The poor business model of sub perks.

[AscendingSky]

Ooh, I know how to turn caps lock on and off too! Watch....

 

It never says exclusive. Captain CLEAR AND EXPLICIT there even admitted it's never EXPLICITLY stated, only IMPLIED.

 

I'll tell ya something that's CLEAR AND EXPLICIT: in the TOS, where it says they can change anything about the game at any time. That means that, at their discretion, they can give and take away ANYTHING THEY WANT.

 

Deal.

 

Oh, sure, they can do such a thing. But why would they, when it's not in their financial interest to do so? Because some entitled people whined about how they didn't get rewarded after they unsubscribed from the game? Yeah, I see EAWare really caring about rewarding shinies to customers who unsubscribed and stopped giving them money...

 

/sarcasm

Edited February 5, 2017 by AscendingSky

[ShieldProtection]

So let me first start by saying:

I am not advocating for not recieving sub perks, I am going to argue, that punishing players that takes break from the game or start the game later, is not a well thought out business model.

 

So, let's start by the HK-Chapter, I couldn't care less about the HK chapter personally, but I do like collecting achievements, and this because of the HK-Chapter, I can't get Veteran/Master achievement for KOTFE / KOTET

Leaving it frankly useless to play on harder difficulties.

 

If you're a hater by nature, I will break it down for you:

ANY NEW PLAYER WHO WAS NOT A SUB FROM JANUARY 11 TO AUGUST 1 IS IN EFFECT RECIEVING A PUNISHMENT FOR NOT BEING A SUB WHILE THEY WERENT PLAYING.

 

How is punishing players a good business model to make new players?

Infact the amount of uncollectables in this game is just insane, I mean is the game doing so well you don't need the money?

 

If you make it *more* expensive than the sub cost, then you will make money, the sub perks will remain A LOT cheaper not to mention the 500 cc & all other perks you get from subbing.

 

I can't for the life of me, understand why the Kakkrann is not available to all, given that it's been SO LONG since it was a sub perk, and there's been several expansions since then, and being an iconic KOTOR vehicle.

 

It makes absolutely zero sense to me. It's disrespectful to new players, and returning players, and only benefits a business model that is based upon punishing everyone but strict loyal subscribers.

Which by the way, is retarded.

 

 

Another day, another hate post, another random profile without picture

 

*yawn*

[DreadtechSavant]

Stop feeling so overly entitled to bonus content. The subscriber REWARDS should stay the way they are, sometimes you miss out on things, it happens, it sucks and you might feel its unfair, but thats how it is. If you arent subscribed during the required time, you wont recieve the subscriber reward.

 

I agree with Znozzy on this OP. I was not here from the very beginning so have missed out on all the early stuff. As a collector of cartel & collection items, there are many items I cannot get so can never complete collections in most of the category's. It is what it is, I was not here then so should not have an auto right to these items. Achievements are the same. Players who stay should have some perks and don't see that as a poor business model.

[ivanhedgehog]

Oh, sure, they can do such a thing. But why would they, when it's not in their financial interest to do so? Because some entitled people whined about how they didn't get rewarded after they unsubscribed from the game? Yeah, I see EAWare really caring about rewarding shinies to customers who unsubscribed and stopped giving them money...

 

/sarcasm

 

Well, they currently have entitled people whining that it is exclusive. Which it is not, and it never was exclusive.

[CrazyCT]

Well, they currently have entitled people whining that it is exclusive. Which it is not, and it never was exclusive.

 

And they have entitled people crying because they didn't do the thing to get it, but want it anyway.

Edited February 5, 2017 by CrazyCT

[Andryah]

"To qualify for the HK-55 Bonus Chapter, the account must continuously be in active Subscription status between January 11 - August 1, 2016"

 

That is a clear and explicit restriction right there. THE ACCOUNT MUST HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY SUBSCRIBED DURING THOSE MONTHS TO QUALIFY. How much more clear and explicit can you get?

 

/Agree.

 

The terms quoted represent their full disclosure as to how to obtain said perk... period.

 

Any attempt to claim that the terms are different in the absence of the studio actually amending the terms... is just wishful thinking and fantasy prosecution of desire.

 

The fact that there is no "unless or until" in those terms, pretty well closes the door on the specious claim that it's not explicit about requirements. And making up fictional versions in one mind of what someone thinks the terms mean in this case is just flat out preschool behavior.

 

Then again, most people on the forum have absolutely no awareness of how commercial law, and the terms and conditions that are driven by it, actually work in real life. These are probably the same people that think they can make a better game with a random assembly of interns, 5 packs of chewing gum, and the wave of a hand from their armchair. I double-dog-dare them to try to take the company to court over this.... they won't even make it past the initial consultation with an attorney because the attorney will laugh them out of their office.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Andryah

[eriksarcasm]

Oh, sure, they can do such a thing. But why would they, when it's not in their financial interest to do so? Because some entitled people whined about how they didn't get rewarded after they unsubscribed from the game? Yeah, I see EAWare really caring about rewarding shinies to customers who unsubscribed and stopped giving them money...

 

/sarcasm

 

 

And they have entitled people crying because they didn't do the thing to get it, but want it anyway.

 

You keep using that word wrong. It's very trendy to fling around "entitled" as a condescension and an insult, but when it doesn't apply and is used wrong, it makes the user look foolish.

Edited February 5, 2017 by eriksarcasm

[eriksarcasm]

/Agree.

 

The terms quoted represent their full disclosure as to how to obtain said perk... period.

 

Any attempt to claim that the terms are different in the absence of the studio actually amending the terms... is just wishful thinking and fantasy prosecution of desire.

 

The fact that there is no "unless or until" in those terms, pretty well closes the door on the specious claim that it's not explicit about requirements. And making up fictional versions in one mind of what someone thinks the terms mean in this case is just flat out preschool behavior.

 

Then again, most people on the forum have absolutely no awareness of how commercial law, and the terms and conditions that are driven by it, actually work in real life. These are probably the same people that think they can make a better game with a random assembly of interns, 5 packs of chewing gum, and the wave of a hand from their armchair. I double-dog-dare them to try to take the company to court over this.... they won't even make it past the initial consultation with an attorney because the attorney will laugh them out of their office.

 

I love when people make things up then present them condescendingly. To recap, here's what was said:

 

Ooh, I know how to turn caps lock on and off too! Watch....

 

It never says exclusive. Captain CLEAR AND EXPLICIT there even admitted it's never EXPLICITLY stated, only IMPLIED.

 

I'll tell ya something that's CLEAR AND EXPLICIT: in the TOS, where it says they can change anything about the game at any time. That means that, at their discretion, they can give and take away ANYTHING THEY WANT.

 

Deal.

 

Oh, sure, they can do such a thing. But why would they, when it's not in their financial interest to do so? Because some entitled people whined about how they didn't get rewarded after they unsubscribed from the game? Yeah, I see EAWare really caring about rewarding shinies to customers who unsubscribed and stopped giving them money...

 

/sarcasm

 

Sky gets it. My point was merely that they could, not whether they should or would. You went off in some other direction, made up some scenario about lawsuits, and used that alternative fact as fuel in your constant quest to condescend to anyone and everyone. You will do amazingly well in our new America.

[SuperJoule]

I can't believe the majority of you actually seem incapable of reading.

My post says it's a poor business model, meaning: once they give away the sub content, that's it. It's basically free labor, and opening it up to others for a fee would benefit everyone.

 

Sub benefits won't make the average joe sub, as he will be content that this is a game he puts on once in a blue moon, but if there is a thing he thinks looks cool, or gives him nostalgia, like the kakkrann, he is likely to pay money for it.

 

If not, he's likely not to invest money into the game, as he didn't play when the kakkrann was there, and has absolutely zero, zip % chance of getting it, even worse if it was a reward before he even started playing.

 

This in accordance with human behavior, will lead to a punish reaction. And might even put people off playing the game, which in turn, is a bad business model.

 

The good idea with a sub reward is that people get things for free, exclusively.

 

But, to blame people for not being a sub and then being dickish about it is beyond low life standard.

It's a game, and you guys act like this is some sort of alternate reality you want to make your babies.

 

You can like it or not as much as you want, it's still a bad business model.

And people have seriously digressed away from the point.

 

Oh btw, the kakkrann and everything I say is: RANDOM EXAMPLES. THEY'RE NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AS IT'S THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE!

Edited February 5, 2017 by SuperJoule

[AmadanNaBrona]

Your point still fails.

 

Many many many business have membership rewards. They do work and are a great business model.

Starbucks has the Stars program, that gets members more than nonmembers.

Firehouse Subs has the My Points program the gets members more than nonmembers.

Airlines have frequent flyer miles, but only for members not all passengers.

Loyalty programs abound in all industries.

 

 

You keep saying it's a bad business model, but businesses disagree. If membership rewards were bad for business, business would stop doing them.

 

We have not missed your point. Your point is wrong. It's not a bad business model. Limited time exclusive benefits are the forte of a good business model. It's why companies release coupons every week that are only good for 7 days. You see the limitation, you don't want to miss out and you go buy something, even though there's going to be another identical coupon for next week. It's why McDonald's runs a different children's toy in happy meals every week, to get people in to buy now, and later. Limited time exclusives work GREAT for a business. That you think it's bad business is indicative of your ignorance of business and market planning.

Edited February 5, 2017 by AmadanNaBrona

[AscendingSky]

I can't believe the majority of you actually seem incapable of reading.

My post says it's a poor business model, meaning: once they give away the sub content, that's it. It's basically free labor, and opening it up to others for a fee would benefit everyone.

 

Sub benefits won't make the average joe sub, as he will be content that this is a game he puts on once in a blue moon, but if there is a thing he thinks looks cool, or gives him nostalgia, like the kakkrann, he is likely to pay money for it.

 

If not, he's likely not to invest money into the game, as he didn't play when the kakkrann was there, and has absolutely zero, zip % chance of getting it, even worse if it was a reward before he even started playing.

 

This in accordance with human behavior, will lead to a punish reaction. And might even put people off playing the game, which in turn, is a bad business model.

 

The good idea with a sub reward is that people get things for free, exclusively.

 

But, to blame people for not being a sub and then being dickish about it is beyond low life standard.

It's a game, and you guys act like this is some sort of alternate reality you want to make your babies.

 

You can like it or not as much as you want, it's still a bad business model.

And people have seriously digressed away from the point.

 

Oh btw, the kakkrann and everything I say is: RANDOM EXAMPLES. THEY'RE NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY AS IT'S THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE!

 

 

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

 

Definition of punishment:

 

1 : the act of punishing

 

2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution

b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

 

3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

 

 

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

P.S. What is a kakkrann?

Edited February 5, 2017 by AscendingSky

[AmadanNaBrona]

Maybe we should help him understand what a business model is too. So he'll understand why limited time exclusives are GREAT!!!

[eriksarcasm]

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

 

Definition of punishment:

 

1 : the act of punishing

 

2 a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution

b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure

 

3 : severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

 

 

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

P.S. What is a kakkrann?

 

The Kakkran Daggerstar, one of the sub reward mounts. It's the one in your email under "KOTOR Swoop inspired mount". Looks like one of the Kilrathi fighters from Wing Commander (to me)

[Andryah]

I love when people make things up then present them condescendingly.

 

^^ World class irony at play.

 

Did I strike a nerve somehow by explaining how the stated terms actually work.... as well as how commercial law works in the context of subscriber perks?

 

The entire topic is a circle storm of opinion anyway. Some people who missed out, want it and will do anything to justify why. Some people who did not miss out, and do not want to see the subscriber incentives diluted by such silly tactics of giving in to those who missed it, will do anything to justify why. Some people really don't care one way or the other, but do care about semantics being misused to prosecute a lame entitlement plea.

 

Count me in the latter group. Because what is actually at play here is people feeling they deserve special consideration for their lack of attention to the stated terms and conditions for a subscriber perk ..... and we see this every few weeks, when Joe Blow 10996578 decides to plead their case for special consideration because they believe they are special.

 

But hey, as I said...... if people feel they actually have a case that they deserve it because they believe there was no absolute exclusionary statement in the terms..... let them consult an attorney, who will explain it to them or laugh them out of their office.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Andryah

[eriksarcasm]

^^ World class irony at play.

 

Indeed? Which part did I make up, change the subject, and condescend about, exactly? Saying "I know you are but what am I?" had comedic value in Pee Wee's Big Adventure but really holds no argumentative value unless you back it up with facts.

 

Did I strike a nerve somehow by explaining how the stated terms actually work.... as well as how commercial law works in the context of subscriber perks?

 

You explained it unnecessarily. The original terms of qualifying are not in question, only the implication that the terms as stated exclude any future possibility of acquiring said content.

 

The entire topic is a circle storm of opinion anyway. Some people who missed out, want it and will do anything to justify why. Some people who did not miss out, and do not want to see the subscriber incentives diluted by such silly tactics of giving in to those who missed it, will do anything to justify why. Some people really don't care one way or the other, but do care about semantics being misused to prosecute a lame entitlement plea.

 

Count me in the latter group. Because what is actually at play here is people feeling they deserve special consideration for their lack of attention to the stated terms and conditions for a subscriber perk ..... and we see this every few weeks, when Joe Blow 10996578 decides to plead their case for special consideration because they believe they are special.

 

There's that word again, used wrongly again. People are saying several things:

- it was wrong of Bioware to release playable content as a one-time reward;

- it should/could be released for all players at a price;

- it's bad business to offer subscriber perks to begin with;

 

Each of these points is debatable on its own, however, when you use the word "entitled" or "entitlement" it implies that people are asking for the same consideration as those who were rewarded "just because", and that is simply not the case. Not once have I said, or have I seen anyone say, that they want the chapter for free even though they didn't qualify. THAT would be entitled by definition.

 

As you say, these threads pop up about once a month, and are usually met with the same childish name-calling opposition every time, usually by the same people using the same misused insults. I laugh every time. Consider that condescending if you wish, but given the direction of things in society I need to laugh lest it become depressing.

 

To you in particular: you say you don't care either way about one or the other, yet the phrasing of the quoted paragraphs belies you claim of neutrality but for the sake of semantics. That's all I need to say about that.

 

But hey, as I said...... if people feel they actually have a case that they deserve it because they believe there was no absolute exclusionary statement in the terms..... let them consult an attorney, who will explain it to them or laugh them out of their office.

 

You've wandered off to the corn field again. Let the straw man do his job scaring the crows away.

[ivanhedgehog]

And they have entitled people crying because they didn't do the thing to get it, but want it anyway.

This has nothing to do with people that want it and dont have it, only can bw do what they want with their own property. They never promised you it would be exclusive. I already have it, I am fine if bw wants to sell it. Why are you worked up about people wanting bw to sell them nonexclusive content?

[ivanhedgehog]

/Agree.

 

The terms quoted represent their full disclosure as to how to obtain said perk... period.

 

Any attempt to claim that the terms are different in the absence of the studio actually amending the terms... is just wishful thinking and fantasy prosecution of desire.

 

The fact that there is no "unless or until" in those terms, pretty well closes the door on the specious claim that it's not explicit about requirements. And making up fictional versions in one mind of what someone thinks the terms mean in this case is just flat out preschool behavior.

 

Then again, most people on the forum have absolutely no awareness of how commercial law, and the terms and conditions that are driven by it, actually work in real life. These are probably the same people that think they can make a better game with a random assembly of interns, 5 packs of chewing gum, and the wave of a hand from their armchair. I double-dog-dare them to try to take the company to court over this.... they won't even make it past the initial consultation with an attorney because the attorney will laugh them out of their office.

 

Those were the terms given to get it in that offer. they didnt say a thing about it never being available again.

[Ratajack]

This has nothing to do with people that want it and dont have it, only can bw do what they want with their own property. They never promised you it would be exclusive. I already have it, I am fine if bw wants to sell it. Why are you worked up about people wanting bw to sell them nonexclusive content?

 

BW can do what they want with their property. They can even shoot themselves in the foot and undermine any future subscriber reward promotions by making those past subscriber rewards available again to those who did NOT meet the CLEAR AND EXPLICIT criteria to obtain those rewards.

 

Thankfully, so far, they have chosen to remain true to the CLEAR AND EXPLICIT criteria they set forth in the terms and conditions and not make those past subscriber rewards available again, no matter how much or how loudly the "entitled" cry.

[Ratajack]

Those were the terms given to get it in that offer. they didnt say a thing about it never being available again.

 

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but that does NOT change the truth--that only those who were continuously subscribed from 11 January to 1 August 2016 qualify to receive the BONUS chapter according to those CLEAR AND EXPLICIT criteria.

[ivanhedgehog]

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but that does NOT change the truth--that only those who were continuously subscribed from 11 January to 1 August 2016 qualify to receive the BONUS chapter according to those CLEAR AND EXPLICIT criteria.

 

So you do have a false sense of entitlement towards content that you somehow believe to be exclusive, even though the content owners never promised to keep it exclusive.

[AscendingSky]

The Kakkran Daggerstar, one of the sub reward mounts. It's the one in your email under "KOTOR Swoop inspired mount". Looks like one of the Kilrathi fighters from Wing Commander (to me)

 

Oh, yeah, that thing. I'd completely forgotten its name. Thanks!

[Ratajack]

So you do have a false sense of entitlement towards content that you somehow believe to be exclusive, even though the content owners never promised to keep it exclusive.

 

Tell me how someone who was NOT continuously subscribed from January 11- August 1, 2016 qualifies to have access to the BONUS chapter when those terms and conditions CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY state that "** To qualify for the HK-55 Bonus Chapter, the account must continuously be in active Subscription status between January 11 - August 1, 2016".

 

Notice those criteria do NOT say "to qualify to get it NOW for FREE", "until and/or unless we decide to sell it to the 'entitled' later if they cry enough".

 

In the end, though, it is all a moot point, as BW has so far chosen not to shoot themselves int he foot and undermine any future subscriber rewards promotions by keeping that BONUS chapter available ONLY to the people that actually MET the criteria that BW set forth to qualify to have access to that BONUS chapter.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Ratajack