Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

Concerns over Settlement Costs

Tigari
Midnight
Tigari
I did a successful credit card chargeback on Eve-Online (because I didn't receive my PLEX). The chargeback was later reversed again in favor of CCP, but only after CCP finally delivered the PLEX I paid for. All parties were happy at the end because everyone got what was promised. My Credit Card company decided what was reasonable, NOT CCP.

See, you paid for the PLEX in this case. WHen it was not delievered, fine, chargeback. But in the case of PFO, your being charged to play. Not gain xp, not farm, to play. As long as they provide you the ability to play, they can do anything. Now, if they continue to charge people, and take down the servers, THEN you can start talking about foul play and chargebacks.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Tigari
See, you paid for the PLEX in this case. WHen it was not delievered, fine, chargeback. But in the case of PFO, your being charged to play. Not gain xp, not farm, to play. As long as they provide you the ability to play, they can do anything. Now, if they continue to charge people, and take down the servers, THEN you can start talking about foul play and chargebacks.
Ryan was actually pretty clear on more than one occasion that XP was the only thing we were paying for.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Tigari
Mkay, we'll see.
Quijenoth
lets look at the xp from the companies perspective a minute… what if you where paying for xp and not to play like Tig suggests?

Would it not be possible then for the new company to sell XP packages up to the current xp max since EE?

Would you consider buying XP (or DTs for that matter) if it was to become a thing in the store?

Would you feel cheated if it worked out cheaper than paying for the X multiple accounts you have been paying for so far?
Caldeathe Baequiannia
1) Yes. And a number of us have suggested it.
2) Yes. 'Though since "no more DTs ever" was another thing on which the team lead was adamant, I'd probably be annoyed about that one. On the other hand, considering the huge boon, I suspect they'd have to sell them for very large sums to make it worth their while, and if they decide to make mt DT accounts worth very large sums, I'd be happy to exit the game with no hard feelings if I didn't enjoy continuing.
3)Depending on how much cheaper, maybe, but why would they do that? There's plenty of evidence that people will happily pay the equivalent of an existing subscription to get back-dated XP.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Doc
"Doing it all over again in the same game AND the loss of trust as if they wipe once they can feasibly wipe anytime they like which is the death of a no XP cap game."

A problem largely created by GW using nebulous marketing terms for unfamiliar development patterns. PFO had no recognizable "beta" period that the industry would say, "hey yeah ok to wipe, actually they better wipe before launch."

A problem largely avoided by dropping the EE/OE nonsense and going to a normal Beta then Launch pattern. Companies can and do wipe at the end of beta, and people expect there won't be a wipe after launch, which is fine.

The "no wipe after EE" thing was just a carrot to get people to give money to the project, since it would be expected that a certain percentage of people would jump at the idea of being perpetually better than everybody else if they got in at the ground floor, even if the game kinda sucked.

This new company presumably could dispense with the EE/OE nonsense if they have this purported 10+ million $$$ to work with, since they apparently won't need to play marketing games (EE) in order to extract sufficient funding from backers.

Are folks really expecting this new company to just pick up the GW playbook and continue doing everything the same way? I just kind of assume they will do things in a way that makes sense and give them the best chance to successfully launch a game that currently has a bad reputation (whether deserved or not).
Midnight
Doc
"Doing it all over again in the same game AND the loss of trust as if they wipe once they can feasibly wipe anytime they like which is the death of a no XP cap game."

A problem largely created by GW using nebulous marketing terms for unfamiliar development patterns. PFO had no recognizable "beta" period that the industry would say, "hey yeah ok to wipe, actually they better wipe before launch."

A problem largely avoided by dropping the EE/OE nonsense and going to a normal Beta then Launch pattern. Companies can and do wipe at the end of beta, and people expect there won't be a wipe after launch, which is fine.

The "no wipe after EE" thing was just a carrot to get people to give money to the project, since it would be expected that a certain percentage of people would jump at the idea of being perpetually better than everybody else if they got in at the ground floor, even if the game kinda sucked.

This new company presumably could dispense with the EE/OE nonsense if they have this purported 10+ million $$$ to work with, since they apparently won't need to play marketing games (EE) in order to extract sufficient funding from backers.

Are folks really expecting this new company to just pick up the GW playbook and continue doing everything the same way? I just kind of assume they will do things in a way that makes sense and give them the best chance to successfully launch a game that currently has a bad reputation (whether deserved or not).

No, I'm expecting them (sans a GW bankruptcy) to buy the game and treat us in a reasonable manner. It would be entirely unreasonable to wipe the server to attract hordes of new players and not provide the miniscule number of current account holders with subscription time equal to what they have paid (considering all the promises about x.p. that were made by G.W.). You can argue whether GW can sell a game to NewCo minus their promises, but (sans bankruptcy) I'm pretty sure my state and GW's state (and maybe even NewCo's state) would seriously look at the criminal fraud implications in such a transaction.

Also remember that now that gaming has gone to digital distribution, the gaming companies need credit card companies more than the credit card companies need gaming companies. When multiple people start demanding chargebacks on the same day or week, the credit card companies get a quick sense of who is right and who is wrong from synthesizing the various customer complaints.

So, no, I don't expect NewCo to copy GW in many respects. But wiping without crediting previous xp or subscription time simply wouldn't be reasonable, given how the game was marketed.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Tigari
Midnight
Tigari
I did a successful credit card chargeback on Eve-Online (because I didn't receive my PLEX). The chargeback was later reversed again in favor of CCP, but only after CCP finally delivered the PLEX I paid for. All parties were happy at the end because everyone got what was promised. My Credit Card company decided what was reasonable, NOT CCP.

See, you paid for the PLEX in this case. WHen it was not delievered, fine, chargeback. But in the case of PFO, your being charged to play. Not gain xp, not farm, to play. As long as they provide you the ability to play, they can do anything. Now, if they continue to charge people, and take down the servers, THEN you can start talking about foul play and chargebacks.

According to your earlier post, my character belongs to CCP as did the game item (PLEX). Whether my character received the PLEX wouldn't even be important if those two "facts" were really true. My example was to demonstrate to you that regardless of what CCP has tried to make players believe, it is the Credit Card Companies that will ultimately decide most of these disputes, and Game company ToSs and EULAs will matter very little, because credit card companies are more legally sophisticated than the average gamer.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Quijenoth
lets look at the xp from the companies perspective a minute… what if you where paying for xp and not to play like Tig suggests?

Would it not be possible then for the new company to sell XP packages up to the current xp max since EE?

Would you consider buying XP (or DTs for that matter) if it was to become a thing in the store?

Would you feel cheated if it worked out cheaper than paying for the X multiple accounts you have been paying for so far?

We've already been "cheated" by free trials during EE and by later EE subscriptions without a box price premium. So far no one has cared enough to raise serious objections because even us uppity consumers are being reasonable.

If I documented all the things we were told about how EE and OE would work (marketing) I could probably make a case for being refunded the $55 box price premium on each of my accounts. That isn't an insubstantial amount of money.

Documenting all that marketing and turning it into a winnable case (even to just a credit card company) probably would take enough time that I could simply recover my money better devoting that time to conducting my normal business, instead. However, if we add in 13 months of subscription time per account after a server wipe, then documenting my "case" becomes more cost effective (and would likely be a collaborative effort between other cheated players, requiring less of any individual's personal time).
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Doc
"No, I'm expecting them (sans a GW bankruptcy) to buy the game and treat us in a reasonable manner. It would be entirely unreasonable to wipe the server to attract hordes of new players and not provide the miniscule number of current account holders with subscription time equal to what they have paid (considering all the promises about x.p. that were made by G.W.)."

"So, no, I don't expect NewCo to copy GW in many respects. But wiping without crediting previous xp or subscription time simply wouldn't be reasonable, given how the game was marketed."

Not sure where you got that from, I personally suggested that I think it would be likely they would offer vouchers to make up for time spent during the GW reign - it would cost them nothing and any loss in future revenue could be offset by a growing and viable playerbase. I'm pretty sure Lisa would make that a pre-condition of the licensing transfer.

You're envisioning an even more disruptive scenario than I am, which is pretty remarkable knowing myself.

I'm just saying they need to wipe, they would have the right to wipe, and they probably will wipe. Anybody who thinks otherwise IMO just has some major cognitive dissonance going on.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post