1) WoW does have gold spammers, you not having seen them is just your good fortune. Google it, tons of complaints on Bliz' forums. 2) WoW is a purely P2P game which inherently makes dealing with gold spammers easier. SW:ToR had significantly less back when it was P2P as well. It's more accurate to compare it to F2P/B2P games than it is to compare it to P2P.

Yes subs do get it for free. A reward is by definition something given for a reason, but not something purchased, otherwise it's something you bought not a reward. But that's disanalogous. The payment the one is made for a longer duration sub. They didn't pay $120 as opposed to $15 for the HK-55, they payed it for a longer subscription and as a reward they got HK-55 and other things. It's more accurate to compare two $120 subs, one gets hk-55 and all the other things, the other does not. It's free in the sense I mean free. Obviously you had to pay to receive the reward, but it's free as in it's a bonus given to you after you buy something. If you subscribe only for one month, you don't get the other months subscribed. So when you buy the larger subscription plan, you get more months subscribed, that's what you're paying for. You may be paying for that in order to qualify for said rewards program, but the rewards program is itself still free on top of what you're paying for (as last I checked, you don't have to pay for a subscription THEN pay for hk-55 and such).

You can reward existing customers for their loyalty without it being forever exclusive, that's sort of the point. Now, I think the subscriber program could be way better than it is even if I thought it was a good idea in the first place... but let's just, for example, go with their model for the sake of discussion. Let's say the subscriber rewards program stays exactly as is, except all the benefits of it become available later on the Cartel Market (big rewards such as HK-55 and the quest could be individually sold, whereas the smaller rewards could be part of a larger bundle). It could be the case that subscribers from that time period get all this content free. Remember, as a subscriber, you get certain perks which are core to that subscription package. You're getting the rewards, such as HK-55, on top of those, completely for free., and much earlier than everyone else. That's rewarding subscribers (heavily, I might add) while retaining options for those who miss out on this deal for *whatever reason*. Again, you're talking as if this is an issue about money, but no one is suggesting these be given for free. Some people don't like the idea of spending 100s of dollars for a subscription only because you're interested in a certain perk. It doesn't make financial sense, it's not an issue of being too poor, it can very well be an issue of simple fiscal practicality. There's just an underlying fallacy in the way of thinking that *seems* to underlie your side of the discussion: the notion that if the content isn't absolutely and unequivocally forever exclusive to you, it isn't a "reward". Again, subscribers can be rewarded AND people who for *whatever* reason missed this offer can still have a shot at getting it.

The limited time offers are themselves incentives for one time purchases of subscriptions, they don't give incentive to subscribe beyond that date. So it's the amount of money made on subs who subbed that specific period for that specifed time, versus the money made from Cartel Purchases for literally the rest of the game's lifecycle. Section X and Treek are still "hot" purchases in the Cartel Market, they're still sought after highly... A fun bonus chapter would be a long term seller and I would argue would OBVIOUSLY outsell things like HK-51 and Treek (after all, people play Bioware most often chiefly for story, I know this would be literally my #1 purchase in the entire Cartel Market by a long shot). You also have to factor that not all subs who subbed for that period of time wouldn't have done so if not for the chapter. Funny thing is, Bioware could be cheeky and bundle this and other related subscriber rewards together into a cartel bundle and charge *very* handsomely. Even a high price would have a lot of people, I suspect, paying, even if mainly for the chapter itself. We'd probably see complaints, but no more I suspect than those over the subscriber rewards program itself. So in summary, more money, happier community (which means more money), players with more content, happier people. Win-win.

Zanya is pretty much utilizing sound reasoning here to be honest. What people don't understand about MMORPGS is that making the general populace happier makes the game healthier, financially and in terms of it's community. Hk-55 being restricted to just subs may bring in some money for a short period of time, but it's very clearly not good for the community health (simply look at the many threads on the subject to discover that yourself). It can further be very easily argued that we have no good reason to believe that HK-55 being exclusive to subs makes the company more money than it being available in the Cartel Market a few months after it is rewarded to subs. You would lose a few of those subs but gain an absolutely IMMENSE amount of Cartel Coin purchases (which to be fair, some will come from sources such as security keys/referrals, but certainly not all and probably not even most). I think, therefore, the game is likely much more healthy in the long run having CONTENT such as a companions/story not be exclusive to limited time offers. That's just pretty much undeniable if you apply sound reasoning to the situation. The only question, then, is CAN Bioware do it? Firstly, yes, they can. Bioware is free to change the terms and conditions for their products as they wish. This is *especially* true considering, from what I've read, Bioware never says it's FOREVER exclusive to these subscribers. Take the following sentence as an example: "This Sony Playstation 4 giveaway is exclusive only to people who sign up for the Sony weekly Newsletter" Does this imply Sony Playstations can only be received via this giveaway? Not necessarily. I haven't seen any explicit (and yes, it MUST be explicit to be legally the case) statements that this content is FOREVER exclusive only to people who subscribe during this SPECIFIC giveaway. I'm open to correction of course, but the wording used in the terms of service does not imply absolute unending exclusivity, but is instead neutral in regards to if it's exclusive just for the immediate future or for forever (and again, in legal terms, it must be EXPLICIT or it's legally NEUTRAL).

People say the JK has no leadership experience, yet Honestly I find that whole line of reason faulty though because of the simple fact that all classes have leadership experience and/or experience that teaches you ABOUT leadership via the world arcs and chapter 4/5. Nearly every Arc has you working with top level commanders which is excellent first hand experience. Leaders have to start somewhere. You aren't born leading, you first learn from leaders to become one yourself... Until you lead for your first time. This is exactly what our character spends the entire game doing (it could be argued you're even effectively the leader for all of chapter 4/5). Thus while some classes may have *more* leadership experience, no class lacks in it, and therefore it doesn't make less sense for JK to lead than, say, Trooper.

In my opinion, you're completely wrong on all accounts except that he's weaker than Vitiate. Firstly, you say he only has two real accomplishments. The accomplishments you list, however, are bundles of amazing accomplishments simplified and shortened into a single statement that does disservice to what they were. Sure, Revan won the Mandalorian war, but how he won it and the things that he did in it are more impressive than simply winning a war. Beating the ultimate Mandalorian in single combat is exceedingly impressive (as you know, Mandalorians are known to be capable of defeating Jedi in single combat, and the Mandalorians consider Revan the "greatest warrior in the galaxy"). The second one, however, is the far more grave simplification of Revan's accomplishments. Sure, he did do as you say, but he didn't ONLY do as you say. Killing one of the galaxy's foremost bounty hunters, utterly destroying Korriban's Sith population, re-mastering his force-related abilities in such a short time span and so on and so forth.... He accomplished *many* very notable things during just Kotor 1's time-span. Thirdly, the reason why he lost on the Foundry, for example, is because of his highly weakened and "rusty" (for lack of a better term) state. A full power Revan, as proven demonstrably on Yavin 4 (which is still easily argued to not be Revan's full power) would have defeated the strike team in the foundry. Fourthly, he didn't "fail" as a Sith Lord, any more than every other Sith Lord in the history of Sith rule of 2 has. They very often die at the hands of their apprentices. That's normal lol.

Revan pretty much no contest. Malgus is strong, but Revan is stronger in the force, smarter, has access to both sides of the force, and is at least as capable in lightsaber combat. Seeing as Revan is basically the posterboy for the old republic as a whole, Bioware basically made him brokenly OP in the lore, achieving levels of power at times reminiscent of the notorious Dragon Ball Z-esque Star Wars EU. Also consider: I think in the old Republic's lore setting, excepting characters perhaps like Tulak Horde, Marka Ragnos, Exar Kunn, Revan is quite clearly the second strongest character full stop. Revan has both massive accomplishments AND direct statements of his power to back up what we know of his strength, whereas comparably Darth Malgus is not as "hyped" in the lore.

Yeah most terms and conditions don't say that, and that doesn't imply anything. And we already discussed this. To qualify for a Playstation 4 during a newsletter rewards program you may have to subscribe to a Sony Newsletter, doesn't mean you can't get a PS4 otherwise. Like I've said and you don't seem to understand, them NOT saying otherwise, does not mean the opposite is true. In fact, you can generally assume in business speak, anything that isn't explicitly stated as true is not necessarily true. Unless they've actually explicitly said something in their terms and conditions, they're under no obligation to hold to your pre-conceived notions of how the program works. They aren't qualified to receive it (as in, get it for free, as part of the subscriber rewards plan). That doesn't mean they won't be able to purchase it later when this program ends or any time after. You answered your own question lol. This is the way businesses work, everything is worded properly to a T. If they don't say it's absolutely exclusive, you can THINK it is, but you don't KNOW it is. Don't you find it convenient at all, that the unambiguous exclusivity is not found ANYWHERE? Regardless, like I've said, this may be Bioware just messing up and not being clear enough. But like I've said, any person who actually understands the English language COULD read what you've said and come out thinking it's at least *possible* that your assumptions that it's exclusive forevermore aren't NECESSARILY true. In case you haven't noticed, most people who pop in or create threads like this are literally asking if it's possible... Did you never stop and wonder if that's because Bioware didn't necessarily make it clear enough? They don't need to, it's directly implied linguistically. Subscribers receive this content for free if they meet the criteria. Therefore, when they say "receive", they are directly saying "receive this content for free". Fair enough, that's your opinion, I respect it and probably I think you're right. BUT, I'm still going to have to highlight the key words here. You said "TO ME". That's precisely the point, it's just your opinion, your opinion is not found in the actual text from what I see. Your opinion certainly isn't disproven by the text, but the text doesn't ever seem to state for a fact that you're right. Okay, I don't agree. Funnily enough it wouldn't necessarily matter if the word exclusive were used. They'd have to say this content, specifically, is *permanently* exclusive to the subscription program, not just that the content is exclusive (as that exclusivity could be temporary).

I didn't say anyone did. Your entire post is literally useless to anything. You're just saying "it's like we say, haha". I'm not trying to change anything. I'm asking to see why people believe it's exclusive. You don't challenge your own beliefs much, do you? Your entire post is immature and pointless, and you're telling me to put my big boy pants on? Seriously? You realize, just because you disagree with someone, doesn't mean you have to reply to them. You're adding nothing to conversation, just saying "we're right lololol *insert insult here*". Grow up. Okay thanks for your opinion, I'll let you know if I start caring.

lol Asking if they've clarified whether or not these things are forever exclusive doesn't put a burden on me. I'd have a burden if I had stated they weren't exclusive, but I haven't nor do I believe they're not (in fact, it might surprise you to know, I think they probably ARE exclusive and Bioware is just being sloppy about clarifying it). Analogies are by definition different, otherwise they would have to be the exact same thing. Saying that my analogy isn't the exact same doesn't mean it's disanalogous. The analogue I'm referring to is an object you must meet exclusive criteria to obtain under specific circumstances, that you can also obtain through other means. Sony Playstations can be received for free through certain exclusive giveaways or sweepstakes (hypothetically). They can also be bought for money. It's also possible that Subscriber Rewards can exclusively be received through subscriptions. But the objects of said rewards (content such as HK-55) may be attainable another way in the future. *MAY*. Unless Bioware explicitly states this content is (NOT the rewards, the CONTENT) forever exclusive to this subscriber reward program at this point in time, then the best statement we can make is PROBABLY they're exclusive. Again, because they're different does not mean they're disanalogous. Let's assume for a moment that a reward (in this case) is meaningfully different from something you purchase (which I don't believe it is). This does not mean that it's disanalogous, analogies are by definition different and many times are meaningfully so. Oh I know. My point is to show that simply because Bioware says "Do X by Y date to receive Z" does not mean that Z is only attainable by doing X and Y date.

1) Let me put things in big blue letters so YOU understand. QUALIFYING FOR A REWARD DOESN'T MEAN THE CONTENTS OF SAID REWARD IS ONLY OBTAINABLE BY SAID QUALIFICATION, BUT RATHER THAT THE SPECIFIC OFFER OF SAID CONTENTS IS ONLY OBTAINABLE BY SAID QUALIFICATIONS. To satisfy my request, you must show that they have said that not only the reward (FREE CONTENT) is exclusive to subscriptions, but that the content itself is exclusive to subscriber rewards. Like I've said a thousand times, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're not giving any good reason to believe you're right. 2) Can you link the source of the terms and conditions, or can you point me to where I can find them? They don't need to. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nobody in my state has told me there's a lion in my state, does that mean there is no lion in my state? Nope. Them not saying this content can be received other than subscriber rewards, does not in any way imply that it can ONLY be received through subscriber rewards FOREVERMORE. For now that may be the case, and as such it is temporarily exclusive, but I've not seen any evidence it's permanently so. You need to differentiate between a program (subscriber rewards) and the reward itself (the content). To qualify for a free laptop you may have to enter a sweepstake by X time on Y date, that does not imply the laptop is FOREVERMORE exclusive to said sweepstake. A star may be generally circular, but not all stars are circles. HK-55 may be free to subscribers, and they may have to qualify for that exclusive offer, but that doesn't mean HK-55 cannot be attained any other way potentially unless they outright say it cannot be. In other words, subscriber rewards as a system are exclusive, this does not mean that which they reward you is implied to be forever exclusive. It MAY be, but you need a statement from Bioware saying this content is forever exclusive to said rewards, otherwise you can understand why some people may be confused.

Because the vast majority of your side is not saying "I would prefer" they are saying "do not make it this way". That's a demand, not a request. I can get quotes if you like, but you know full well your side is mostly saying "nope, don't do it" not asking if it's possible or anything like that. It doesn't say they can be, that IN NO WAY means they can't be or probably won't be. I haven't said I'm a human being, does that imply I'm otherwise? Nope. In business terms unless it's explicitly stated to be EXCLUSIVE to people who meet X critera, then you do NOT assume it IS exclusive. You can guess, but that's just it, it's a guess. Show me the quote of Bioware saying it's exclusive like you're arguing that it is. A lack of them saying otherwise does not imply exclusivity and you know that. Again the newsletter analogy. Sony Playstation can say to qualify for a free Playstation 4 you must subscribe to their newsletter, that in no way implies you can't also just buy a Playstation 4, indeed we know you in fact can Show me where Bioware has said the only people, under any circumstances, who can EVER receive these things, are people who subscribed during that time. Like I said, getting something for completely free by buying a sub is a reward in itself, it doesn't have to be content that is exclusive to you in order for it to be a reward, because other people have to pay for it. Okay, I'm looking for less assertions and more evidence. Show me how my impression is incorrect, that's what I asked for. I didn't ask for this useless "you're wrong because I think you're wrong" type of nonsense. Give me a quote or something. This doesn't have anything to do with anything, you say my comparison is irrelevant but don't show how. Again, I'm not saying my impression is correct... I'm saying I want good evidence it's incorrect. I'm neutral on the subject until someone shows me Bioware said one way or the other. Again, the exact wording Bioware used was this: "During the Chapter releases of Knights of the Fallen Empire, you’ll earn additional rewards if you are a Subscriber". Bioware also said this for KOTFE: "BE A SUBSCRIBER AND PLAY ALL AVAILABLE CHAPTERS" *Receive a Free Level 60 character as you start your Knights of the Fallen Empire adventure. Limit one free level 60 character per SWTOR account" http://www.swtor.com/fallen-empire/free-trial Now tell me, is there no other way to play KOTFE other than subscribing? Is that exclusive? Is there no other way to get a level 60 character, other than subscribing? You get those things for free by subscribing, that doesn't mean they're only ever achievable by subscribing.

Firstly, again, a request is not a demand. Some people may make a demand, that doesn't mean most of us aren't just asking or inquiring if it's possible. Qualifying for a reward at a set date doesn't mean only those people receive that thing. For example, Sony Playstation may require you sign up to receive a newsletter to receive a free Playstation 4 console and that is the only way you qualify to receive it, but that doesn't mean you can't also just buy one. The burden is on you to show that this reward is explicitly exclusive and unique to this subscriber reward program, as in Bioware EXPLICITLY stated *ONLY* people who sub for X at Y time will *EVER* get this content. If you assumed it was exclusive because you didn't read carefully enough, that'd be a mistake. Like I said, I've only read the rewards page itself and bioware's help page. I never saw them say it was exclusive, just that Subs get this content FREE as a REWARD. I'm completely open to being wrong on this, show me where Bioware has said it's all absolutely exclusive. This goes back to the earlier point, but like I said, a request is a request. I personally never asked that I be allowed to do it, but rather if it's possible as I'm unsure if Bioware meant for these rewards to be exclusive or not. People trying to get what they want? That's not a demand. Not all of us are continually whining, crying, clamoring, or pestoring. You're lumping everyone on one side in together, because some guy whines about it constantly, any time I ask something it's automatically just more whining. That's an unfair generalization. Again, I'm perfectly open to seeing that Bioware did indeed set this forth clearly and explicitly. All I'm asking is where they did, that's all. I'm operating under the assumption they did for these discussions, but that doesn't mean I actually know for certain they did. "During the Chapter releases of Knights of the Fallen Empire, you’ll earn additional rewards if you are a Subscriber" The ONLY reward they label as "exclusive" in this is the HK-55 bonus chapter, and they use this specific language that they use nowhere else: "Bonus Chapter! If you’re subscribed continually from January 11 to August 1, you’ll gain access to an exclusive Chapter where you play as HK-55." However, for the HK-55 companion, they use this precise language: "Recruit HK-55 in Game Update 4.1 You will recieve an Alliance Alert to recruit HK-55 in once your character has completed Chapter IX: The Alliance." How do you take these things to imply absolute exclusivity to everything? Where has Bioware clarified that it's absolutely exclusive? I'm genuinely curious. https://help.ea.com/en-us/help/star-wars/star-wars-the-old-republic/swtor-subscriber-rewards

Understand what? I never said I don't understand anything. I understand everything here just fine. All I'm asking is a quote of where Bioware said this reward is exclusive to subscribers, that's not a lack of understanding that most people think it's exclusive to subscribers. Again, Bioware offers infinite warzones free for subscribers, but you can also buy a pass for warzones. Bioware offers Knights of the Fallen Empire for Subscribers at a certain date, but you can buy Knights of the Fallen Empire. I'm asking for EVIDENCE that this must absolutely be exclusive, that's all.

Neither side is demanding that any rule be changed. Almost nobody here except your side is making demands. Most of us are making requests that we be allowed to purchase the content for Cartel Coins. A request is not a demand. I, for example, do not feel I am owed this, do not believe I will receive this, and hold no grudges towards Bioware for doing this. I just would like to know if it's a possibility, that's all. As a side, can someone clarify... where does it say these timed rewards can only EVER be received by people subscribed during a certain period of time? I was under the impression these were something like Warzone Passes, Subs get infinite Warzones for free (a bonus), but non-subs can be individual passes to still do infinite Warzones.

It's pretty funny that there are people in here not only saying that it (becoming available on the cartel market) won't happen, but that they personally hope it shouldn't happen. This is exactly the kind of disgusting personal view that infected the f2p launch. "Oh, I had to pay for the game and to play, since I had to I personally desire that NO ONE SHOULD EVER GET IT FOR FREE" many people were saying then. A lot (not all) of those who oppose the OP in this thread are just doing the exact same thing again. Disgusting. The attitude or notion that "I had to do X to get Y, therefore I desire that everyone must do X or not get Y" is simply selfish and nothing else. You should be happy for other people to have the chance to get what you got even if you had to pay for it and they don't. This disregarding the fact that loyalty programs aren't what you bought, they're a bonus, you bought a subscription, you got the loyalty rewards for free. It's COMPLETELY fair that Bioware make it something others have to pay real life cash for, because you got it for free. You didn't buy a subscription then buy these rewards, you bought a subscription and received these rewards for free as a bonus. If some of these things are made into purchasable cartel market items: Subscribers get something for COMPLETELY free. Non-subs or people with the inability to have been subbed for a set time get access to content they otherwise wouldn't get. Bioware gets the extra revenue from both the VERY few extra subs that subbed for the rewards, and the absolutely massive amount of people who would pay for some of these things individually. Win-win-win. I for one, a closed beta tester, launch P2P player and collector's edition owner, didn't have internet access for a few months as I moved so had no opportunity to get in on this. I'd be more than happy to pull out my wallet, and support the game, for a chance to get some of this cool content. I don't personally feel entitled to it in any way, I expect it won't happen and don't begrudge Bioware for doing such a promotion. It's just actually sickening to me how some people actually don't want me to have the ability to pay for these rewards. I would never campaign against someone being able to EARN something for no good reason other than selfishness/greed, and I really don't see why so many of you are doing exactly that.

Grouping up and joining a guild gives you obligations. I don't play games for obligations, I play games so I can do whatever I want and have a fun and relaxing time. Why do I play multiplayer games? So I can kill people in PvP, it's fun. Why do I avoid people if at all possible (except in PvP)? Because I don't want to HAVE to rush through if I don't want to. Because I don't want to HAVE to sit around all day waiting for Joe to finish eating. Because I don't want to have to deal with immature, idiotic, random and meaningless expletives being thrown in where it makes absolutely NO sense. If I wanted to socialize, I'd talk to my friends IRL who are actually mature and fun to be around. I'm social enough in real life, because you have to be. Shouldn't a game be open to all kinds of people? People who wanna just kick back and chill AND people who wanna go meet other people and group up.

Be fair here, haters do the same except reverse. Ever little whining post is "constructive criticism" and every fact that supports the game is obviously fake. I do agree with you though, fanboys attack a lot of constructive threads. But it's not only fanboys that attack needlessly, there wouldn't be nearly as many fanboy attacks if these forums were a little less haterish.

What was the point in mentioning that they're "conservative" exactly?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/star-wars-the-old-republic-needs-only-500k-subscribers-ea-6297338 Well, that's odd.

1. Incorrect, they said 500,000 would be enough for it to be, "substantially profitable" in their words. Substantially profitable, breaking even, two very different things. Now, we don't know how long they needed to retain those numbers, but that's what was actually said. 2. Can you please give me a link? I don't doubt you at all, don't take it that way. I'm just curious to see for myself. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your whole point, I'm just saying that 500k being bare minimum is incorrect.

While you're partially right, you're partially wrong. These people that "read between the lines", forgot to read everything INCLUDING the things on the lines. It clearly states that "MOST of those 1.7m are paying at this point.", so while of course companies (unless the laws requires it) only release data that helps them, that does not mean that the data that is beneficial is necessarily incorrect. If that was what you intended to mean, then that is a non sequitur.

It's not even slightly "inaccurate" to what it was talking about, it's inaccurate in regards to your point, but it's wholly accurate -- I suggest you learn the definition of the term. Now, that is not the exact amount of PAYING subscribers true, but he does state "most" of them are paying subscribers. Most means, "the majority of" this means that more people are subscribed and paying than are not. Not to mention, he says the amount of actual subscribers is growing -- not falling. While the number may be inaccurate to what you're talking about, it does stand true and undeniable, this game is BEATING expectations -- and expectations were REALLY high. We're gaining paying subscriptions, we're the 2nd most played MMO in the industry, SWTOR has OVER half as many hours played as ALL (excluding Aion, EVE, and Maplestory) MMOs combined. http://www.xfire.com/genre/mmo/massively_multiplayer_online/ Samples may not be definite, but they are an accurate indicator. People need to understand that indications say SW:TOR has a good future, the game is improving fast (new content, major bug fixes etc.), we're doing extremely well.

You think that ANYONE would be stupid enough to use the same username on Metacritic as they do in other places? ESPECIALLY A DEV? Wow. So, say you're going through youtube reading replies to videos. You see a guy say President Bush was the best president ever. You find his profile is named superguy23, you search that up online, and find a superguy23 who listed his name as George W. Bush. So therefore, the only logical conclusion, is that it is in fact George W. Bush! "We therefore urge you, our readers to stand up for the game and put it to the estimation it deserves IN YOUR OPINION". It is a well known fact that Metacritic attracts tons of trolls both ways fanboy and hater alike. More hater than fanboy, so reviews given ARE unfair (MW3 got like a 3 -- seriously?). Urging them to vote on what they think Dragon Age deserves, is not bad or wrong at all.