Can we get Nico Okarr at all?

[DarthDymond]

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

What part of "Nico is only accessible to those subscribers who qualified for him." is so hard to comprehend, though?

No skin off my back either way, I have Nico, HK-55, every other sub reward they've put out since launch, and my latest payment already has me subbed for all the ones that will be coming through Aug (really Sept if they do one that month as well).

 

But some people here are going on and on and on and on about "they said it was exclusive! They can't go back on that!! Rawr!!!" when every actual advertisement for it I ever saw was conspicuously missing that word.

 

Same with the blasters, the duster, the swoop mount, the HK-jetpack, the HK-helmet, the HK-weapons, the new Zakuul mount, etc. None of the ads for these rewards use the word "exclusive" in them. That seems like it might be deliberate.

 

Don't be shocked if BW was keeping that door open, is all I'm saying.

Edited May 19, 2016 by DarthDymond

[CrazyCT]

Take that quote in the context of the conversation it was a part of - he was assuaging concerns that we wouldn't get access to Nico at level 1, but in saying "we'll send you a Token, too - don't worry" he had to be careful that he didn't give the impression that everyone would be getting the Token mailed to them.

 

Again, if they were pushing these rewards as "exclusive" why wasn't that word plastered top-to-bottom on every ad for them to spur people's "omg, must buy now so I don't miss out on it forever!" response?

 

People sometimes forget just how entitled other people can be. If it was me, and I said that to qualify for something you have to be subscribed on a certain date, I would think that people would be intelligent enough to assume you have to be subscribed on that date, and not be so childish as to go looking to see if I mentioned if it was exclusive.

 

"If you didn't specify it was "Exclusive", you have to give it to everyone" is a good school playground legal loophole.

 

It's like the woman who bought an RV (true story, not an analogy), put it on Cruise Control and went in the back to make a sandwich. She managed to successfully sue the company because they didn't specifically mention in the manual that the RV doesn't drive itself. No-one thought that anyone would need that reminder, no-one thought anyone was that stupid.

 

Nothing is truly foolproof.

Edited May 19, 2016 by CrazyCT

[DarthDymond]

People sometimes forget just how entitled other people can be. If it was me, and I said that to qualify for something you have to be subscribed on a certain date, I would think that people would be intelligent enough to assume you have to be subscribed on that date, and not be so childish as to go looking to see if I mentioned if it was exclusive.

 

"If you didn't specify it was "Exclusive", you have to give it to everyone" is a good school playground legal loophole.

 

It's like the woman who bought an RV (true story, not an analogy), put it on Cruise Control and went in the back to make a sandwich. She managed to successfully sue the company because they didn't specifically mention in the manual that the RV doesn't drive itself. No-one thought that anyone would need that reminder, no-one thought anyone was that stupid.

 

Nothing is truly foolproof.

The claim I'm making isn't "if they didn't specify it was 'exclusive' then they have to give it to everyone" the claim is "if they didn't specify it was 'exclusive' then they have left themselves the option to sell it again down the line if they decide that they want to"

 

I don't think that they will necessarily ever sell them again, but I don't think they've foreclosed the possibility the way the "they said it was exclusive, they have to stick to that" crowd is claiming.

Edited May 19, 2016 by DarthDymond

[Ratajack]

No skin off my back either way, I have Nico, HK-55, every other sub reward they've put out since launch, and my latest payment already has me subbed for all the ones that will be coming through Aug (really Sept if they do one that month as well).

 

But some people here are going on and on and on and on about "they said it was exclusive! They can't go back on that!! Rawr!!!" when every actual advertisement for it I ever saw was conspicuously missing that word.

 

Same with the blasters, the duster, the swoop mount, the HK-jetpack, the HK-helmet, the HK-weapons, the new Zakuul mount, etc. None of the ads for these rewards use the word "exclusive" in them. That seems like it might be deliberate.

 

Don't be shocked if BW was keeping that door open, is all I'm saying.

 

The original page for Nico hs been replaced with the KotFE rewards page, but even that page indicates that you must be subscribed on specific dates to qualify for specific rewards and continuously between specific dates to qualify for the bonus chapter. While the word "exclusive" may not be there in each individual reward, the add is in no way unclear that you must be subscribed on a certain date to qualify for a specific reward.

[CrazyCT]

And........I just ran out of patience.

 

This is why I couldn't be a teacher. I could spend time showing you where I tried to explain it as simply as I could, and you still managed to pick it up wrong, but I have better things to do with my time, and right now it's cutting my toenails.

[DarthDymond]

The original page for Nico hs been replaced with the KotFE rewards page, but even that page indicates that you must be subscribed on specific dates to qualify for specific rewards and continuously between specific dates to qualify for the bonus chapter. While the word "exclusive" may not be there in each individual reward, the add is in no way unclear that you must be subscribed on a certain date to qualify for a specific reward.

I absolutely agree that they have made it clear that "in order to qualify to get [Reward X] through [Promotion Y], you must be subscribed [Date Z]". My only point is that there is nothing in that statement that precludes [Reward X] from also becoming available through [Promotion A] or [sale B] or [Jump Through Hoop C] down the line.

 

For fans of logic this whole discussion boils down to the difference between

p --> q

~vs~

p <--> q

BW's ads said "p --> q", while they are being interpreted as "p <--> q".

Edited May 19, 2016 by DarthDymond

[Ratajack]

I agree that it is absolutely the case that they have made it clear that "in order to qualify to get [Reward X] through [Promotion Y], you must be subscribed [Date Z]". My only point is that there is nothing in that statement that precludes [Reward X] from also becoming available through [Promotion A] or [sale B] or [Jump Through Hoop C] down the line.

 

For fans of logic it boils down to the difference between

p --> q

~vs~

p <--> q

BW has only said "p --> q", but some people are taking it as "p <--> q".

 

If BW makes it clear that you MUST be subscribed on a certain date to get a specific reward, then that seems to make it very clear that if you were NOT subscribed on that date, then you do NOT get the reward.

 

If you want to pull the "the word exclusive was not specifically in the ads", then you must also acknowledge that NOWHERE in those ads did they even mention that they were reserving the right to offer those rewards at a later date. The ads only said that you must be subscribed on X date to get Y reward.

 

The statement from Eric Musco said in no uncertain terms that Nico would only be available to those subscribers that qualified to get him, not that "Nico will only be available to those subscribers that qualified to get him until we decide to offer him on the CM".

[DarthDymond]

If BW makes it clear that you MUST be subscribed on a certain date to get a specific reward, then that seems to make it very clear that if you were NOT subscribed on that date, then you do NOT get the reward.

 

If you want to pull the "the word exclusive was not specifically in the ads", then you must also acknowledge that NOWHERE in those ads did they even mention that they were reserving the right to offer those rewards at a later date. The ads only said that you must be subscribed on X date to get Y reward.

 

The statement from Eric Musco said in no uncertain terms that Nico would only be available to those subscribers that qualified to get him, not that "Nico will only be available to those subscribers that qualified to get him until we decide to offer him on the CM".

Sure, they didn't use the word "exclusive" and they also didn't specify that they will "decide to offer him on the CM" - and in not doing either, they have left both paths open.

 

They are perfectly entitled to never, ever again offer the Nico Companion through any means, even without having used the word "exclusive" in their ads.

~And~

They are perfectly entitled go ahead and run another, separate promotion offering the Nico Companion at a later date, even without having used the words "we reserve the right..." in their ads.

 

Remember when the Imperial and Republic Containment Officer gear was only available from having done the original Rakghoul Event? Notice how both are now available from the Events Ambassador? All I am saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that happen again here (I also wouldn't be particularly surprised if it doesn't).

 

Personally, I actually would prefer that these Companions do remain exclusive to the promotions that they were already involved in -- but I'm just being careful not to confuse a preference on my part with a supposed promise on BW's part.

Edited May 19, 2016 by DarthDymond

[Ratajack]

Sure, they didn't use the word "exclusive" and they also didn't specify that they will "decide to offer him on the CM" - and in not doing either, they have left both paths open.

 

They are perfectly entitled to never, ever again offer the Nico Companion through any means, even without having used the word "exclusive" in their ads.

~And~

They are perfectly entitled go ahead and run another, separate promotion offering the Nico Companion at a later date, even without having used the words "we reserve the right..." in their ads.

 

Remember when the Imperial and Republic Containment Officer gear was only available from having done the original Rakghoul Event? Notice how both are now available from the Events Ambassador? All I am saying is that I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that happen again here (I also wouldn't be particularly surprised if it doesn't).

 

Personally, I actually would prefer that these Companions do remain exclusive to the promotions that they were already involved in -- but I'm just being careful not to confuse a preference on my part with a supposed promise on BW's part.

 

The difference between those two armors and the subscriber rewards is that the armors were never advertised as only available to those that participated in the original rakhghoul event.

[DarthDymond]

The difference between those two armors and the subscriber rewards is that the armors were never advertised as only available to those that participated in the original rakhghoul event.

They never reserved the right to offer them again at a later date, either.

[Ratajack]

They never reserved the right to offer them again at a later date, either.

 

True, but they did not need to reserve the right to offer them at a later date as they never said they were only available to players that participated in the original rakhghoul event.

 

With the subscriber rewards, it was made clear that players "MUST be subscribed on X date to get Y reward."

 

That is vastly different than a set of armor that was NEVER advertised as only available to those that participated in the original rakhghoul event.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Ratajack

[DarthDymond]

True, but they did not need to reserve the right to offer them at a later date as they never said they were only available to players that participated in the original rakhghoul event.

 

With the subscriber rewards, it was made clear that players "MUST be subscribed on X date to get Y reward."

 

That is vastly different than a set of armor that was NEVER advertised as only available to those that participated in the original rakhghoul event.

BW's ads for the subscriber rewards each make a conditional statement, yet they have been interpreted as biconditional statements instead.

 

As a side note, your take on how those event rewards were presented seems to have evolved over time:

A one time event should be just that-a one time event. The rewards are available for one time only. If you miss the event or any of the rewards, so be it. That was your one chance to get them.

Edited May 19, 2016 by DarthDymond

[AlienEyeTX]

BW faces a major credibility issue if they make sub rewards available to all at a later date.

 

All it ends up saying to a player is: "Don't bother wasting your money now... this will be available to everyone later."

 

1) This undermines the credibility of sub rewards and "exclusivity."

2) This does nothing to gain subs.

 

Point 2 is the most relevant to the situation. When offing a gift aimed at increasing subs, why in the world would they do anything to suggest that subbing "now" is not valuable?

[Mykra]

People need to remember that this is EA. They have a long history of going back on stuff exactly like this. If the profit is large enough to be worth the drama, the profit will be made.

 

To be clear, I'm actually one of the 'Miss it, it's gone' guys, but don't be shocked if a reward gets brought back.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Mykra

[Rantank]

I have an email that quite clearly says "Last Chance to get your own Nico Okarr companion" It doesn't say "next to last chance" or "last chance until some armchair lawyer on the forums badgers us into re-releasing him". They even made the title of the email those exact words... in upper case no less!

 

They own the game and all the pixels in it. If they want to re-release him they probably can. BW's credibility would take a hit however, and that would spread to other games. I know I wouldn't believe another word they said. Right now I know what to expect when they say sub on date Y for reward X or miss out.... I know where I stand and can choose accordingly. On the swoop bike promo they even used the words "miss out". "miss out" and "last chance" are pretty clear and all the semantics in the world can't get around them, at least on those exact items. To date they have never re-released a reward item after the fact. All bets are off though for something similar but not quite the same.

 

Edit: I should add too, that I pre-ordered the game, took a stab at the beta, and stayed until after Makeb launched. Then I left for a year or so and it was one of those promo emails that brought me back to it. I can't be the only one that has worked on. Would BW be willing to let that marketing pull disappear? I doubt it.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Rantank

[JeKoCZ]

I guess he is starting to get annoyed with people keep asking for stuff when they don't qualify of it.

 

We all are annoyed. But relatively few whiners can't be the reason for a meltdown on a public board. Just ignore and move on.

[Force__Knight]

Personally I am not a fan of exclusives, simply because it is less fair to those joining a game late in its life and often never getting a chance at an item. However I do feel that a sub reward is the way to go for bringing in money.

 

Although they stopped, I felt the system that Star Trek online did was IMHO the best I have seen in that they gave you the rewards based on the length of time you had been subbed with the game, and putting the best stuff along the end.

So with what we have as an example

 

Sub for 30 days get nicos coat

Sub for 90 days and get the blaster

Sub for 200 days and get the speeder.

Sub for 300 days and get nico

Sub for 400 and get hk 55 etc....

 

That way they encourage long terms subs and no one loses out on rewards regardless of when they joined.

[Ratajack]

As a side note, your take on how those event rewards were presented seems to have evolved over time:

 

Not really. I do not agree with BW's decision to bring back those armors. However, I do acknowledge that BW never gave any indication that those armors were exclusive to that event and that they would not make them available by any other means.

[Eanelinea]

People sometimes forget just how entitled other people can be. If it was me, and I said that to qualify for something you have to be subscribed on a certain date, I would think that people would be intelligent enough to assume you have to be subscribed on that date, and not be so childish as to go looking to see if I mentioned if it was exclusive.

 

"If you didn't specify it was "Exclusive", you have to give it to everyone" is a good school playground legal loophole.

 

It's like the woman who bought an RV (true story, not an analogy), put it on Cruise Control and went in the back to make a sandwich. She managed to successfully sue the company because they didn't specifically mention in the manual that the RV doesn't drive itself. No-one thought that anyone would need that reminder, no-one thought anyone was that stupid.

 

Nothing is truly foolproof.

 

My god, I can't believe people are actually that dumb (the lady with RV). It's people like this I hope and pray never ever have children. Good thing I'm not president, I'd actually literally demand certain people lose their rights to kids if they are that dumb, such as the RV lady.

 

On topic, this entitlement issue didn't come up until the newer generation. Sure there were a few old timers who think they're entitled, ever go to a store or food place and the extremely elderly just cut in line? Ancient as the earth itself or not, you don't just get to cut in line, I don't care what war or how ancient you are.

 

I see it as this, if you KNOW you don't deserve something, quit asking for it, cause you ain't getting it. I'd be mad at Bioware not because they put Nico or any other exclusive reward on the CM in general, but because they wimped out and listened to whiners who demanded something they know for a fact they didn't earn.

[Jedi_riches]

It's like the woman who bought an RV (true story, not an analogy), put it on Cruise Control and went in the back to make a sandwich. She managed to successfully sue the company because they didn't specifically mention in the manual that the RV doesn't drive itself. No-one thought that anyone would need that reminder, no-one thought anyone was that stupid.

 

 

My god, I can't believe people are actually that dumb (the lady with RV). It's people like this I hope and pray never ever have children. Good thing I'm not president, I'd actually literally demand certain people lose their rights to kids if they are that dumb, such as the RV lady.

 

 

Yep apparently it happens, another one is the reason every hot drink from McDonalds comes with a sticker stating warning contents may be hot, a Woman who ordered a coffee at a drive through and as she was driving away scolded herself and successfully sued McDonalds, where was the hot drink at the time of the spillage you might ask? between her legs of course where else would you have expected her to put it... oh wait a cup holder.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Jedi_riches

[CrazyCT]

Yep apparently it happens, another one is the reason every hot drink from McDonalds comes with a sticker stating warning contents may be hot, a Woman who ordered a coffee at a drive through and as she was driving away scolded herself and successfully sued McDonalds, where was the hot drink at the time of the spillage you might ask? between her legs of course where else would you have expected her to put it... oh wait a cup holder.

 

You missed out the part where she specifically asked for it "extra hot".

Edited May 19, 2016 by CrazyCT

[Ratajack]

I see it as this, if you KNOW you don't deserve something, quit asking for it, cause you ain't getting it.

 

As if continuing to whine, cry and bang their fists on the floor like a petulant child, let's not forget that they also have the nerve to get offended when anyone reminds them that they do not deserve what they want.

 

Anyone who does not agree with them and support their desire to have that which they do not deserve is "selfish and greedy and gets their jollies from making other people's lives miserable.", as if we are the "bad guys".

Edited May 19, 2016 by Ratajack

[Jedi_riches]

You missed out the part where she specifically asked for it "extra hot".

 

Really, I must have not read that part of the incident, or where I read it from paraphrased it.

 

You only have to look at the Darwin Awards for further proof that common sense is not very common at all.

[GordoKhan]

As if continuing to whine, cry and bang their fists on the floor like a petulant child, let's not forget that they also have the nerve to get offended when anyone reminds them that they do not deserve what they want.

 

Anyone who does not agree with them and support their desire to have that which they do not deserve is "selfish and greedy and gets their jollies from making other people's lives miserable.", as if we are the "bad guys".

 

No you just seem to be a special snowflake. I hope they make it available to everyone just to tick you off. No material impact on anyone and yous seem to be trolling this for all it is worth lol

[Ratajack]

Really, I must have not read that part of the incident, or where I read it from paraphrased it.

 

You only have to look at the Darwin Awards for further proof that common sense is not very common at all.

 

Common sense is part of it, but IMO, the majority of it stems from the fact that people simply do NOT want to accept responsibility for their actions. This leads to a very litigatious society.

 

Here are a couple more frivolous examples, in additon to the McDonald's coffee person, all of which led to successful verdicts and monetary awards for the plaintiff:

 

A woman sued a nightclub because she fell in the bathroom and broke her tooth on the sink. She was climbing INTO the nightclub through the bathroom window to avoid having to pay the cover charge when she fell and broke her tooth.

 

A woman sued a Mom and Pop drug store because she tripped and fell over a misbehaving child that was running unattended through the isles. The woman broke her arm and sued. The child she tripped over was HER child.