I feel the required subscription period is important. That is just my view of course, and is entirely self serving to my interests, as I wish folks to have incentives to sub.

 

That made clear, ANY iteration of this type of offer is acceptable to me as long as it has the same effect....sub loyalty. I am willing to do almost ANYTHING that works to that end.

 

Though I would suggest finding an alternative to the prior offer is best, I am not concerned about player concerns with respect to the loss of exclusivity. To me this takes a back seat to game health.

 

I agree, I think the incentives are good but maybe they need to rethink the execution. Subscription longevity would be a better way to keep subs in place, better than date sensitive at any rate.

I agree, I think the incentives are good but maybe they need to rethink the execution. Subscription longevity would be a better way to keep subs in place, better than date sensitive at any rate.

 

An interesting slant....do you have any ideas in this respect? I would love to hear them.

 

Note: I offer my apologies if you have already expressed this earlier in the thread. I haven't read every response.

Edited January 16, 2018 by LordArtemis

An interesting slant....do you have any ideas in this respect? I would love to hear them.

 

Note: I offer my apologies if you have already expressed this earlier in the thread. I haven't read every response.

 

Well, rather than having it be a date sensitive thing, have certain rewards unlock after a set amount of uninterruptedd sub time. For instance, and this is just an example, after six months of uninterrupted subscription you get a reward, a decoration or something. The specifics aren't important atm since this is hypothetical. Then say after a year of uninterrupted subscription another reward unlocks, and so on and so forth. Those are just examples of times, but you get the idea. If the rewards were given out based on longevity rather than specific dates it would require more than just resubbing for the run of the promotion, but maintaining a subscription. Additionally, if it's based on longevity and you slip up and drop your sub, or life circumstances prevent maintaining your subscription you can always start over and earn the rewards.

 

It would provide incentive to sub and remained sub rather than just jump on the train when there's a promotion. You want the reward stay subbed, anyone can get it but they have to stay subbed for x amount of time. Reward long term subscribers rather than people who sub for a few months to get the prize and then fall of the planet again. Yes, it may take from the prestige of exclusivity but in the long run it would be a better solution for the health of the game.

 

Subscriber rewards based on a specific date are band-aids at best, the game needs things that promote longevity of subscription not temporary rises.

Edited January 16, 2018 by DuchessKristania

I feel the required subscription period is important. That is just my view of course, and is entirely self serving to my interests, as I wish folks to have incentives to sub.

Well... I don't think you should tie yourself too firmly to this idea. I think that in a purely "what you get vs. what it costs" way, subscribing is more cost effective for the player. Premium access to content, plus bonus coins every month... If someone wants to buy something from the Cartel Market, and buy coins... that's almost pure profit on Biowares end, and the only thing the player gets out of it is what they buy.

Back in 2012, WoE had an annual pass, it gave you doable 3 for free, early access to the beta and Tyreals charger. They weren't marked as "exclusive" either. You can no longer obtain it in EU/NA.

Recently people found a way to obtain it, you could buy a code from the Taiwan store and use it on your EU/NA account. Someone asked Blizzard why this was possible and it wasn't supposed to be.

Blizzard removed the mounts people purchased and refunded them their money. They could have let it go if they wanted to but they didn't. When you offer a reward with a certain requirement and a deadline, it often means the rewards are exclusive. Why put a deadline when you can just obtain it later again? It makes no sense other than for pure greed.

 

If they do release the HK stuff and whatever that was a reward, they obviously can, it's their game and crying about it isn't going to make them not do it. But it also makes it not as appealing for people to want to qualify for something that people would have thought would be an exclusive item.

With all the requests of releasing them again, kind of makes it common sense that they were indeed exclusive and how people missed it because they had a broken leg, had a power outage, didn't have money, because their pc broke, because they had a wedding party, were in labour for 100 hours, lost their house, and the list goes on.

 

Release it again or don't, to me it doesn't really matter all that much, I don't even have them and I won't be getting them either. But every time they will offer rewards such as these again, people will ask if the items will be exclusive, because they got screwed over again. And people may or may not be less inclined to subscribe just for that. The distrust will be there, and we all know why.

 

Your entire argument is null and void.

Blizzard always clearly marks their promotions. They flat out say "For a limited time only, players who make a 12-month subscription commitment to World of Warcraft through the WoW Annual Pass will receive the following epic rewards:"

Link for those interested.

 

Why do you even bother lying when all of this is easily accessible via the net? Moreover, I took advantage of this offer.

SWTOR NEVER said anything like this. They went out of their way to say nothing is exclusive or limited in ANY way.

I gave you an example of what Bioware did, and you toss out a FALSE example of what another company did. Shame on you.

 

Black Desert was accused of false advertisement, and delivered on what they advertised, even though it was a mistake. Same with Wildstar. Amazon, Best Buy, etc do the same thing. Advertising something and then saying it is false does a lot more damage than you think.

 

But I digress, you can think you won, I am simply done with this thread.

Edited January 18, 2018 by TheLexinator

Again, folks seem to want to continue arguing among themselves as to whether or not Bioware intended and/or indicated directly that this particular mission/item was exclusive.

 

There is probably little wrong with having this discussion, but folks are so passionate about the back and forth it astounds me at times....considering that community approval is NOT REQUIRED.

 

The folks that make the decision is Bioware, not the community. Certainly Bioware will likely pay attention to feedback, but arguing back and forth is really just a waste of time.

 

Bioware is the entity you have to convince. NOT the community. Might be a good idea to keep that in mind.

Again, folks seem to want to continue arguing among themselves as to whether or not Bioware intended and/or indicated directly that this particular mission/item was exclusive.

 

There is probably little wrong with having this discussion, but folks are so passionate about the back and forth it astounds me at times....considering that community approval is NOT REQUIRED.

 

The folks that make the decision is Bioware, not the community. Certainly Bioware will likely pay attention to feedback, but arguing back and forth is really just a waste of time.

 

Bioware is the entity you have to convince. NOT the community. Might be a good idea to keep that in mind.

 

Not to mention the fact that the EULA that everyone agreed to clearly states that no one owns anything, no one has exclusive rights to anything, we're all just renting and EA/BW retains full ownership of it all. When they decide to shut down the servers all of their pretty, precious pixels disappear. BW can do whatever they choose to do with their assets including, but not limited to, offer whatever they want, however they want, in any sort of promotion with those assets. If they offer a promotion that grants X and you meet the requirements then you gets X. If two years later they decide to offer another promotion that grants X then you (meaning anyone who was under the illusion that they had any sort of exclusive right) get to suck it up.

 

Here is exactly what will happen if BW offers another promotion that grants Shae Vizla, Nico Okarr, and/or HK-55 (maybe all three together). The people on here who whine, complain, and moan about some fictitious belief of exclusivity will suck it up. They'll complain. We probably won't hear the end of it for quite a while. But that's it. They may threaten to cancel their subscription, some might even do it for a short time, some might even do it permanently, but most wont. They'll suck it up. Their threats are made out of tissue and fall apart under the slightest pressure.

 

And if they think some international law will protect them guess what? This promotion is not offered in your country. Problem solved. And when they whine and complain about the promotion not being offered in their country. We'll remind them that those are the laws of their country.

Edited January 18, 2018 by ceryxp

Always cracks me up when the people whining and complaining about not getting a "pixel" as you call it, are the ones accusing the otherside of whining. The hypocrisy in itself is astounding. Edited January 18, 2018 by lightSaberAddiCt

Always cracks me up when the people whining and complaining about not getting a "pixel" as you call it, are the ones accusing the otherside of whining. The hypocrisy in itself is astounding.

 

Is that directed at me? I assume so since your comment directly follows mine and you parrot my language. As I've said in other threads, these are just pixels and are irrelevant to me. On characters I haven't taken through FE/ET I already have 9 companions (5 story, 1 ship, HK, Treek, and Hexid) so I absolutely don't need and don't care about acquiring these companions. On those that have gone through FE/ET I have about 50 companions and 41 of them don't ever get used. My comments are directed at those with their false bravado who beat their chest and howl EXCLUSIVE and ENTITLED thinking they are special. I have not seen people demanding BW bring back these companions. What I have seen are people asking if BW will return these comps in future promotions, something BW is completely free to do with their assets, and a whole bunch of entitled whiners crying about their alleged "exclusive" digital shinies. The only hypocrisy here are people thinking that because they did a thing at a time they are entitled to an exclusive license when the thing they did, at the time they did it, is no more than what is being asked for again.

BW can do whatever they choose to do with their assets...

 

Including continuing along the path they have established for years, which is not to make those rewards available again, by any means, no matter how loudly or how long those who think they should have something they KNOW they did NOT meet the criteria to receive whine and cry on the forums.

Including continuing along the path they have established for years, which is not to make those rewards available again, by any means, no matter how loudly or how long those who think they should have something they KNOW they did NOT meet the criteria to receive whine and cry on the forums.

 

Ahh, see, that's the thing you seem incapable of grasping. It's meet the requirements of that promotion at that time. BW can choose to offer a new promotion with different terms and give people another chance to get that companion, or they can simple choose to allow people to purchase the companion directly. And your ongoing, ad nauseam, attempt to rules lawyer means absolutely nothing. What you don't understand is some people are expressing an interest, asking if another promotion will be offered, or if other means to acquire the promotional item will be made available. The act of expressing that interest informs BW that the interest is there and a potential revenue stream is present. You, in your head, turn that into crying on the forums and entitlement. What you don't seem capable of understanding is no one is talking about that promotion, at that time, with those requirements; they're talking about new promotions. Promotions that would use already created assets that, at this moment, are going unutilized. BW has already spent money on those assets and if they can use them to make more then it is foolish and a poor business decision to sit on them because some people think they have an exclusive license.

Including continuing along the path they have established for years, which is not to make those rewards available again, by any means, no matter how loudly or how long those who think they should have something they KNOW they did NOT meet the criteria to receive whine and cry on the forums.

 

Except, as you've been shown several times, they haven't continued that path and have already broken it for one of the rewards given out alongside Nico (the Kakkran Daggerstar swoop bike, in case you've forgotten already). You keep trying to claim they've never done it, but they clearly have.

Your entire argument is null and void.

Blizzard always clearly marks their promotions. They flat out say "For a limited time only, players who make a 12-month subscription commitment to World of Warcraft through the WoW Annual Pass will receive the following epic rewards:"

Link for those interested.

I think the linked special offer here is really relevant; subscribe to WoW for a set period, and get Diablo III for Free.

 

...people arguing about exclusivity need to look at that promotion with an open brain. If you think that subscribing from X until Y to get HK-55 for free is the ONLY way you can get HK-55 (well, it is, to date, but) then apply this same reasoning to this Blizzard promotion. Subscribe for a year... and get Diablo III for free... and if you don't subscribe to WoW for a year, you can't ever get Diablo III.

 

That literally makes no sense.

 

Just because a product (HK-55 is a product) is given away in accordance to some promotion, does not mean it cannot be marketed in some other way.

I think the linked special offer here is really relevant; subscribe to WoW for a set period, and get Diablo III for Free.

 

...people arguing about exclusivity need to look at that promotion with an open brain. If you think that subscribing from X until Y to get HK-55 for free is the ONLY way you can get HK-55 (well, it is, to date, but) then apply this same reasoning to this Blizzard promotion. Subscribe for a year... and get Diablo III for free... and if you don't subscribe to WoW for a year, you can't ever get Diablo III.

 

That literally makes no sense.

 

Just because a product (HK-55 is a product) is given away in accordance to some promotion, does not mean it cannot be marketed in some other way.

 

Getting Diablo 3 for free was the promotion, not just getting Diablo 3. Diablo 3 was always intended to be available for anyone to purchase.

 

You're also ignoring the other part of that promotion, the mount.

 

That mount cannot be obtained any longer in the areas in which that promotion was offered and remains exclusive to those that met the criteria to receive that mount in those areas in which the promotion was offered.

 

In areas in which the promotion was not offered, like Korea, that mount could be purchased through the game store. A recent glitch in that game store was exploited by players in the US who did not meet the criteria of the previous promotion to obtain that mount, even though it was never offered through the store in the US and the US was one of the areas in which the aforementioned promotion took place. The game company removed the mount from those who exploited that glitch in the game store and obtained the mount even though they did not meet the criteria during the promotion and refunded the purchase price to those that had exploited the glitch.

 

I would say that Blizzard not making that mount available again in the areas in which that promotion took place, and the fact that they removed it from those that exploited to obtain it, are a pretty good indication that that particular mount is exclusive to those that earned it by meeting the criteria set forth by Blizzard for that promotion.

 

Now, is that promotional mount also one of those items that they cannot legally make available again, like the Hoard motorbike mentioned in other threads? Since Blizzard has not made any official statement to that effect, I cannot say, but given that they had to refund when they removed the mounts that were obtained by exploiting the glitch, I would guess that there was a pretty good reason why Blizzard would not have allowed those players who purchased the mount through the game store to keep those mounts.

 

At $25 per mount, even 40 people exploiting would mean $1000 in returned (lost) revenue. Given the numbers of posters on the forums and the fact that the forums are only a small percentage of players, I suspect there were likely hundreds, if not thousands, of players who exploited to obtain that mount. It would not be an unreasonable guess that Blizzard had to return tens of thousands of dollars in revenue when they removed those mounts that been obtained by exploiting in order to keep those mounts exclusive to those that actually earned them via the promotion.

 

Tell us all why a game company would give up tens of thousands of dollars in revenue if they truly could just offer pixels which were previously available only via a promotion at any time in the future they desired.

Still running the tried "legal" bit, eh?

 

I think knock knock jokes are fresher, by comparison.

Ratajack, I would like to offer two points....you are free to reject them naturally. Its up to you.

 

1) You do not need the communities approval to validate your views on this matter....you need to convince Bioware. I would point out that it is likely Bioware knows the legal ins and outs with respect to this matter, and since you likely are either stating something they are already aware of OR putting forth a silly premise (and they know it) you are not doing yourself any favors in this respect.

 

2) Using terms like "cry" and "whine", again, with respect to the community at large, does not help the legitimacy of your argument either IMO. I understand why you are making the comments you are making, and certainly there are plenty of folks that have thrown insults in your direction, but I remind you it is Bioware you need to convince....not the community.

 

I hope you consider both points as you move forward. You and I do not agree on this premise, but I think you can clearly see that when WE discussed this issue there was no need for diatribe on ether side.

 

I would strongly recommend, if you wish Bioware to actually consider your opinion that you consider my points and act accordingly.

Ratajack, I would like to offer two points....you are free to reject them naturally. Its up to you.

 

1) You do not need the communities approval to validate your views on this matter....you need to convince Bioware. I would point out that it is likely Bioware knows the legal ins and outs with respect to this matter, and since you likely are either stating something they are already aware of OR putting forth a silly premise (and they know it) you are not doing yourself any favors in this respect.

 

2) Using terms like "cry" and "whine", again, with respect to the community at large, does not help the legitimacy of your argument either IMO. I understand why you are making the comments you are making, and certainly there are plenty of folks that have thrown insults in your direction, but I remind you it is Bioware you need to convince....not the community.

 

I hope you consider both points as you move forward. You and I do not agree on this premise, but I think you can clearly see that when WE discussed this issue there was no need for diatribe on ether side.

 

I would strongly recommend, if you wish Bioware to actually consider your opinion that you consider my points and act accordingly.

 

..they're leery of alienating frothing-at-the-mouth exclusivity alarmists such as yourself.

 

In all fairness Artemis, there is alot more name calling from the other side of the argument then what was stated in his post. Alot of more personal, insulting, condescending attitudes and insults shotgunned at anyone who doesn't think that these items should be handed out.

 

It just seems like you are choosing to single out Rat, when right above him there is a insulting post that borders on being reported as an offense.

In all fairness Artemis, there is alot more name calling from the other side of the argument then what was stated in his post. Alot of more personal, insulting, condescending attitudes and insults shotgunned at anyone who doesn't think that these items should be handed out.

 

It just seems like you are choosing to single out Rat, when right above him there is a insulting post that borders on being reported as an offense.

 

The reason I did that is because Ratajack is one of the most consistent logical voices against the idea in this thread. Though I may not agree with the opinion, there need to be sensible and rational opinions on both sides that rise above the normal diatribe...as those posts are the ones Bioware most likely pays attention to.

 

Its not really a "slap on the wrist for behavior" move....more a "clean it up if you want to be heard" kind of thing.

I'll be blunt. It's difficult to treat Ratajack respectfully on this particular issue when his bias is so obvious and inflammatory. His need to keep his precious, exclusive (not at all exclusive) items out of the hands of people who just want nice things is... just bizarre. It's petty. I don't understand it, and I have no respect for it. My posts reflect that more than they should.

The reason I did that is because Ratajack is one of the most consistent logical voices against the idea in this thread. Though I may not agree with the opinion, there need to be sensible and rational opinions on both sides that rise above the normal diatribe...as those posts are the ones Bioware most likely pays attention to.

 

Its not really a "slap on the wrist for behavior" move....more a "clean it up if you want to be heard" kind of thing.

 

Ok I see your point. I just posted that because it caught me off guard. Your usually pretty logical, with your posts. Even when I dont agree, I usually respect your arguments.

I'll be blunt. It's difficult to treat Ratajack respectfully on this particular issue when his bias is so obvious and inflammatory. His need to keep his precious, exclusive (not at all exclusive) items out of the hands of people who just want nice things is... just bizarre. It's petty. I don't understand it, and I have no respect for it. My posts reflect that more than they should.

 

Hey man I feel you, sometimes posts have gotten me so frustrated I have retaliated to the point of suspension. If both sides will just realize, we both are arguing out of a sense of entitlement. One side feels entitled to keep it exclusive, one side feels entitled to get it even though it was a time limited thing.

 

I get it, I dropped my sub right before kotet and lost out on some stuff I would like to have. I just dont understand the HK thing...I mean I would understand if it was about the chapter with Zoom because it is story. But for an HK unit, which you can get another one from questing the parts, and he is the original....

Hey man I feel you, sometimes posts have gotten me so frustrated I have retaliated to the point of suspension. If both sides will just realize, we both are arguing out of a sense of entitlement. One side feels entitled to keep it exclusive, one side feels entitled to get it even though it was a time limited thing.

 

I get it, I dropped my sub right before kotet and lost out on some stuff I would like to have. I just dont understand the HK thing...I mean I would understand if it was about the chapter with Zoom because it is story. But for an HK unit, which you can get another one from questing the parts, and he is the original....

I hope both sides will also realize the insults, less than respectful posts and general pettiness go both ways? You allude to my most harmless of posts above, yet you ignore things like "entitleds"? Another user calls me out with a straight up ad hominem in a thread I hadn't even participated in and when I reply, I'm the one who gets slammed? Does that seem fair to you?

 

I would agree both sides need to back down on the aggressiveness and belligerence. But to do that, please, let's acknowledge in full that both sides are doing all of these things.

 

Now for me, it's not about the HK or any one companion or other reward. As of last night I personally have everything I want in the game. It's just the principle of a) giving people what they want b) utilizing existing assets to their maximum potential and c) (because why not) the devs making a few extra bucks. I do not recognize the counterarguments as being either valid or carrying enough weight to offset the benefits. And I've gone in hard the way I did because of a clear historical effect of certain people (who at times do vary) stifling any support for this "side". Now that there more "regulars" on both sides and thus more equal footing, perhaps it is time to calm down and attempt more rational discourse. Especially with interest being noted. I think the "Subscriber Reward System" thread in Suggestions is doing fairly well for that. There were some shots fired earlier and it's not entirely calm, but it is more productive than anything I've seen to date on this issue.

Edited January 19, 2018 by CrutchCricket

All I can really add to this is that when they put up that promotion: sub on x date and get HK-55 back and sub from x date to x date and get an added chapter to play as HK-55; I just knew that it would be worth it. HK-55 was one of the things I really enjoyed about FE. I also liked the monthly updates format so I made sure to keep my sub going. Most of those chapters sucked, but I still liked the idea. So if their intent was to give me incentive to continue subbing even through some awful chapters (and I'm sure it was) then it was successful. Would I have still continued my sub if I knew they'd release it again later with some other restriction applied? I really don't know. Would I have canceled my sub after playing Chapter 12 with a BH? No. It was absurd but not sub cancel worthy. So it's hard to say if knowing of a later offering would really be an anti-incentive as claimed by some.

 

Now with that being said, if you guys missed out then you really missed out. it was the best of all the chapters. So I wouldn't be upset in the least if they made receiving that chapter available again (I'm sure they'd do it as a sub incentive again) in some fashion. The way I feel about these kinds of rewards is like Early Access. I get to play the expansion three days early but I'm not going to complain after that period that other people now have access to it.

Personally, I stepped out because it was just going in circles and no one was convincing anyone of anything. It seemed to me that it ceased being about a rational discussion and turned into nothing more than being "right." I feel that's counterproductive to the overall health of the game. Also, I decided to actually go play the game instead of just argue about it.

 

My stance is this; old rewards should not just be given to people. However, I think there is nothing entitled or wrong with using them in future promotions where equal requirements must be met and new things are offered for those who already have it. It does not have to be one way or no way. Surely there is a middle ground that can be met.

 

I do not think voicing an interest in EARNING something is entitled or whining. It's simply saying you're interested in a particular aspect of the game. There is a vast distinction between wanting it handed out just because someone else got it and being willing to earn something. I would like to see that at least acknowledged by those who continue to use the terms *whining*, "crying", and "entitled" toward anyone who even mentions their interest in this or other rewards.

 

I think offering subscriber rewards that are date sensitive is a poor way to do business because it simply encourages people to sub from date A to date B and then drop the sub the moment the promotion is over. It happens, people openly say they're doing it.. A much more logical way to reward subs is by basing it off of time subscribed. Life happens sometimes and there are a plethora of reasons a person may not be subbed on a specific date. What this means is that otherwise loyal subscribers miss out on something they really should have qualified for. Not talking about myself, I was unsubbed for a couple of years and wouldn't qualify even under time subbed standards. By awarding subscriber appreciation based on total time subbed it promotes longevity in subscription time which the game desperately needs.

 

I also think subscriber rewards should be a more regular and consistent thing, be they new or repeating items. It offers something to the new or returning subs who may have missed out on previous promotions. I spend my very small amount of monthly fun money on this game, so it would be cool to be present for a round of subscriber rewards and see what sort of goodies they bring.

 

I have HK-51 because I did the quest, wasn't the same to me so I started the Asylum chapter (didn't even play it, just spaced through the cutscene) with a toon that had completed all the story content to date and now HK-55 is in my active companions. I intend to do this with every character. HK-55 is probably not the best argument for retaining exclusivity since there is a very easy way for everyone to have him which by definition means he isn't exclusive to anyone.

 

On a more personal note, I really and truly do not understand the obsession with whether someone gets an old subscriber reward when it won't hinder anyone else's ability to play the game. I just don't get why people are so concerned with someone else's game...I'm not calling anyone names or trying to be inflammatory, My personal rule is if I wouldn't say it to your face I won't say it online. I just genuinely don't understand the point in getting upset over what other people have when the odds are that you wouldn't even know when, if, or how they got it. So that's where I stand on it personally. People are entitled to disagree and feel the way they want to feel. At the end of the day it comes down to what BW thinks is best for the business and whether someone wins the argument here or not probably won't come into play.

I agree with most of what you said - time sensitive offers are pretty dumb, and all it leads to is threads like this. Going ahead, having rewards based on time subbed or played would be better.

 

However, I do want to address the point you made -

 

I really and truly do not understand the obsession with whether someone gets an old subscriber reward when it won't hinder anyone else's ability to play the game. I just don't get why people are so concerned with someone else's game...

 

The point (for me, anyway) isn't that I don't want people to have things they can be proud of. It's that it was rewards for loyal players who remained subscribed in a content drought, when other players bragged about unsubbing and getting the same content for much less money.

 

As a way to combat this, Bioware offered these rewards to the people who remained subscribed, continuing to pay for no extra content, purely to "keep the lights on". Bioware did their best to keep the items as purely cosmetic, so that the rewards didn't actually give anyone an advantage, but it was more of a badge to say "I was there".

To have these rewards taken away from us and given to the same people who bragged about "cheating" the system would be disrespectful at best.

 

As I've said many times before, it sucks for new players that they can't get these items, but to just throw them at everyone would be an insult to the most loyal players.

 

It's not about "implicit agreements", or "precedents with the Daggerstar."

Edited January 19, 2018 by CrazyCT