Well, the rest of the quest areas have been out for so long (and involve so many different stories) that even if someone drops a spoiler, it's unlikely it's going to be a spoiler specific to your story. The risk isn't high. For KOTFE, on the other hand, especially new stuff, the area you're in pretty much is an area that is used for that one story mission. So if spoilers drop, you can bet it's going to be about what happens in that area. Thus... turning chat off. Plus KOTFE is, imo, more engaging than most of the missions in the game. There is less downtime to really sit around and chat while you're playing it. It's almost like an interactive movie. In classic TOR content, it's mostly like... unless you're in an instanced story area, nothing is really happening. Then once you enter the instance, everything happens in there. In KOTFE, it's more like... the instance is the mission itself and you sometimes barely (or never) leave until the mission is over.

I would certainly like more detail freedom. It is kind of, what's the word... odd? In some KOTFE cutscenes, when your outdated-cartoony-face toon is stacked up against 3-5 NPCs who all have details you can't have, making them look more photo-realistic. In fact, I would be ok if some of the detail was stuff that only showed up in cutscenes. As it is, I think detail already differs a little in cutscene vs. not in cutscene, even for player character.

Straight from my OP: Not sure why you are hung up on the specifics, when I never have been. It's pretty silly. It's impossible for us to have a real conversation this way. I figured you would comment on the profit margins thing. Of course I care whether they profit and do well, in the context of my interest in the game. All I meant with that comment is that I don't need a spreadsheet in front of me to trust in the trends I've observed, nor do I need it to understand how human relationships work. To answer your question: If they made them direct purchase for subs, I imagine a good CC number would be whatever is in line with other direct purchases. Meaning if most lightsabers are sold for 1000 CC (I have no idea if that's the case, it's just an example) then the vented lightsaber would be sold for 1000. If direct-purchase lightsabers vary in price based on how rare they want them to be, already, then vented might vary, depending on how it is ranked. In other words, it would be simplest to use whatever direct-purchase pricing system they already have. And since it would be consistent, it would probably feel the most fair. Using the opportunity to pull out disproportionately high CC cost for items out of packs would only undermine the point of selling them direct in the first place. It could even be a one-time purchase for your account (or server, I guess? since unlocks are legacy bound I think?). The idea being that you have the opportunity to make the straight, good faith purchase, but the market doesn't get flooded with these items by subs and packs are still appealing. I'm not convinced this wouldn't feel too technical though (the one-time purchase idea); my goal here is to get away from things being overly transactional and detached in nature. It's all about what the system communicates and how it goes about doing it. I do dislike gambling on principle, but I'm not going to ask for it to go away completely, because it's simply never going to happen and it would be pointless to try to argue that it would be to their benefit to do so, because it's probably not to their benefit to do so. Which is why I'm suggesting things that build loyalty, while allowing those who enjoy rolling the dice to still roll the dice.

I don't know that that's really fair to the artists. Though there is certainly some truth to the claims that women are sexualized in general, more so than men, game artists (and artists in general) most likely have a lot of respect and appreciation for the human body, in general, depending on how they got started and what they practiced with/on. And what is concept art (aka: quick sketches) is not the same as a full-detailed, polygon model. For instance, in this case of Senya, the teaser could have started with an almost cartoonish-sketch, highly stylized to capture a feeling/mood. Then more detail work was added, but due to it being a stylized poster, it didn't get much. I imagine it had a round or two through photoshop as well (I swear I recognize two of the effects being used). The general point being that it's not as simple as some guy saying, "I want a sexy-time poster to get off on." It is a team of people working together, most likely changing hands at various stages, with specific marketing goals handed down and specific artistic styles to adhere to, to represent the TOR brand. The fact that the worst complaint one can make is a vague notion about Senya's age says a lot. In your average MMO, she would have her midriff bared or some such. And honestly, her age doesn't look different to me. Her face is smoother, but that's an artistic effect across the whole image. The wrinkles are still there, the hair is still flecked with gray.

No, the "compelling reason" is: A model that is more likely to hang onto customers through thick and thin, rather than hang onto them only through A) fan loyalty, B) "please don't leave me" content/gift offerings, or C) "if you leave, it'll be hell for you" (aka: the "F2P gameplay is a living nightmare" model). It's not a new idea I'm presenting here. Just classic salesmanship in the context of the online game market, i.e. fostering a human relationship with the customer. Or, on a large scale, at least fostering the same feelings. Most of the models I've encountered are ruled by a sort of anxious fear. "The competition is fierce and we have to cling to every dime and nickel we can get." Never mind that the more human approach to salesmanship has been proven to work ten times over and it doesn't leave people feeling like they've been cheated. Quite the opposite. Do they "need" to change? I don't know. I'm not looking at their profit margins and I don't really care what those numbers are. It's obvious to me, from my own observations, that even the most profitable of games like these (in pure math) often hemorrhage players like mad and have a high turnover rate (lots leaving, lots of new people coming in). Some of this, of course, is just people changing interests, but it's obvious that part of it is the models themselves. Games like these have always faced the problem of people getting "bored" from "lack of new content" and some of them have worked themselves into this weird frenzy, where they take on crazy development cycles to try to keep people happy. All the while forgetting that while boredom is one reason people might abandon ship, they aren't as likely to leave if they feel valued. Ultimately, what people want is a feeling. This is true for most entertainment and just products in general. Advertisers have learned how to exploit this, but it seems they haven't all learned the lesson that most people aren't that stupid on the whole and most of them will sooner or later realize they're being exploited, if that is what is happening. They will then act accordingly, if they have any amount of healthy self-esteem; they will drop the product like dirt on their shoe if it stops living up to its purported transactional value. I don't know why you are still talking about entitlement. As I've stated multiple times, that is not what I'm talking about. No one is entitled to anything, but even the simple act of having that in your head can be a problem right out of the gate because it puts buyer and seller at odds with each other, drawing lines in the sand, saying that no humanity is allowed to enter the equation. If this post does not make it clear that this isn't about entitlement, then I don't know what to tell you.

Sorry you got screwed. I'm glad, however, to know that someone else gets this. Purely transactional means consumers will treat it as transactional and they will be every bit as quick to drop you when the numbers don't line up, as you are with them. Hopefully they take this to heart.

Technically, it's not quite that easy. If you're up against mobs of equal level and haven't popped a stealth level cooldown, it's pretty easy to get spotted. Particularly in tight spaces. I've found that with my smuggler, once I got the roll ability, I could roll past most without aggroing. But that ability comes way late in level. Oh and don't forget "pop you out of stealth" scan robots. You need skill and patience sometimes to not get knocked out of stealth by them.

Yeah... they have a long-lost brother named... Steve...!

**This post will include some references to KOTFE content, with SPOILERS, so I can actually talk about it without being exceedingly vague. You have been warned.** ***** I've noticed a trend in online games when they make quests that are story-focused (e.g. KOTFE). Due to the primary game mechanics of the game, "mobs" (enemies) become like filler. As in: Too much empty space to walk? Spawn mobs. Player listening instead of doing? Spawn mobs. Player logged in? Spawn mobs. Player breathed in? Spawn mobs. Breathed out? SPAWN MOBS. Ok, so I'm being a bit silly to make a point. Here are two contrasting examples of story from KOTFE that I feel makes sense with mob spam and makes no sense with mob spam (DEFINITE SPOILERS BELOW, SERIOUSLY, GET OUT IF YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED IT YET): The rescue mission, where Lana and Koth are getting you out. Ok, so you're breaking out of a high-security prison, essentially, with half the city's defenses after you. Of course you're going to get spammed by mobs. Makes perfect sense and adds to the feeling that you are being chased. Fits great. The forest mission, where you go and talk to Valkorion and play pick up sticks and light a bunch of torches. The mobs aren't spammed exactly, but they are at pretty much every single area you need to go to do anything (ok, maybe that is spam). We can argue what the ultimate storytelling point of this mission is, but here's my take: It feels pretty hacked in, most of the enemies you face here. It's supposed to be about self-discovery and introspection and facing your demons and crap like that. But you're persistently distracted by a bunch of obnoxious creatures who love to go into stealth for some reason and wait around to kick you cause I guess Valkorion is sadistic or something. It's not like they're strong enough to present a real challenge (which might be in line with the theme of the mission, if they did present a challenge). They are just a nuisance, i.e. "filler mobs." In fact, I think that if they were removed from the mission, it wouldn't very much suffer. It'd probably be fun and feel more like a unique story experience. After all, most of your story centers around warwarwar, fightfightfight. This is like your one opportunity to stop and reflect a little. The general point here is: There is a time and place where mob spam enhances the story experience, and a time and place where it detracts from it. Most of the story is probably somewhere in the middle; it neither enhances nor detracts, it's just sort of there and people accept it because it's a combat RPG. Also, there really needs to be a meme, along the lines of, "suddenly, SKYTROOPERS!" juxtaposed with like, walking into a bathroom or taking out the trash. Though I can't recall the specifics, there are moments in the story where the presence of skytroopers feels pretty much like cheating. Like someone went, "Well, they can travel through the air, so they probably found a way in here somehow. No one will stop to think about it..." And that, my friends, to me, is the worst kind of mob spam. When you're struggling to make sense of how the mobs are even there.

More likely... if Revan is related at all, he is probably a component of the event storyline (given his history, he could be a guide of some kind, for light and dark), or the companion is a distant descendant of his.

I see your point, re the age of the game. It would probably be something that *isn't* retroactively applied, if they did it at all. It's just, when it comes to the story, it seems like that's kind of where they're going with it. And while one could argue that it's just a tool of the storytelling, I think I would feel a bit cheated if you go through all of the KOTFE content, keeping in mind the kind of example you mentioned, and then at the end of it, you just go right back to dichotomy-emphasized content and the prior stuff was just contextual. Who knows how I will feel with more chapters taken into account though. Still a season 2 on the horizon.

I would certainly be more apt to use it at all if I had some control over what it does. I've always found that DS corruption in KOTOR games is pretty much just Ugly I-V (or however many variations there happen to be in the particular game). Which you would think makes sense cause it's called "corruption," but then... NPCs sometimes get done up like dolls with their corruption, carefully selected to construct a romanticized DS image that isn't a complete eyesore to look at. No reason we shouldn't be able to do the same (technical limitations/effort aside).

I'm sure this has been talked about a thousand times, but I'm curious if this has been seriously considered, as becoming part of the moral system itself (choices that are marked as "morally gray"). Reason I wonder is because there are some ideas presented in KOTFE, which seem to hint at a desire to get away from the 100% LS/DS dichotomy. The story, at times, seems to be pushing you in that direction, in fact. In spirit, if not in gameplay. So I'm kinda wondering if it's on the table at all. I guess this is part idea, part speculation. What do you guys think? Would you want "gray" choices, if they could be added? (Meaning choices that have a special "button" and everything. Perhaps even a new alignment ranking, Gray I-V.)

If you aren't 61 yet, I think you can get it refunded if you send in a ticket. From what I'm reading, assuming this is still up to date: http://dulfy.net/2015/11/13/swtor-level-60-token-refund-eligibility/

That is my experience as well. Also, tried flying to Odessen. Same result.

Naw, the "tenor" of my posts is not that simple. There are particular circumstances where I might argue that something being free is more beneficial to the game than a loss (I would never argue that SWTOR should charge no money for anything). I came into this thread with genuine curiosity and have asked a lot of questions, with little argumentation of my own. The tenor of my posts sometimes includes concern that there are customers in the game market who are making decisions primarily out of fear, not to their benefit. Perhaps this is because of events in my life I've known of, or participated in, to do with abuse and groupthink. I'm not really coming from a TOR-only perspective on some of this stuff. I'm bringing the history of my life, along with the history of various other games similar to TOR and everything that comes with that. I don't know why I'm explaining that. I guess I want to make it clear that my posts are not "gimme" posts, or anything like them. That I have a perspective I'm sharing, that comes from my experiences, and it's lead me to believe a variety of things that apply to these discussions in a variety of ways. Just as you are doing the same. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that we are both right. That there are those who act out of fear and those who act out of enjoying the game, wanting to support it, etc. They are not mutually-exclusive for the same universe.

I'm no lawyer, but from the look of it, this is to protect EA's intellectual property, not things made by someone else. In other words, to protect against things like selling accounts for RL money, or giving away an account to a friend. Which is likely rooted in protecting against illicit practices by those who would steal accounts. Art commissions are likely iffy ground if they are art that is based on SW, but that may get into laws that go outside the game, concerning art and intellectual property (I'm not sure what those laws look like). That said, if only being sold for in-game currency, I don't think EA would care. I mean, from the look of it, if you interpreted this text literally with no other context, you might fear that trading an item to another player, as a gift, is against the EULA. IME, legal stuff like this that seems kind of iffy is a situation where the company usually has no desire to get involved. Unless they are A) actively losing profit over it, B) having intellectual property straight-up stolen, or C) are all but pressured/forced by extenuating circumstances to pay attention, they'd rather not do a thing. Reason being that pursuing something like this requires resources. So the cost needs to be justified somehow. So yeah... it's good to ask if you're thinking about doing it yourself and don't want to risk being on the wrong end of a banstick. Those who aren't worried about that are probably already doing it anyway, so... There's all kinds of stuff that goes on under the table, in the RL world, that would technically be illegal if brought before a court, but isn't really bothering anyone or is reported, so nobody cares. Oh, also, I don't know if EA has contact info for a legal team that you can reach out to. But if you can find one, and are interested in doing what you're asking about, you might even be able to get a written agreement (if they are on the side of allowing it). More than likely though, since it is only in-game money, if they do allow it, it isn't enough of a concern to them to even waste the paper.

I appreciate your sympathy, though in my case, I don't struggle all that much with making credits. I feel I'm at a pretty good pace myself, all things considered. What I'm referring to when I talk about belief about groups is that it's unlikely people will "awake to the simple truth" that you are talking about, due to the nature of (mostly American) culture and it being so individual-centric. In other words, you can share an idea, even describe the merits of it, but the odds of it being adopted as common practice for thousands or millions of individuals is highly unlikely. That said, I'm not sure I'm being fair to point it all at culture. Part of it is likely just that people tend to be slow to change, in general. Even more group-centric cultures, as far as I know, don't tend to change on a dime. So I am aware of the facts, don't me wrong on that. But the facts seem to include the knowledge that people will likely never "wake up" in the way that you describe, so while perspective and acceptance might be good advice, "voting with your wallet" really only works as a sort of protection against wasting your own money. It's not going to force a seller to change without tons of people doing it together.

I didn't want to throw out that as an accusation (as it is, I already threw out one or two accusations about peoples' motivations and felt bad about it). But I figured that was part of it... motivated by wanting the game to stay alive. I can't say I feel good knowing that that's a real motivation. It puts such people in a vulnerable position, where they are willing to put up with a lot to see the product stay intact. I don't think what you're describing is self-defeating. What seemed self-defeating to me was the idea of someone saying "I would unsub if X changes that makes free-play more appealing," but wanting X not to change, so that they will stay subbed... which I guess makes sense if you are looking at it from the standpoint of "if I unsub, the game is more likely to die." But then do you see what I mean about the vulnerable position one can be in? That someone might be subbing largely out of a desire not to see the game die? Anyway, I apologize for getting somewhat off-topic. I just wanted to say my piece and let you know where I'm coming from on this, since you told me where you're coming from.

I've never before seen such visceral fear and dislike toward the idea of making something free that no one has to pay taxes on. Anyway, it sounds like with piggybacking, the system isn't as bad as I was led to believe. Edit: Also, I gotta comment on this one: This just mystifies me. From your perspective, wouldn't it make sense to ask for them to be free if doing so would mean you would likely unsub? The reasoning here seems self-defeating. As if you are on the side of BW's profit margins, even as you would unsub from the game.

Half Life 3 confirmed. It's fun to speculate, but I'm not getting my hopes up for it at this point. If they did though, I do wonder what direction they would take it in, in terms of timeline. I think the most sense would be to make a lead-in to TOR that follows the events of Meetra Surik and Revan with the emperor and all that. But then, of course, they deal with the problem of most of the facts being set in stone already, which kills normal BW twists out of the gate. In my mind, KOTOR 3 would be really hard to get right and very easy to get wrong. Cause if you go by the two prior titles, there's a repeating theme of "person who is really powerful in the force," "memory," etc. Now they could just make up another character who is like Meetra Surik and Revan, but that would probably require a separate timeline and with all of TOR in the way, I imagine that'd be going way past TOR into the distant future. That or doing like a pre-mandalorian-wars story, since that area is foggy enough in terms of lore to my understanding. 'Course then it'd sound funky as a KOTOR 3.

I guess I'm missing something. I've never heard of a game's business/economy being hurt because they allow free players to participate freely in PvP and instanced PvE. if it's about drops and currency, they could simply turn off or slow down currency gain once someone is past their allotted number of runs. Some might actually do it past that anyway, for the sheer fun of it, especially if it's friends playing together.

I would definitely welcome the ability to put even a weapon crystal into outfit designer. Lightsabers are a big PITA.

Here's an idea: When you gain a legacy level, you gain a few tokens, which can be exchanged for data crystals. The number of tokens you get varies depending on how high your legacy level is (e.g. hitting 40 will be much more than hitting 10). The tokens are directly translated to the different tiers of crystals, the idea being that when you're at a higher legacy level, gaining a level can get you enough tokens for, say (these are example numbers): 10 common crystals, 3 glowing, or 1 radiant. If you're at max legacy level, gaining enough legacy XP equivalent to the max legacy level would get you another "token" reward. This way: - People are getting something concrete, even at max legacy - Those who have been around longer will get more/better currency for gaining a level Alternatively, if you don't want to overwhelm new players (and want to discourage starting new legacies for easy crystals), this could be a perk that starts at something like legacy level 10 and goes onward from there.

What are the counter-arguments exactly? I'm curious. On the surface, it seems like giving F2P and preferred full access to these things would be a no-brainer, so I must be missing something important.