Broken.

[Sangrar]

I agree with their outrage, they should be upset...they were taken advantage of...but they never do the same for anyone else. Unlike them, I think THEY matter too and their issue is MY issue because WE are the community, no matter what we like to do individually.

 

and that is a problem I would like to point out. A few guys do that stuff, insult people and tell them to leave the game, suddenly everyone they classify as a "defender" is automatically listed as doing it themselves (even though some of us don't), and it gets annoying. I make an argument against something, and all of a sudden I am labeled a "defender" or "drone" without even an attempt at a counterargument, its ridiculous being treated like garbage just because someone else treated that guy like garbage.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Sangrar

[Warrgames]

I completely understand WHY you're upset...you have every right to be.

 

What I dislike is how THIS is the one issue that has so many traditional "defenders" up in arms. THIS is a 100% optional and completely VOLUNTARY purchase, that has ZERO impact on anyone's ability to enjoy the game.

 

When Bioware removed Ilum, they cheered and made posts hoping PvPers would leave the game. When Bioware changed all our 50 PvP gear to remove Expertise, they laughed at those of us who complained. When Bioware removed 8v8 ranked WZ's, they antagonized the PvPers. When PvPers complain about the lack of WZ maps, they declare that this is a PvE game. When PvEers complain about the boredom they're going through now, they mock them. No matter WHO complained before this, they defended Bioware and chastised the player...and suddenly, on some 100% fluff freaking item, they get upset? I DO NOT GET IT!

 

Don't like it? Don't buy it. It doesn't impact my gameplay at all!!!! Not even a tiny bit. ZERO!

 

I agree with their outrage, they should be upset...they were taken advantage of...but they never do the same for anyone else. Unlike them, I think THEY matter too and their issue is MY issue because WE are the community, no matter what we like to do individually.

 

Well said.

QFT

[BuriDogshin]

What I dislike is how THIS is the one issue that has so many traditional "defenders" up in arms. THIS is a 100% optional and completely VOLUNTARY purchase, that has ZERO impact on anyone's ability to enjoy the game.

At least part of the issue is that AFAIK people could not discover the, uhm, "unloved characteristics" of the latest CM packs until after they spent real money to buy them. One problem was the incorrect rarity labels on the tooltips, which I believe was just human error. Another is that you cannot know what it costs to unlock an item until you have bound it to one of your toons, IIRC, which is an, uhm, "unloved limitation" of the Collection system.

 

BW could fix this in the future by:

1. indicating rarity of items correctly (a QA issue), and
   
2. providing a way to know unlock costs in advance of buying an item.
   

 

Then people would not have to make assumptions about unlock costs, and would instead know upfront.

[Reno_Tarshil]

I completely understand WHY you're upset...you have every right to be.

 

What I dislike is how THIS is the one issue that has so many traditional "defenders" up in arms. THIS is a 100% optional and completely VOLUNTARY purchase, that has ZERO impact on anyone's ability to enjoy the game.

 

When Bioware removed Ilum, they cheered and made posts hoping PvPers would leave the game. When Bioware changed all our 50 PvP gear to remove Expertise, they laughed at those of us who complained. When Bioware removed 8v8 ranked WZ's, they antagonized the PvPers. When PvPers complain about the lack of WZ maps, they declare that this is a PvE game. When PvEers complain about the boredom they're going through now, they mock them. No matter WHO complained before this, they defended Bioware and chastised the player...and suddenly, on some 100% fluff freaking item, they get upset? I DO NOT GET IT!

 

Don't like it? Don't buy it. It doesn't impact my gameplay at all!!!! Not even a tiny bit. ZERO!

 

I agree with their outrage, they should be upset...they were taken advantage of...but they never do the same for anyone else. Unlike them, I think THEY matter too and their issue is MY issue because WE are the community, no matter what we like to do individually.

 

I admit I am guilty of this in the past, but not anymore.

[DarthTHC]

Your analogy is way off the mark. People aren't complaining because fellow gamblers are cheating or getting special treatment. They're complaining because the house changed the rules - which is something well within their rights to do at any time. Even if people are crying here on the forums I can almost promise you it won't affect the longevity of the business model or the game.

 

His analogy is right on. When the house changes the rules, they tell you they changed the rules.

 

Except in this house.

[Khevar]

Tell me your joking, please? Please. Valve has only release a handful of games and they milk their users for every penny they can. They do this because it's a sound business practice, that's why EA does it, and it's never going to change. Valve is also nowhere near as big and influential as EA.

 

I hate what the video game industry has become but we need to face facts. If a game company betrays your faith in them, it's partially your own fault for buying into their scheme to begin with. You were duped. Not by the developers themselves but by their marketing team and/or the publisher's.

And what did you think of my example with CD Project RED?

 

Or did you skip over it because it doesn't assist your message that all successful companies have to milk their users for every penny so they can be successful?

Edited June 20, 2014 by Khevar

[TUXs]

and that is a problem I would like to point out. A few guys do that stuff, insult people and tell them to leave the game, suddenly everyone they classify as a "defender" is automatically listed as doing it themselves (even though some of us don't), and it gets annoying. I make an argument against something, and all of a sudden I am labeled a "defender" or "drone" without even an attempt at a counterargument, its ridiculous being treated like garbage just because someone else treated that guy like garbage.

 

OMG you and your constant defending....you sound like a broken reco...just kidding

 

I never label anyone as a "defender" - I used the term above in quotes to denote the label others have given them, not me. I'll call some people out for being antagonists, because they are...but I see no issue with people defending a game they enjoy. I do it myself. What I dislike is the tremendous amount of hypocrisy over something as meaningless as CM items. When it's a game breaking bug, drought of content, removal of content or a change in XP or credits, they defend Bioware...but God forbid THEY get shafted. If anyone else gets shafted, they have no issue chastising them...but mess with them and game over. It's comical.

At least part of the issue is that AFAIK people could not discover the, uhm, "unloved characteristics" of the latest CM packs until after they spent real money to buy them.

Lesson learned then right? Wait 2 days, buy cheap item off GTN, see what it costs...right? No real money ever needs to be spent. Run daily missions...the same people complaining always like to gloat about how easy credits are to make...they should have no issue buying whatever they want right?

[Kantaso]

A successful company is the one that milks you without you knowing it.

[CommanderKeeva]

I completely understand WHY you're upset...you have every right to be.

 

What I dislike is how THIS is the one issue that has so many traditional "defenders" up in arms. THIS is a 100% optional and completely VOLUNTARY purchase, that has ZERO impact on anyone's ability to enjoy the game.

 

When Bioware removed Ilum, they cheered and made posts hoping PvPers would leave the game. When Bioware changed all our 50 PvP gear to remove Expertise, they laughed at those of us who complained. When Bioware removed 8v8 ranked WZ's, they antagonized the PvPers. When PvPers complain about the lack of WZ maps, they declare that this is a PvE game. When PvEers complain about the boredom they're going through now, they mock them. No matter WHO complained before this, they defended Bioware and chastised the player...and suddenly, on some 100% fluff freaking item, they get upset? I DO NOT GET IT!

 

Don't like it? Don't buy it. It doesn't impact my gameplay at all!!!! Not even a tiny bit. ZERO!

 

I agree with their outrage, they should be upset...they were taken advantage of...but they never do the same for anyone else. Unlike them, I think THEY matter too and their issue is MY issue because WE are the community, no matter what we like to do individually.

 

I am in complete agreement here. As far as game issues go, this is a pretty minor one. At least when compared to the continued dismantling of PvP, bugged Operations, lack of new class story or broken class balance. Kinda shows where people's priorities are.

[NightEngine]

And what did you think of my example with CD Project RED?

 

Or did you skip over it because it doesn't assist your message that all successful companies have to milk their users for every penny so they can be successful?

 

I didn't see it, actually. But CD Projekt is also nowhere near the income and size of EA. They're actually pretty small, relatively speaking. And they will never be as successful unless they make their business practices more like EA or Ubisoft.

Edited June 20, 2014 by NightEngine

[Joesixxpack]

A successful company is the one that milks you without you knowing it.

 

If they want to stick around for a while and have good brand rep, I disagree. In any case BW's milking is about as subtle as a crowbar to the forehead.

[Khevar]

I didn't see it, actually. But CD Projekt is also nowhere near the income and size of EA. They're actually pretty small, relatively speaking. And they will never be as successful unless they make their business practices more like EA or Ubisoft.

Here, I'll repost it for you.

Tell me how many of those companies have become as big and successful as EA?

While this doesn't really answer your question, CD Projekt RED tried an alternate route and it worked very well for themselves. Of course, this company isn't as large as EA, but I still believe it's worthy of consideration.

 

They were a small development house, made The Witcher, which was well received by fans, going on to make back their investment (and then some). They chose to take some of their profits, and put it back into developing an "Enhanced Edition" with various improvements, both graphical and otherwise, but then decided to offer it for free to everyone that previously owned the game.

 

It garnered a lot of goodwill. When a bunch of noise about the sequel's DRM started surfacing, they actually patched the game to remove the DRM. Note that despite the number of copies pirated, they STILL went on to make plenty of money on actual sales. The devs also publicly spoke out against DRM, further garnering good will.

 

The third game in the series is poised to sell extremely well.

 

The basic point I'm trying to make, is that a company can be extremely successful and make a ton of money by focusing on not only on making money, but also on making a quality product AND on treating their fans well.

 

Surely you can see this, right?

Edited June 20, 2014 by Khevar

[Sangrar]

OMG you and your constant defending....you sound like a broken reco...just kidding

 

I never label anyone as a "defender" - I used the term above in quotes to denote the label others have given them, not me. I'll call some people out for being antagonists, because they are...but I see no issue with people defending a game they enjoy. I do it myself. What I dislike is the tremendous amount of hypocrisy over something as meaningless as CM items. When it's a game breaking bug, drought of content, removal of content or a change in XP or credits, they defend Bioware...but God forbid THEY get shafted. If anyone else gets shafted, they have no issue chastising them...but mess with them and game over. It's comical.

 

yeah but again my point is how two or three guys go off chastising people and all of a sudden everyone apparently does it or has to pay for it somehow. I mean that stuff from a month back, about "silencing criticism of the game" or something, I was not "silencing" anyone I was just counter arguing and all of a sudden it comes to me apparently trying to "silence criticism of the game". It ain't a one way street either way is all I am saying.

 

as for this cartel issue I will admit I am not really affected by this, I only bought one of this new pack, I did not like it too much either way the only things about it that I really want are the Tulak Hord set and the Rancor. Though those prices for the unlocks are still pretty extreme for some items, I mean a worthless emote with a 600cc unlock? thats kind of gotten ridiculous, I could afford it if I ever wanted to, but I think it would be a lot cheaper to just freakin buy it off the gtn then waste cartel coins like that, what is the point of collections if its too expensive to use?

 

and one last thing, they embargoed that pack, they pretty much gave no real warning in advance, they just said that they were going to embargo it with 2.8.1 leaving only the hypercrate, the bounty and gsf packs are still there, yet we can't have a pack for more than a week? As it is I am trying to see if I can get enough credits to buy the rancor off the gtn in case the event backfires and gives me nothing, now I have to pretty much grind in a short amount of time before prices go up on the rancor.

[NightEngine]

If they want to stick around for a while and have good brand rep, I disagree. In any case BW's milking is about as subtle as a crowbar to the forehead.

 

EA isn't going anywhere barring a tremendous disaster of some kind and they're really pretty smart about making money and investing in the right projects.

 

The market clamours for rehashed, derivative products partly because companies like EA control the market and partly because consumers don't actually know what game development entails and don't know what they think they want until it's in their hands. This is typical of IP-based markets.

 

It's sad but Ubisoft has said they will no longer even consider publishing a title that cannot be made into a franchise, because, 'one-offs don't have potential for a continual return on investment'.

[NightEngine]

The basic point I'm trying to make, is that a company can be extremely successful and make a ton of money by focusing on not only on making money, but also on making a quality product AND on treating their fans well.

 

Surely you can see this, right?

 

If you move the goal posts you can make anything reasonable.

 

EA is our metric here, not a small shop that has pushed out an extremely small library of games (if you could even call it that). The disparity in income, scope, and size between the two is massive (and I'm not using hyperbole here). In FY2013, EA brought in 1.1 billion USD, published dozens of games (including several AAA titles), and bought out several more developers.

 

My point is that EA didn't get to that point - despite being the most hated company in the US according to polls - idly or by being fair or offering excellent customer service.

[Joesixxpack]

This is typical of IP-based markets.

 

Makes sense... and explains why normal business conduct includes mediocrity and ******** that other biz sectors couldn't even consider doing if survival mattered to them.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Joesixxpack

[NightEngine]

Makes sense... and explains why normal business conduct includes mediocrity and ******** that other biz sectors couldn't even consider doing if survival mattered to them.

 

Exactly. The gaming industry has gone so far down the tubes it's almost ridiculous.

 

EA still has many good IPs, strong ones that are hard to really differentiate (like Madden and FIFA) but they're also less willing to take risks that might hurt their profit margin. If EA was a company in almost any other field (like consumer electronics or telecomms) they would be gone in a few years with their current business model.

 

A good precedent: THQ tried to diversify into hardware and we all see where that got them. Their business model just wasn't compatible with supporting all their developers and a new hardware division.

Edited June 20, 2014 by NightEngine

[Khevar]

My point is that EA didn't get to that point - despite being the most hated company in the US according to polls - idly or by being fair or offering excellent customer service.

And my point, is that were EA to improve their customer service, and improve the quality of their offerings, they would be even MORE successful.

 

You are acting as if the only way to become a big business is to treat customers poorly.

[NightEngine]

And my point, is that were EA to improve their customer service, and improve the quality of their offerings, they would be even MORE successful.

 

You are acting as if the only way to become a big business is to treat customers poorly.

 

There's no precedent for your point and your comparison is flawed. EA and CD Projekt cannot be logically compared.

 

The only thing they have in common is they have published video games. That's it. What worked for CD Projekt might not work with EA due to the complexities of being such a giant publisher. It's like saying if an apple were more like an orange, it would be an even better apple.

 

I am actually acting like the only way to become a big business is to make sound business decisions and CD Projekt deserves credit for coming as far as they have, and I like them as a company. But I'm not delusional enough to pretend they're the same sort of beast as EA.

 

Consider, if you will, that all of the largest video game companies have a relatively poor customer service track record and get accused of greedy or shady business practices all the time: Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, etc etc. This isn't a coincidence.

Edited June 20, 2014 by NightEngine

[Khevar]

The only thing they have in common is they have published video games. That's it. What worked for CD Projekt might not work with EA due to the complexities of being such a giant publisher. It's like saying if an apple were more like an orange, it would be an even better apple.

Just out of curiosity, what is your background on this subject? You speak as though you were an expert in the area of big business.

[TUXs]

Exactly. The gaming industry has gone so far down the tubes it's almost ridiculous.

 

EA still has many good IPs, strong ones that are hard to really differentiate (like Madden and FIFA) but they're also less willing to take risks that might hurt their profit margin. If EA was a company in almost any other field (like consumer electronics or telecomms) they would be gone in a few years with their current business model.

 

A good precedent: THQ tried to diversify into hardware and we all see where that got them. Their business model just wasn't compatible with supporting all their developers and a new hardware division.

 

I'm really enjoying your commentary on this topic, thank you for taking the time to post. I find myself agreeing with everything you're saying so please, keep going

[NightEngine]

Just out of curiosity, what is your background on this subject? You speak as though you were an expert in the area of big business.

 

I'm a Small Business Specialist with a degree in Enterprise Architecture.

[Khevar]

I'm a Small Business Specialist with a degree in Enterprise Architecture.

Thank you.

 

Help me out with something. When you say this:

I am actually acting like the only way to become a big business is to make sound business decisions

How is it, that good customer service is NOT a sound business decision?

 

I worked for a number of years at a company that sells microchip testing equipment. Their customers were big foundries. Over the years they moved from a 100 million to 250 million to 600 million dollar company. Nice expansion.

 

In the late 90s they changed their tune as regards customer service, shifted from paying employees to handle customer service directly to a model of "train the customer to handle their own customer service".

 

This proved disastrous in the long haul, and by the time I left they had dropped down to 300 million, and lost some of their big-ticket foundries as paying customers.

 

I look at this, and I see good customer service as a stable datum not only for the Mom and Pop shops down the road, but the larger businesses as well.

 

Now, 300 million is still nothing to shake a stick at. And the CEO still made plenty of bank. And the company didn't go out of business. So it's not like they failed. But I still think it's fair to say that they would have made MORE money following the previously successful practice of increased customer service.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Khevar

[DarthTHC]

Thank you.

 

Help me out with something. When you say this:

 

How is it, that good customer service is NOT a sound business decision?

 

I worked for a number of years at a company that sells microchip testing equipment. Their customers were big foundries. Over the years they moved from a 100 million to 250 million to 600 million dollar company. Nice expansion.

 

In the late 90s they changed their tune as regards customer service, shifted from paying employees to handle customer service directly to a model of "train the customer to handle their own customer service".

 

This proved disastrous in the long haul, and by the time I left they had dropped down to 300 million, and lost some of their big-ticket foundries as paying customers.

 

I look at this, and I see good customer service as a stable datum not only for the Mom and Pop shops down the road, but the larger businesses as well.

 

Now, 300 million is still nothing to shake a stick at. And the CEO still made plenty of bank. And the company didn't go out of business. So it's not like they failed. But I still think it's fair to say that they would have made MORE money following the previously successful practice of increased customer service.

 

You have two different companies with different sizes and scales of customers.

 

In your company, you probably had relatively few customers that paid a lot of money each to buy what sounds like a complicated product. If the two biggest ones account for 25% of the company's business and they get frustrated with customer support, that hurts a lot! Bad customer service a handful of times could do exactly what you described because each customer represents such a large percentage of the company's revenue.

 

In EA, especially with SWTOR, you have a metric buttload of customers who each pay a little bit to use a comparatively simple product.

 

With EA, there aren't two big customers that can impact the business like in yours. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who buy EA games never bother to contact customer service for anything, so customer service is completely irrelevant to them. Of those that do contact customer service for EA, some percentage will be happy with the service, some will find it adequate, some will dislike it but still keep playing/buying, and a very tiny percentage will be so irked with a bad experience they'll swear EA off forever.

 

But looking at all those numbers, bad customer service at EA costs them only a fraction of a fraction of customers, thus revenue, so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It's certainly less important than funding executive bonuses.

Edited June 20, 2014 by DarthTHC

[Khevar]

But looking at all those numbers, bad customer service at EA costs them only a fraction of a fraction of customers, thus revenue, so it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It's certainly less important than funding executive bonuses.

No doubt.

 

Do you posit that improved customer service or improved quality of product would have no noticeable affect on EA's bottom line?