HK-55 for non subscribers

[Rolodome]

You do understand that here is, on average, at any given time several billions of CCs in circulation that were never purchased with incremental real money, right? Between the 500-700 per month from sub+sec-key, and all the referral link rewards...... putting HK-55 on the CM would in essence be giving it away for free for many many players.

 

The only people who are without cartel coins are those who lack the will to save them for specific uses where they are actually required (and NOT cartel packs).

 

Also, a companion sold in the CM is freely tradeable/sellable to other players for credits.

"Many many players"? What is that even supposed to mean? Citation please?

 

I realize that some players have CCs through non-direct-purchase means. I also realize that many clearly don't in the main, or the CM wouldn't be making profit and the game wouldn't be staying afloat, since subs aren't enough anymore to satisfy the need for large profit numbers. The reasonable thing is to assume that most don't have a lot of CC lying around that they didn't directly pay for.

 

What you are doing is pretty intellectually dishonest, TBH. You're taking something that is fundamentally based on spending RL money (the CM) and using fringe cases of people getting CC without spending money to imply that it's a request for a handout. But the assumption here is that if it was put in the CM, someone who wanted it would have to pay RL money.

 

"Many many" is not a real number or designation. And an item such as this could easily be given a special designation that it can't be traded to other players. Show me where someone is specifically asking for it to be put in the CM so that they can get it for free and I'll admit that you have something of a point.

 

The only people who are without cartel coins are those who lack the will to save them for specific uses where they are actually required (and NOT cartel packs).

As an aside, this isn't even an argument. It's just you making a sweeping statement about who has what cartel coins that can't possibly be backed up by facts in any capacity. And on top of that, saying that if other people don't live the way you do, they're doing it wrong and that somehow reinforces your argument??? What a load of malarky.

[Ratajack]

"Many many players"? What is that even supposed to mean? Citation please?

 

I realize that some players have CCs through non-direct-purchase means. I also realize that many clearly don't in the main, or the CM wouldn't be making profit and the game wouldn't be staying afloat, since subs aren't enough anymore to satisfy the need for large profit numbers. The reasonable thing is to assume that most don't have a lot of CC lying around that they didn't directly pay for.

 

What you are doing is pretty intellectually dishonest, TBH. You're taking something that is fundamentally based on spending RL money (the CM) and using fringe cases of people getting CC without spending money to imply that it's a request for a handout. But the assumption here is that if it was put in the CM, someone who wanted it would have to pay RL money.

 

"Many many" is not a real number or designation. And an item such as this could easily be given a special designation that it can't be traded to other players. Show me where someone is specifically asking for it to be put in the CM so that they can get it for free and I'll admit that you have something of a point.

 

 

As an aside, this isn't even an argument. It's just you making a sweeping statement about who has what cartel coins that can't possibly be backed up by facts in any capacity. And on top of that, saying that if other people don't live the way you do, they're doing it wrong and that somehow reinforces your argument??? What a load of malarky.

 

Please show us facts to back up your claim that "most don't have a lot of CC lying around that they didn't directly pay for." Until you can provide such proof, your claim, based solely upon an assumption with no evidence or facts to back up that assumption, is no more or less valid than Andryah's.

 

 

I will ask you why the forums are so full of people with referral links in their signature, if those referral links were not a source of potentially (and likely) almost ludicrous amounts of CC's.

 

I think Andryah is being a lot more intellectually honest than some other posters in this thread are with their attempts to rationalize and justify making time specific subscriber rewards available to those who KNOW they are not entitled to have them.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Ratajack

[Ratajack]

There's so much wrong with this, but I'm glad you said it because:

 

1) It validates exactly what I was talking about. Political attitudes bleeding over into games.

 

2) It gives me an opportunity to call attention to what's so flawed in the thinking.

 

First of all, I've said so many times and I'll say it again because no one has yet shown me: Who, here, is demanding that these rewards be given to them? The premise of the thread is a request that the rewards be put in the CM for money.

 

That is nothing at all like asking for handouts. Nor is it entitled. Nor do you have any reason to believe that the people making the request in question belong to any particular generation of humans.

 

"Everything is FINE, must make the world one happy snowflakey place for all!" Oh, the bitter irony. You do realize the people vehemently protesting the request in question are vehemently protesting it because they want to be "snowflakey" with their special items? That's why they bought them and care about them being exclusive to begin with.

 

"Apple stock" Apple stock is part of a mega company, whose success virtually no one could have predicted, and involves the trading and saving of real world currency, which directly relates to purchasing of things like food, water, clothing, shelter, and so on. It is a very serious system (stocks and trade) with the very livelihood of millions of lives involved in one way or another. To compare wanting to go back and buy Apple stock that will make you a billionaire (which is essentially what you're asking) to having the option to purchase a subscriber reward that is no longer available is not asinine. No, it needs a new word. Asinine doesn't do it justice.

 

Let's just move on...

 

IMO, when the term "given" is used with reference to time specific rewards being "given" to people who KNOW they are not entitled to have those time specific subscriber rewards, it is not generally saying that those items would simply be given for "free". Again, I can only speak for myself, but, IMO, asking that those time specific rewards that players KNOW they are not entitled to have be made available again (even if people have to "purchase" them with CC's-many of which are "free" as stipend fro either subscribing, having a security key or from referral stipends) is asking for them to be given to those not entitled to have them.

 

 

So I learned something new today. Apparently a recreational video game is comparable to the military. An organization which trains to kill, and survive against, other human beings. Versus something you do in your off time to kill time and enjoy yourself. Oh, oops, you "kill time" in video games. Guess they both involve killing, so they're comparable. My bad.

 

Again, where are these demands that people are making?

 

Still waiting for somebody to show me all of these demanding people, demanding HK and such.

 

These "request" threads asking that time specific subscriber rewards be made available again have been popping up for months, at least. To date, otehr than the previously linked statement regarding Nico Okarr, I cannot recall a single one that even received a BW statement. Now, technically the devs have not SAID "No", but I, personally, find it hard to believe that none of these "request" threads have been seen and read by BW devs.

 

What would you call BW's lack of response? Would you call it a "maybe" in your attempts to rationalize and justify the repeated pestering and clamoring for rewards the "requester(s)" KNOW they are not entitled to have? If so, how many times when you were growing up did your mother tell you "maybe" or "maybe later" when you asked for something? How many times was that "maybe" in actuality a "No"?

 

At what point does a "request" become a demand? What differentiates a "request" from a demand?

 

IMO, a "request" is fine, but it ceases to be a "request" when that request receives a "no" answer (and it can be argued that BW's lack of response is at the least a "soft No", if not a "firm No") but the "requester(s)" cannot accept that "NO", and continue to pester and clamor like petulant children for their "shiny".

[Rolodome]

Please show us facts to back up your claim that "most don't have a lot of CC lying around that they didn't directly pay for." Until you can provide such proof, your claim, based solely upon an assumption with no evidence or facts to back up that assumption, is no more or less valid than Andryah's.

 

 

I will ask you why the forums are so full of people with referral links in their signature, if those referral links were not a source of potentially (and likely) almost ludicrous amounts of CC's.

I only said it was the reasonable assumption, not that it is fact. Based on the idea that if most did, most would not need to spend any real money on the game. Which would mean that the game must be supported primarily on the remainder, who spends a ton of money buying coins. Though this is certainly not at all impossible, statistically speaking, it's much more reasonable to assume that while a minority of whales might spend the bulk at the highest numbers in money spent, as you go down in dollars spent, the number of people slowly grows larger and larger.

 

Referral links, unless there is some way to exploit them that I'm not aware of, can (to my knowledge) be used once by each player. I think I read somewhere that after a pretty long break (lots of months at the very least) a player can click one again, but I'm not sure if that even works. There's the whole "if the person who you referred stays subbed, you get more thing," but I'm not sure that's reliable either and it doesn't take into account that...

 

It's a well-established and undisputed idea that only a minority of the playerbase regularly uses the forums. Referrals can happen in game too, but they are often frowned upon by players and it's unclear how much success there is, in pure numbers.

 

So to extrapolate from that that most are swimming in referral coins makes no sense. We would need to assume that not only are most using referrals to rake in coins, but that there are enough new players coming into the game all the time to supply these people. That or they are using some kind of exploitation of the system, which is not out of the question, but hardly paints a sunny picture and still doesn't explain the game being sustained well and profiting.

 

There is also the factor of coins from monthly subscription, but this is arguably not free in the first place. Though it's technically "complimentary," one does have to pay for the sub to get them. Security Key is the only other "free" method I can think of and the most you could have amassed from it in five years, from start to finish, is 6000. Spread over five years. And that's ignoring that the game hasn't actually been out for five years yet and I'm not sure the Security Key incentive was even in place at launch. It's also setting aside all of the strong reasons one might have had to dip into those coins over the years.

 

As for your question, there is no cost to putting a referral link in your signature, so people have every reason to do it, even if no one ever uses their link. Aside from the potential for some weird thing where BW thinks they're getting too many coins and pulls the rug out (which I'm not sure has ever been confirmed to happen) there's no real reason not to if you want to benefit from referrals. That does not, however, mean that you are guaranteed even a single click.

[Ratajack]

I only said it was the reasonable assumption, not that it is fact. Based on the idea that if most did, most would not need to spend any real money on the game. Which would mean that the game must be supported primarily on the remainder, who spends a ton of money buying coins. Though this is certainly not at all impossible, statistically speaking, it's much more reasonable to assume that while a minority of whales might spend the bulk at the highest numbers in money spent, as you go down in dollars spent, the number of people slowly grows larger and larger.

 

Referral links, unless there is some way to exploit them that I'm not aware of, can (to my knowledge) be used once by each player. I think I read somewhere that after a pretty long break (lots of months at the very least) a player can click one again, but I'm not sure if that even works. There's the whole "if the person who you referred stays subbed, you get more thing," but I'm not sure that's reliable either and it doesn't take into account that...

 

It's a well-established and undisputed idea that only a minority of the playerbase regularly uses the forums. Referrals can happen in game too, but they are often frowned upon by players and it's unclear how much success there is, in pure numbers.

 

So to extrapolate from that that most are swimming in referral coins makes no sense. We would need to assume that not only are most using referrals to rake in coins, but that there are enough new players coming into the game all the time to supply these people. That or they are using some kind of exploitation of the system, which is not out of the question, but hardly paints a sunny picture and still doesn't explain the game being sustained well and profiting.

 

There is also the factor of coins from monthly subscription, but this is arguably not free in the first place. Though it's technically "complimentary," one does have to pay for the sub to get them. Security Key is the only other "free" method I can think of and the most you could have amassed from it in five years, from start to finish, is 6000. Spread over five years. And that's ignoring that the game hasn't actually been out for five years yet and I'm not sure the Security Key incentive was even in place at launch. It's also setting aside all of the strong reasons one might have had to dip into those coins over the years.

 

As for your question, there is no cost to putting a referral link in your signature, so people have every reason to do it, even if no one ever uses their link. Aside from the potential for some weird thing where BW thinks they're getting too many coins and pulls the rug out (which I'm not sure has ever been confirmed to happen) there's no real reason not to if you want to benefit from referrals. That does not, however, mean that you are guaranteed even a single click.

 

So, We have someone who basically dismisses Andryah's observation about the existence of "free" CC's, whether those be from subscriber stipend, security key stipend or referral stipends, because she did not provide numbers and hard evidence to back up those observations, yet that same person refuses to provide ANY data or hard evidence to back up his (admitted) assumptions?

 

Yeah, there's no rationalization or attempts to justify an unjustifiable position here, folks.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Ratajack

[Rolodome]

IMO, when the term "given" is used with reference to time specific rewards being "given" to people who KNOW they are not entitled to have those time specific subscriber rewards, it is not generally saying that those items would simply be given for "free". Again, I can only speak for myself, but, IMO, asking that those time specific rewards that players KNOW they are not entitled to have be made available again (even if people have to "purchase" them with CC's-many of which are "free" as stipend fro either subscribing, having a security key or from referral stipends) is asking for them to be given to those not entitled to have them.

 

 

 

 

These "request" threads asking that time specific subscriber rewards be made available again have been popping up for months, at least. To date, otehr than the previously linked statement regarding Nico Okarr, I cannot recall a single one that even received a BW statement. Now, technically the devs have not SAID "No", but I, personally, find it hard to believe that none of these "request" threads have been seen and read by BW devs.

 

What would you call BW's lack of response? Would you call it a "maybe" in your attempts to rationalize and justify the repeated pestering and clamoring for rewards the "requester(s)" KNOW they are not entitled to have? If so, how many times when you were growing up did your mother tell you "maybe" or "maybe later" when you asked for something? How many times was that "maybe" in actuality a "No"?

 

At what point does a "request" become a demand? What differentiates a "request" from a demand?

 

IMO, a "request" is fine, but it ceases to be a "request" when that request receives a "no" answer (and it can be argued that BW's lack of response is at the least a "soft No", if not a "firm No") but the "requester(s)" cannot accept that "NO", and continue to pester and clamor like petulant children for their "shiny".

That sort of condemnation of insistence goes both ways though. If you are going to call it demanding, pestering, or petulant to insist on something that one wants or doesn't want, it also condemns your insistence that these items remain exclusive.

 

One would think that if you believe BW's answer is no, then there is no point in you engaging with threads such as these at all. Yet you do. So do you believe that their answer is "no" or are you letting on that perhaps you're afraid their silence means it is a "maybe"?

 

For my own part, I've stated in numerous ways that I don't think BW is likely to see it as practical to re-release the items in question. Though I do believe it's possible that threads such as these will give them pause in considering the design of future, similar reward systems.

 

I will be plain. My reasons for posting in this thread are, in no particular order: Boredom, looking for a good argument, defending people who are being insulted, and pointing out flaws in reasoning (as a sort of principled effort to keep things honest). Though there are some items in the subscriber rewards that appeal to me and that I missed, I've long since accepted that I will likely never have them and I have much bigger problems in my life than worrying over whether I'll ever be able to use an HK Jetpack.

[Ratajack]

That sort of condemnation of insistence goes both ways though. If you are going to call it demanding, pestering, or petulant to insist on something that one wants or doesn't want, it also condemns your insistence that these items remain exclusive.

 

One would think that if you believe BW's answer is no, then there is no point in you engaging with threads such as these at all. Yet you do. So do you believe that their answer is "no" or are you letting on that perhaps you're afraid their silence means it is a "maybe"?

 

For my own part, I've stated in numerous ways that I don't think BW is likely to see it as practical to re-release the items in question. Though I do believe it's possible that threads such as these will give them pause in considering the design of future, similar reward systems.

 

I will be plain. My reasons for posting in this thread are, in no particular order: Boredom, looking for a good argument, defending people who are being insulted, and pointing out flaws in reasoning (as a sort of principled effort to keep things honest). Though there are some items in the subscriber rewards that appeal to me and that I missed, I've long since accepted that I will likely never have them and I have much bigger problems in my life than worrying over whether I'll ever be able to use an HK Jetpack.

 

I do believe that BW's silence is, at the least, a "soft No" if not a definite "No". I do not believe that BW is remaining silent as a "maybe". I know that developer decisions are always subject to change, though.

 

I also recognize that any time BW makes any kind of statement that has not been approved by a gaggle of lawyers confirming it to be completely airtight, that SOMEONE will either take it as a "promise" that BW will be doing "X", or that BW did not say "Absolutely, completely, unequivocally, for now and forever 'NO' ". All you need do is to read back through this thread for the responses from some posters regarding the Nico Okarr statement to see this for yourself.

 

I will continue to voice my opinion regarding those time specific subscriber rewards, lest my silence be misinterpreted as agreement, or even neutrality, with regards to catering to the entitled who KNOW they do not deserve to have those time specific subscriber rewards yet continue to pester, clamor, throw temper tantrums to have those rewards given (made available again) to them.

[Ratajack]

That sort of condemnation of insistence goes both ways though. If you are going to call it demanding, pestering, or petulant to insist on something that one wants or doesn't want, it also condemns your insistence that these items remain exclusive.

 

 

Tell me again, which side is demanding that the rules be changed to suit themselves and which side is asking that the rules continue to be followed?

[PetFish]

"Everything is FINE, must make the world one happy snowflakey place for all!" Oh, the bitter irony. You do realize the people vehemently protesting the request in question are vehemently protesting it because they want to be "snowflakey" with their special items? That's why they bought them and care about them being exclusive to begin with.

 

If "Snowflake" is such a derogatory label/insult (which it really isn't) then why do all these non-Snowflakes want to be Snowflakes by demanding to have the same things the Snowflakes have?

[UberSamoyed]

It's a loyalty reward. If you weren't subscribed the whole time, then you weren't "loyal enough" to get the reward.

 

In short, it was meant to reward those...not punish others...who kept their subs active the whole time.

 

It's really a very simple concept and requirement that's not going to change anytime soon.

 

If complaining about it in the forums with impassioned counter-points was something that was effective, then we'd have a slew of new Ops to occupy us right now.

 

A better use of your timesink would be that horrid DvL event.

[Rolodome]

I will continue to voice my opinion regarding those time specific subscriber rewards, lest my silence be misinterpreted as agreement, or even neutrality, with regards to catering to the entitled who KNOW they do not deserve to have those time specific subscriber rewards yet continue to pester, clamor, throw temper tantrums to have those rewards given (made available again) to them.

Do you honestly believe that after all of the posts you've made about this BW is going to go, "Hmm, Ratajack rejected this idea 51 times instead of 52. He's probably in favor of it. Time to go put the rewards in the CM." ?

 

If "Snowflake" is such a derogatory label/insult (which it really isn't) then why do all these non-Snowflakes want to be Snowflakes by demanding to have the same things the Snowflakes have?

I wasn't using it in a derogatory manner. The other poster was, so I followed along with the context they used to make a point.

 

If everyone has the same stuff, then there's nothing snowflakey about it, which is obviously why it concerns those who want exclusivity. So I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make exactly. Clearly, the people asking for access to these items are asking for the items themselves, not the snowflake status.

[BobTheTeepo]

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.

[BobTheTeepo]

Tell me again, which side is demanding that the rules be changed to suit themselves and which side is asking that the rules continue to be followed?

 

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.

Edited September 1, 2016 by BobTheTeepo

[lightSaberAddiCt]

I only said it was the reasonable assumption, not that it is fact. Based on the idea that if most did, most would not need to spend any real money on the game. Which would mean that the game must be supported primarily on the remainder, who spends a ton of money buying coins. Though this is certainly not at all impossible, statistically speaking, it's much more reasonable to assume that while a minority of whales might spend the bulk at the highest numbers in money spent, as you go down in dollars spent, the number of people slowly grows larger and larger.

 

Referral links, unless there is some way to exploit them that I'm not aware of, can (to my knowledge) be used once by each player. I think I read somewhere that after a pretty long break (lots of months at the very least) a player can click one again, but I'm not sure if that even works. There's the whole "if the person who you referred stays subbed, you get more thing," but I'm not sure that's reliable either and it doesn't take into account that...

 

It's a well-established and undisputed idea that only a minority of the playerbase regularly uses the forums. Referrals can happen in game too, but they are often frowned upon by players and it's unclear how much success there is, in pure numbers.

 

So to extrapolate from that that most are swimming in referral coins makes no sense. We would need to assume that not only are most using referrals to rake in coins, but that there are enough new players coming into the game all the time to supply these people. That or they are using some kind of exploitation of the system, which is not out of the question, but hardly paints a sunny picture and still doesn't explain the game being sustained well and profiting.

 

There is also the factor of coins from monthly subscription, but this is arguably not free in the first place. Though it's technically "complimentary," one does have to pay for the sub to get them. Security Key is the only other "free" method I can think of and the most you could have amassed from it in five years, from start to finish, is 6000. Spread over five years. And that's ignoring that the game hasn't actually been out for five years yet and I'm not sure the Security Key incentive was even in place at launch. It's also setting aside all of the strong reasons one might have had to dip into those coins over the years.

 

As for your question, there is no cost to putting a referral link in your signature, so people have every reason to do it, even if no one ever uses their link. Aside from the potential for some weird thing where BW thinks they're getting too many coins and pulls the rug out (which I'm not sure has ever been confirmed to happen) there's no real reason not to if you want to benefit from referrals. That does not, however, mean that you are guaranteed even a single click.

 

I am not even a large CC earner, between my 500 stipend and a couple referrals, I make 2000 CC a month. Generally I have around 5k on hand. I have not spent a dime on CC. I am sure there are more like me, and others that make a crazy amount of monthly CC.

[lightSaberAddiCt]

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.

 

If your side is making a request to make it available....Then the opposing side is making a request that BW abide by their exclusive advertisement. Why is the opposing side a demand? Because it differs from yours?

[PorsaLindahl]

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.

 

And where does it say that these timed rewards can ever be received by people who didn't subscribe during a certain period of time? It doesn't. The qualifications are plainly stated.

 

You're impression is incorrect. And your comparison is irrelevant. Unlimited Warzones, and operations, are not rewards for being a subscriber. They are part of the full access that are paid for through subscribing.

Edited September 1, 2016 by PorsaLindahl

[rklontz]

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?

 

If you can't understand this then I am afraid no one is going to be capable of explaining it.

[TUXs]

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.

Well said! I'm getting it, I stayed subbed...but I'm 100% fine with it being offered to people who missed it, especially considering the extreme lack of content we've seen this past year. The new chapters were great and all, but far too little...it's simply once and done leveling content, nothing repeatable.

[UberSamoyed]

Well said! I'm getting it, I stayed subbed...but I'm 100% fine with it being offered to people who missed it, especially considering the extreme lack of content we've seen this past year. The new chapters were great and all, but far too little...it's simply once and done leveling content, nothing repeatable.

 

Yeah...I kinda perceived it as a reward to suffer through it....

 

Also, can you imagine the backlash from the subbers if they announced "Errr....nevermind...HK's for everyone!" right after HK drops? I don't really have any strong feelings about it either way, but I do know a Pandora's Box when I see it.

Edited September 1, 2016 by UberSamoyed

[TUXs]

Yeah...I kinda perceived it as a reward to suffer through it....

 

Also, can you imagine the backlash from the subbers if they announced "Errr....nevermind...HK's for everyone!" right after HK drops? I don't really have any strong feelings about it either way, but I do know a Pandora's Box when I see it.

This is actual content though, not some shiny trinket or fancy title...either way it's opening Pandora's Box - locking new content behind a years worth of subbing or selling content to people who didn't...neither one is a good precedent imo, but selling it seems the least harmful.

[DarthSpuds]

This is actual content though, not some shiny trinket or fancy title...either way it's opening Pandora's Box - locking new content behind a years worth of subbing or selling content to people who didn't...neither one is a good precedent imo, but selling it seems the least harmful.

 

Indeed.

 

It's the "you can have this 20 minutes of content, but only if you've been subbed for a year" that is most alarming.

 

Is that really all that a year of brand loyalty is worth?

 

20 Minutes of content that will, if the last quarter of KotFE is anything to go by, be 15 Mins of cutscenes and 5 Mins on interminably boring combat.

 

All The Best

[UberSamoyed]

This is actual content though, not some shiny trinket or fancy title...either way it's opening Pandora's Box - locking new content behind a years worth of subbing or selling content to people who didn't...neither one is a good precedent imo, but selling it seems the least harmful.

 

 

I reserve judgement on it to deem it "actual content." There's a better chance it will include a few irrelevant cutscenes, a host of scripted no-stealthing mob pulls, and a boss your companion will solo-obliterate.

 

I don't hold much hope that it's worth all this trouble. Now, if some actual "group content" was....moment of silence for the dearly departed. That would be a different animal altogether. Regardless, I'm fairly apathetic on the whole HK shooting match. This whole last year has made me feel about as involved and in control as my description of "actual content."

Edited September 1, 2016 by UberSamoyed

[PorsaLindahl]

I reserve judgement on it to deem it "actual content." There's a better chance it will include a few irrelevant cutscenes, a host of scripted no-stealthing mob pulls, and a boss your companion will solo-obliterate.

 

I don't hold much hope that it's worth all this trouble. Now, if some actual "group content" was....moment of silence for the dearly departed. That would be a different animal altogether. Regardless, I'm fairly apathetic on the whole HK shooting match. This whole last year has made me feel about as involved and in control as my description of "actual content."

 

I don't disagree with your assessment of KoTFE. I feel there could've been more play / less watch, and definitely less of the knockback/chain stun-a-rama and mobs attacking from 10 miles away. But it was still content. Whether in your eyes, you judge it to be or not. It may not be what you, or others, expected or wanted, but it doesn't change the fact.

[TUXs]

I reserve judgement on it to deem it "actual content." There's a better chance it will include a few irrelevant cutscenes, a host of scripted no-stealthing mob pulls, and a boss your companion will solo-obliterate.

Fair point lol

[Tsetso]

I reserve judgement on it to deem it "actual content." There's a better chance it will include a few irrelevant cutscenes, a host of scripted no-stealthing mob pulls, and a boss your companion will solo-obliterate.

 

I don't hold much hope that it's worth all this trouble. Now, if some actual "group content" was....moment of silence for the dearly departed. That would be a different animal altogether. Regardless, I'm fairly apathetic on the whole HK shooting match. This whole last year has made me feel about as involved and in control as my description of "actual content."

 

While you most certainly are right about the bonus mission being most probably garbage, TUXs has a point. I tried to argue about that chapter precisely because it creates a precedent of gating "actual content" behind a timed exclusive sub reward. And while i don't care about the current reward, i very much might about possible future content they use as reward. I totally see them doing it with a FP or OP, or a whole new story arc, or maybe the last chapter of kotet.

 

For me that's as if they hold the content they create as hostage and extort the players to "pay until midnight or the hostage is dead". For me this is just insulting.