the end of time and the assets are theirs to do with as they wish, and terms can change without warning.

Of course there's a financial benefit. Simply putting the shinies on the Cartel Market would net them a nice quick infusion of cash. Vocal minorities on the forums aside aside, whales would grab them up just to GTN them, so either way, they're selling.

A related thought ... I keep hearing about a vocal minority regarding this subject ... I wonder just whom that is?

You and me. Us forum masochists, on either side of this thing. I don't make the mistake of thinking the greater TOR playerbase, such as it is gives a damn one way or the other and I would hope you don't either.

I think we all benefit when the game thrives. Here we have a case where people want things that they might be willing to pay for... but the push-back against this is a desire for exclusivity. Honestly, I have no sympathy for the exclusivity crowd. Your exclusive rewards are gonna do you no good whatsoever when we're counting down to server-shut down.

I'd like to see subscriber rewards remain how they are; you get something for free, ASAP, because you were subscribed. Then... if someone else wants that thing... they can have that thing... if they pay for it. Seems fair to me.

Most of these rewards seem to be companion related, so lets look at them.

Current Cartel companions (Personal Warbot, Akk Dog, etc) cost anywhere from 1800 to 2100 cartel coins. I think they should market companion rewards by how much comes with the companion;

Shae Vizla (recruitment mission is a 8 second conversation) 2500 CC

HK & Nico both had full, but brief, Alliance Alert missions. 2800 CC

Z0-0M had a full bonus chapter, and that chapter offered additional Decos. 3500 CC

Master Ranos and Darth Hexid, I would like to see offered as "Solo DvL." Buy a Light-Sworn Token (Ranos) or a Dark-Sworn Token (Hexid) and Use that token on a new (under level 10 character) and play through your Class Story as Dark or Light to then earn Ranos or Hexid as a companion. I'm thinking these tokens should cost 2000 CC, because you have to "do content" to earn the Companion, but it doesn't actually provide any new content.

I think if someone wants Nico Okarr's gear, they should be able to buy it as a set (duster, two blasters) for about 800CC.

HK 55's "inspired" gear gives a bit more stuff... but the helmet and blaster are ugly (it's true, sorry) and the jet-pack is also weirdly and oddly reflective. maybe 2000CC

So, Subscribers wouldn't be losing anything...

"but... but... muh exclusivity!"

"Stow your exclusivity."

...and people who missed out could BUY what they are missing, if they so choose, contributing to the game.

 

I'd like to see subscriber rewards remain how they are; you get something for free, ASAP, because you were subscribed. Then... if someone else wants that thing... they can have that thing... if they pay for it. Seems fair to me.

Except for that pesky part in which subscribers get something for "Free" ASAP, but others can purchase it later, is not how subscriber rewards are. That may be how you wish them to be, but that is not how they ARE.

Most of these rewards seem to be companion related, so lets look at them.

 

Current Cartel companions (Personal Warbot, Akk Dog, etc) cost anywhere from 1800 to 2100 cartel coins. I think they should market companion rewards by how much comes with the companion;

Shae Vizla (recruitment mission is a 8 second conversation) 2500 CC

HK & Nico both had full, but brief, Alliance Alert missions. 2800 CC

Z0-0M had a full bonus chapter, and that chapter offered additional Decos. 3500 CC

 

Master Ranos and Darth Hexid, I would like to see offered as "Solo DvL." Buy a Light-Sworn Token (Ranos) or a Dark-Sworn Token (Hexid) and Use that token on a new (under level 10 character) and play through your Class Story as Dark or Light to then earn Ranos or Hexid as a companion. I'm thinking these tokens should cost 2000 CC, because you have to "do content" to earn the Companion, but it doesn't actually provide any new content.

 

I think if someone wants Nico Okarr's gear, they should be able to buy it as a set (duster, two blasters) for about 800CC.

HK 55's "inspired" gear gives a bit more stuff... but the helmet and blaster are ugly (it's true, sorry) and the jet-pack is also weirdly and oddly reflective. maybe 2000CC

 

So, Subscribers wouldn't be losing anything...

"but... but... muh exclusivity!"

"Stow your exclusivity."

...and people who missed out could BUY what they are missing, if they so choose, contributing to the game.

IF, and that is a huge IF, BW made the decision to violate the implicit agreements into which they entered with those who met the criteria to receive those past rewards and made past rewards available again, they should not, IMO, be made available for CC's. There are far too many free CC's floating around. They should require a real money purchase and at a cost at least equal (preferably 50% more as it would be a "second chance" to obtain those rewards) to what subscribers paid to meet the requirements to receive those rewards.

Your exclusive rewards are gonna do you no good whatsoever when we're counting down to server-shut down.

Until that next Star Wars MMO comes out (from EA), there will be no server shut-down. I think the ETA on that is more than 2 years from now + delays. When that next Star Wars MMO comes out, I would wager they'll take what they learned from this game and apply it there and base the next one off an engine that can actually handle MMO crowds. When that gets here, this one will have had a nice ride.