It’s time to make HK-55 and Chapter 10 available for subs??

[Jdast]

Note: I don't care how you view what my perception is of what they're doing. I didn't spend your money, so any thoughts on my feelings on the matter are moot, and slightly arrogant, to presume that you have any right to tell what I should or shouldn't be thinking/feeling about anything.

 

No one is telling you what you must feel, think, or believe about anything. We are simply pointing out that your feelings, thoughts, and beliefs are not grounded in even a rudimentary understanding of the English language.

 

There is a group out there called the Flat Earth Society. They are absolutely entitled to feel, think, and believe that the Earth is flat, despite overwhelming (I would actually use the term dispositive) evidence to the contrary.

 

Similarly, you are entitled to misinterpret what Bioware said -- whether in the Stream, the formal offer, or the EULA. Simply and bluntly put, though -- your feelings, thoughts, and beliefs do not correspond with reality. Our mission is to point out your misinterpretation so as not to mislead others, though I'm pretty sure BW (the only audience that matters) sees through your preening prattle.

 

And, with respect to debunking your misinterpretation -- I daresay...

 

I HAVE DONE A FAAAAAABBBBBUUUUULLLLLLOOOOOUUUUSSSSSS job of doing so.

 

<<sips martini while whipping a rainbow feathered Boa from several endangered species I smuggled onto my pleasure barge on Nar Shadaa over my shoulder>>

 

Dasty

Edited May 16, 2019 by Jdast

[IoNonSoEVero]

 

Bait: Do this and we'll give you this content as a bonus.

 

Switch: Oh, we're thinking we're going to let anyone that wants it get it.

 

You don't seem to have an understanding of that term. Bait and switch refers to promising one thing and giving you another. As someone else pointed out, if you had signed on for the HK promotion and received a mini pet instead, that would be a bait and switch.

 

Bioware offered the content for specific terms at that time. You fulfilled the terms and Bioware gave you the content they promised. No bait and switch there.

 

There was nothing in that promise that you would be the only group to receive it. If you only got the content because you thought it would be exclusive, that's your misunderstanding, but it's not what Bioware ever promised you.

 

Interesting, so show me the section that says they'll be giving this stuff out? It's the same part, right? It's their content, and they can do whatever they want with it? Funny how that's not a valid argument when we flip that lazy susan around on your argument, eh?

 

I suggest you have another read, or ten, of the EULA. The passages have been quoted in this thread already. Bioware owns their content. They can change the terms for access at any time. That has been repeatedly pointed out to you. They have the right to hold the content back forever or release it tomorrow.

 

Playing the game and using the website constitutes acceptance of the EULA. If you don't agree with those terms, you have the right to leave at any time.

 

Except that that's what "you can qualify for this content by doing X". Did you do X? No? Then you're not qualified for the content, and shouldn't have it.

 

At that time. It doesn't mean Bioware cannot offer it again for the same or different terms. The same way I can offer an item for sale in a store for $100 one day and $5 the next.

 

Isn't this ironic? Guess what, it has no bearing on your game either.

 

Actually, it does, because I have two story arcs left hanging, plus no access to a companion I invested companion gifts in.

 

Yes, I'm a sucker for believing advertising, no sarcasm intended. This is BW, and I should have known that somewhere down the line people would get to feeling all "but mah soshul justus", and BW would be hurrying up to preserve those feelings.

 

At this point you're very obviously angry and I don't think replying to you further will do anything but result in more of the same sort of anger and indignance. It's been explained to you countless times in this thread why your perceptions of the advertising are not based in the reality of what Bioware ever actually promised. If you only wanted the content so you could have something nobody else had and you thought that situation would endure forever, that's your mistake.

 

As to social justice, not sure how that factors into a story segment about droids, but hey, you do you. I know it's audacious for players to actually want to play more of the game they enjoy or have more content or not have story arcs left hanging. The nerve. The gall. Whatever will happen next, people will want less lag and spikes! Oh, the humanity.

[robertthebard]

Reading these replies has reminded me of a joke I heard a long time ago:

 

A blonde goes to the hairstylists to get her hair done. She tells the stylist, no matter what, don't take off my headphones. Well, while trying to do the wash, the stylist figures she'd better remove the headphones, to prevent any accidents, and the blonde dies. The investigators, hearing what happened, picked up the headphones, and listened to what was playing:

 

Breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out.

 

So, the terms don't exist, until "We can change the terms any time we want". All things being equal, they don't have to change the terms, but that means that people don't understand the English language?

 

Breathe in, breathe out.

[QuinlanSaathis]

For me, the only companions I have that I'd be upset with them releasing for purchase or what have you are Ranos, the Star Fortress companions, and HK-51, you know companions you actually had to do stuff for. You can still run the SF's and do HK's mission, but the only way I'd bring back Ranos is to either do the DvL event again or just make on huge colossal alliance alert comprised of the DvL event for others to do.

 

Just touching on this point.

Say they did hold the DvL event again and offered Ranos.

Because you already have Ranos would you be disappointed that if you participated in the event that you would not be rewarded at all, that it wasn't really an event for all?

 

Would that be fair to you?

[absolutetristan]

Just touching on this point.

Say they did hold the DvL event again and offered Ranos.

Because you already have Ranos would you be disappointed that if you participated in the event that you would not be rewarded at all, that it wasn't really an event for all?

 

Would that be fair to you?

 

It wouldn't bug me in the least because I already did it, and I have her. I don't have to slog through it again. Someone else wants to run through all that, by all means, let them. Doesn't bug me.

 

By the end of it, I hated the DvL, too much work versus too little reward, in my opinion. I mostly did it, it was a good incentive to finish the last classes I didn't have complete at that time, a smuggler and agent, and they were my two event characters.

 

Whether they brought back Ranos or completely new companions in a new DvL event, I'd pass if the requirements were structured the same.

 

I did say I was fine bringing Ranos back in DvL or an alliance alert comparable to the event. I think it's fair bringing gameplay rewards back if the amount of time and effort and gameplay is the same across from the first time introduced, into subsequent times when reintroduced.

[TrixxieTriss]

And we are off topic again for the sake of arguing.

 

Guys, this back and forth where you are just repeating yourselves is getting really old and really boring.

You may as well be copying and pasting your previous reply’s and opinions.

 

Please add some better quality to this conversation

Edited May 17, 2019 by TrixxieTriss

[QuinlanSaathis]

It wouldn't bug me in the least because I already did it, and I have her. I don't have to slog through it again. Someone else wants to run through all that, by all means, let them. Doesn't bug me.

 

By the end of it, I hated the DvL, too much work versus too little reward, in my opinion. I mostly did it, it was a good incentive to finish the last classes I didn't have complete at that time, a smuggler and agent, and they were my two event characters.

 

Whether they brought back Ranos or completely new companions in a new DvL event, I'd pass if the requirements were structured the same.

 

I did say I was fine bringing Ranos back in DvL or an alliance alert comparable to the event. I think it's fair bringing gameplay rewards back if the amount of time and effort and gameplay is the same across from the first time introduced, into subsequent times when reintroduced.

 

Fair enough,

I hated it too and it was probably a bad example as almost no one would want to do that again.

 

Now substitute DvL event for "sub for 6 months" its easy to do and most of us are doing it anyway.

Now look at the question, is that fair?

[Sarlegant]

Free, or don’t bother. Yes, I said it before, in this 53 page thread. It seems to be normal to repeat oneself. At least one individual has stated 20+ times his opposing views based on the idea hk55 was exclusive at the time and for all time. It clarifies for me th concept of the term “vocal minority”.

 

This game isn’t the wow killer, in fact, you can count the remaining servers on one hand. I want BioWare to do everything they can do to keep this game running, to keep the newbs coming. Millions have left this game. What remains is some Star Wars loving fools, and we need BioWare to sell this game to anyone willing to give it a try.

[juliushorst]

Just touching on this point.

Say they did hold the DvL event again and offered Ranos.

Because you already have Ranos would you be disappointed that if you participated in the event that you would not be rewarded at all, that it wasn't really an event for all?

Would that be fair to you?

 

I know you're asking somebody else but... I would do this for cartel packs alone... and for fun of doing it again and comparing my performance with how I performed when I was totally new to the game. If there were no packs and no stuff for me at all I probably wouldn't go all the way to the end of Legendary tier but I would still enjoy more pops from people participating.

It wouldn't bother me that other get more stuff because I already have that stuff. Sure, would be cool if they offered some additional rewards to keep more people doing the event but I wouldn't expect those rewards to be distributed only to those who already have Ranos \ Titan \ XP armor \ other stuff.

[QuinlanSaathis]

I know you're asking somebody else but... I would do this for cartel packs alone... and for fun of doing it again and comparing my performance with how I performed when I was totally new to the game. If there were no packs and no stuff for me at all I probably wouldn't go all the way to the end of Legendary tier but I would still enjoy more pops from people participating.

It wouldn't bother me that other get more stuff because I already have that stuff. Sure, would be cool if they offered some additional rewards to keep more people doing the event but I wouldn't expect those rewards to be distributed only to those who already have Ranos \ Titan \ XP armor \ other stuff.

 

Same follow up to you then.

 

Now substitute DvL event for "sub for 6 months" its easy to do and most of us are doing it anyway.

Now look at the question, is that fair?

[Salphidor]

I would like to add my 2 cents to the original post. I've been a sub since December 2011, and in between I have 11 months where I didn't sub or play. The time you needed to be sub for HK-55 is in those 11 months. I get that it needs to be fair... so, wouldn't it be fair to say you can play it, when you finished 24 months of sub. That is a very long time, shows your loyalty to the game and gives you an award accordingly. Or make it 12 months plus some item from the cartel market (which would also give you profit).

[QuinlanSaathis]

I would like to add my 2 cents to the original post. I've been a sub since December 2011, and in between I have 11 months where I didn't sub or play. The time you needed to be sub for HK-55 is in those 11 months. I get that it needs to be fair... so, wouldn't it be fair to say you can play it, when you finished 24 months of sub. That is a very long time, shows your loyalty to the game and gives you an award accordingly. Or make it 12 months plus some item from the cartel market (which would also give you profit).

 

I also subbed for those 24 months you are talking about.

If a sub reward was made for that time and the reward was HK-55, I already have it.

So what would my reward be for this period?

[Twicepolar]

i don't have it, but i think it would be unfair to bring it back.

[Joonbeams]

Interesting conversation.

 

I’m gonna try to declutter the positions here a bit. And I’ll start with this: generic arguments about fairness, contracts, and broken promises need to be disregarded. The only points BW should consider are those that come earnestly from people actually affected by this.

 

The following algorithm is the one I'm applying here. IMHO, it will be helpful for others and BW if the algorithm is applied to responses so there can be some clarity as to where the weight of the debate really is.

 

Also, I’ll deal with the special case of "Group 4" at the end. But until then, if you would have subbed anyway, there is no reason at all whatsoever for anyone to factor in your opinion here. (For the record, I’m in this camp). I cannot emphasize this enough – you have no legit basis whatsoever to state a grievance here, since you have not and will not suffer any harm from any decision here. (Except maybe group 4 below, which is a special case for the end).

 

 

Step 1: Which Group Are You In?

• GROUP 1: Subbed only because of the promotion; wouldn’t have subbed without it
  
• GROUP 2: Tried to sub/intended to sub during the promotion and ran into a "glitch"
  
• GROUP 3: New to game, didn’t meet promotion requirements, but now want it
  
• GROUP 4: Subbed, and would have subbed anyway, but earnestly feel this decision has broader impact on the overall health of the game*
  

 

If you're in Group 2 or 3, proceed to Step 2. Group 1, should skip to step 3. *Group 4, see paragraph at the end.

 

Step 2: What Do You Want (and why)?

• (a) Access to Story/No Access to Companion
  
• (b) Access to Companion/No Access to Story
  
• © Both Access to Story and Companion
  
• (d) Neither, but I generally like to complain about things
  

 

Step 2A: What Is Your Compromise (and why)?

• (a) I'd favor new/different rewards for those who already with any re-opening of the promotion
  
• (b) Gate the promotion behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate
  
• © I'd favor both, or either, of (a) and (b)
  
• (d) I don't think any additional compromise is needed
  

 

Step 3 is for Group 1 only.

 

Step 3: What Is Your Position (and why)?

• (a) In favor of Access to Story/opposed to Access to Companion
  
• (b) In favor of Access to Companion/opposed to Access to Story
  
• © In favor of both Access to Companion and Story
  
• (d) Opposed to both Access to Companion and Story
  

 

Step 3A: What Can Change Your Opinion/What's Your Compromise (and why)?

• (a) If I get the option for new/different rewards with any re-opening of the promotion
  
• (b) If the new content is gated behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate
  
• © I'd be cool with both, or either, of (a) and (b)
  
• (d) It cannot be changed; I'm dug in
  

 

Special Case of Group 4

This "special" group really only has one argument worth considering in this debate. At that is if you have strong beliefs that the game as a whole (and your sub with it) will suffer because of one of these decisions. The argument is that one of these decisions will harm you because the broader game will be harmed. Still, these general “health of the game” arguments are really "blue on black" and should only be considered as feather on the scale arguments because the harm is tangential only.

 

Also, for the record, there is a credible argument that Group 4 should be able to get new/different rewards with a new promotion. It’s a fair discussion. But it really shouldn’t be factored into this specific debate here because this debate because again, you (we) have not been harmed since you (we) were subbing anyway...

 

EDITED TO ADD: just in case it isn't obvious, I didn't include the group of people who were around, could have subbed during the event, and made a conscious choice not to. IMO, they don't belong anywhere on the framework at all. But to avoid confusion, I'm making this explicit now.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Joonbeams

[QuinlanSaathis]

Interesting conversation.

 

I’m gonna try to declutter the positions here a bit. And I’ll start with this: generic arguments about fairness, contracts, and broken promises need to be disregarded. The only points BW should consider are those that come earnestly from people actually affected by this.

 

The following algorithm is the one I'm applying here. IMHO, it will be helpful for others and BW if the algorithm is applied to responses so there can be some clarity as to where the weight of the debate really is.

 

Also, I’ll deal with the special case of "Group 4" at the end. But until then, if you would have subbed anyway, there is no reason at all whatsoever for anyone to factor in your opinion here. (For the record, I’m in this camp). I cannot emphasize this enough – you have no legit basis whatsoever to state a grievance here, since you have not and will not suffer any harm from any decision here. (Except maybe group 4 below, which is a special case for the end).

 

Don't try to tell me what I can and can't comment on and as with all the others in this argument I reject your opinion that any part of my argument is invalid

 

Step 1: Which Group Are You In?

• GROUP 1: Subbed only because of the promotion; wouldn’t have subbed without it
  
• GROUP 2: Tried to sub/intended to sub during the promotion and ran into a "glitch"
  
• GROUP 3: New to game, didn’t meet promotion requirements, but now want it
  
• GROUP 4: Subbed, and would have subbed anyway, but earnestly feel this decision has broader impact on the overall health of the game*
  

4

 

If you're in Group 2 or 3, proceed to Step 2. Group 1, should skip to step 3. *Group 4, see paragraph at the end.

 

I feel the need to supply an answer wherever I choose

 

Step 2: What Do You Want (and why)?

• (a) Access to Story/No Access to Companion
  
• (b) Access to Companion/No Access to Story
  
• © Both Access to Story and Companion
  
• (d) Neither, but I generally like to complain about things
  

 

I prefer they do not have access

 

Step 2A: What Is Your Compromise (and why)?

• (a) I'd favor new/different rewards for those who already with any re-opening of the promotion
  
• (b) Gate the promotion behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate
  
• © I'd favor both, or either, of (a) and (b)
  
• (d) I don't think any additional compromise is needed
  

 

C - Both A and B are necessary

 

Step 3 is for Group 1 only.

 

Step 3: What Is Your Position (and why)?

• (a) In favor of Access to Story/opposed to Access to Companion
  
• (b) In favor of Access to Companion/opposed to Access to Story
  
• © In favor of both Access to Companion and Story
  
• (d) Opposed to both Access to Companion and Story
  

 

Not relevant

 

Step 3A: What Can Change Your Opinion/What's Your Compromise (and why)?

• (a) If I get the option for new/different rewards with any re-opening of the promotion
  
• (b) If the new content is gated behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate
  
• © I'd be cool with both, or either, of (a) and (b)
  
• (d) It cannot be changed; I'm dug in
  

 

No, nothing you say can change my opinion on what I believe is fair, on what I will respond to and on what "instructions" I will ignore.

 

Special Case of Group 4

This "special" group really only has one argument worth considering in this debate. At that is if you have strong beliefs that the game as a whole (and your sub with it) will suffer because of one of these decisions. The argument is that one of these decisions will harm you because the broader game will be harmed. Still, these general “health of the game” arguments are really "blue on black" and should only be considered as feather on the scale arguments because the harm is tangential only.

 

My opinion and my stance has as much weight as any other sub that has put as much into this game as I have.

 

Also, for the record, there is a credible argument that Group 4 should be able to get new/different rewards with a new promotion. It’s a fair discussion. But it really shouldn’t be factored into this specific debate here because this debate because again, you (we) have not been harmed since you (we) were subbing anyway...

 

Its not only a credible argument it is mandatory if the content is re-released.

[Joonbeams]

Don't try to tell me what I can and can't comment on and as with all the others in this argument I reject your opinion that any part of my argument is invalid

 

4

 

I feel the need to supply an answer wherever I choose

 

I prefer they do not have access

 

C - Both A and B are necessary

 

Not relevant

 

No, nothing you say can change my opinion on what I believe is fair, on what I will respond to and on what "instructions" I will ignore.

 

My opinion and my stance has as much weight as any other sub that has put as much into this game as I have.

 

Its not only a credible argument it is mandatory if the content is re-released.

 

As much as I agree with wanting new rewards for those of us in Group 4 who already got these (that's my long-standing position w/r/t loyal subs, and I've agreed with you on this in the past) and as much as I agree with any other concerns you might have (what these rewards represent, etc.), the framework I've laid out is still valid and inescapable.

 

It's just fact that we haven't/and won't suffer any harm from this or any decision that they choose to make, as members of Group 4. So there's no reason to factor our concerns into any future analysis (other than the limited caveats I laid out earlier)...

[BRKMSN]

 

Special Case of Group 4

This "special" group really only has one argument worth considering in this debate. At that is if you have strong beliefs that the game as a whole (and your sub with it) will suffer because of one of these decisions. The argument is that one of these decisions will harm you because the broader game will be harmed. Still, these general “health of the game” arguments are really "blue on black" and should only be considered as feather on the scale arguments because the harm is tangential only.

 

Also, for the record, there is a credible argument that Group 4 should be able to get new/different rewards with a new promotion. It’s a fair discussion. But it really shouldn’t be factored into this specific debate here because this debate because again, you (we) have not been harmed since you (we) were subbing anyway...

 

This game's survivability does not depend on bringing back a reward or not bringing it back. It just doesn't. Either decision will be a virtual non-factor in the eventual decision to "shut it down" (whenever that is). Nobody is being "harmed" or will be "harmed" in any way regardless of what happens with rewards. The debate is merely centered around whether or not it is ethical to bring it back after the way it was originally presented.

 

Some people have the reward and want others to have it. Some people don't have it and want it. Some people have it on one account and want it on another that currently doesn't have it. Some people like exclusive items and don't want it to return. The common theme is "want." Arguments are being presented to support people's wants.

 

The idea that this decision could make or break this game is really ... ridiculous. There's no shortage of bugs that could be addressed. Players are always griping about one class or another. New content is rolling in on the slow side. It's not like EA will be posting a new job on Monster.com if they roll this reward out again.

[Jadescythe]

I’m gonna try to declutter the positions here a bit. And I’ll start with this: generic arguments about fairness, contracts, and broken promises need to be disregarded. The only points BW should consider are those that come earnestly from people actually affected by this.

 

This is the most hilariously biased, unnecessary post in this thread. Everyone is actually affected by this change because everyone either got the content or they didn't. If you didn't get the content, you have a stake in the conversation in that you do or do not think they should bring it back. If you did get the content, you have a stake in the conversation if they make the content available again.

 

I also love how you chose to discount the arguments of those you don't agree with by saying they should be disregarded for some arbitrary reason you've decided. Silencing the other side of a debate isn't the way to win.

[Joonbeams]

This is the most hilariously biased, unnecessary post in this thread. Everyone is actually affected by this change because everyone either got the content or they didn't. If you didn't get the content, you have a stake in the conversation in that you do or do not think they should bring it back. If you did get the content, you have a stake in the conversation if they make the content available again.

 

I also love how you chose to discount the arguments of those you don't agree with by saying they should be disregarded for some arbitrary reason you've decided. Silencing the other side of a debate isn't the way to win.

 

Sigh. Except I actually agree with many of the arguments I'm allegedly "silencing." For example, I agree with new rewards for those who already met the requirements. I also believe that those who felt this was one time only have a legit basis for feeling that based on the promotion. Also feel free to look at my post history elsewhere on this topic. But none of that matters here.

 

So try a little harder not to jump straight to negativity, and actually read the framework and logic. The point is pretty simple: those who made decisions relying on exclusivity should have the more prominent position in the debate than those (Group 4) who did not. Nothing is hard about this...

[QuinlanSaathis]

Sigh. Except I actually agree with many of the arguments I'm allegedly "silencing." For example, I agree with new rewards for those who already met the requirements. I also believe that those who felt this was one time only have a legit basis for feeling that based on the promotion. Also feel free to look at my post history elsewhere on this topic. But none of that matters here.

 

So try a little harder not to jump straight to negativity, and actually read the framework and logic. The point is pretty simple: those who made decisions relying on exclusivity should have the more prominent position in the debate than those (Group 4) who did not. Nothing is hard about this...

 

I can see we are on the same side of this argument but you made a critical mistake.

There has been people trying to shut down debate on this thread and others on this topic since debate broke out and you come in and do the same.

 

Of course you are going to get slapped down.

 

I don't want to see debate on this topic stifled in any way \by anyone whether they agree with me or not, I firmly believe this needs to play out and it is cathartic to all concerned.

[TrixxieTriss]

Interesting conversation.

 

I’m gonna try to declutter the positions here a bit. And I’ll start with this: generic arguments about fairness, contracts, and broken promises need to be disregarded. The only points BW should consider are those that come earnestly from people actually affected by this.

 

The following algorithm is the one I'm applying here. IMHO, it will be helpful for others and BW if the algorithm is applied to responses so there can be some clarity as to where the weight of the debate really is.

 

Also, I’ll deal with the special case of "Group 4" at the end. But until then, if you would have subbed anyway, there is no reason at all whatsoever for anyone to factor in your opinion here. (For the record, I’m in this camp). I cannot emphasize this enough – you have no legit basis whatsoever to state a grievance here, since you have not and will not suffer any harm from any decision here. (Except maybe group 4 below, which is a special case for the end).

 

 

Step 1: Which Group Are You In?

• GROUP 1: Subbed only because of the promotion; wouldn’t have subbed without it
  
• GROUP 2: Tried to sub/intended to sub during the promotion and ran into a "glitch"
  
• GROUP 3: New to game, didn’t meet promotion requirements, but now want it
  
• GROUP 4: Subbed, and would have subbed anyway, but earnestly feel this decision has broader impact on the overall health of the game*
  

 

If you're in Group 2 or 3, proceed to Step 2. Group 1, should skip to step 3. *Group 4, see paragraph at the end.

 

Step 2: What Do You Want (and why)?

• (a) Access to Story/No Access to Companion
  
• (b) Access to Companion/No Access to Story
  
• © Both Access to Story and Companion
  
• (d) Neither, but I generally like to complain about things
  

 

Step 2A: What Is Your Compromise (and why)?

• (a) I'd favor new/different rewards for those who already with any re-opening of the promotion
  
• (b) Gate the promotion behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate
  
• © I'd favor both, or either, of (a) and (b)
  
• (d) I don't think any additional compromise is needed
  

 

Step 3 is for Group 1 only.

 

Step 3: What Is Your Position (and why)?

• (a) In favor of Access to Story/opposed to Access to Companion
  
• (b) In favor of Access to Companion/opposed to Access to Story
  
• © In favor of both Access to Companion and Story
  
• (d) Opposed to both Access to Companion and Story
  

 

Step 3A: What Can Change Your Opinion/What's Your Compromise (and why)?

• (a) If I get the option for new/different rewards with any re-opening of the promotion
  
• (b) If the new content is gated behind any of: length of time, cartel market, or other gate
  
• © I'd be cool with both, or either, of (a) and (b)
  
• (d) It cannot be changed; I'm dug in
  

 

Special Case of Group 4

This "special" group really only has one argument worth considering in this debate. At that is if you have strong beliefs that the game as a whole (and your sub with it) will suffer because of one of these decisions. The argument is that one of these decisions will harm you because the broader game will be harmed. Still, these general “health of the game” arguments are really "blue on black" and should only be considered as feather on the scale arguments because the harm is tangential only.

 

Also, for the record, there is a credible argument that Group 4 should be able to get new/different rewards with a new promotion. It’s a fair discussion. But it really shouldn’t be factored into this specific debate here because this debate because again, you (we) have not been harmed since you (we) were subbing anyway...

 

I applaud your effort to get the thread back on track and trying to make some sense of the discussion.

 

I’m in group 4. But my sister is in group 2. So I’ll answer for both of us as she’s sitting across from me.

 

I don’t think it will be overly detrimental at all for the game if it is or isn’t offered. But offering the chapter and reward would give people something extra to do who don’t have it.

 

My sister was unlucky and didn’t get it due to being overseas and missed subbing for some of the time.

 

This is how both of us feel.

 

© Both Access to Story and Companion

© I'd favor both, or either, of (a) and (b) : one caveat is qualifying be made retroactive.

 

My reason to start the thread was to be able to share this fun content and comical companions with my sister, but also the wider community who’ve never done it.

We know what ever Bioware do, it will have no impact on us subbing.

My Sis has been a loyal sub since launch and only missed a few months when she was OS. I personally think she’s paid her dues to qualify for 3 year old content. But that’s just my opinion. She says she’s happy to requalify if that’s what Bioware decide.

 

We will both accept with grace, whatever Bioware decide on this issue. At the end of the day, we are only “asking” for access, we “aren’t demanding” access or feel entitled to it. But if you don’t ask the question, you’ve only yourself to blame if it’s never answered.

[robertthebard]

Interesting conversation.

 

I’m gonna try to declutter the positions here a bit. And I’ll start with this: generic arguments about fairness, contracts, and broken promises need to be disregarded. The only points BW should consider are those that come earnestly from people actually affected by this.

 

So "any argument that can't be shouted down with "but it's not fair that you have something I don't"" should be disregarded? Here's my take on this thread, any argument based on "It's not fair that people did something to get bonus content, so BW should make it available to everyone" should be disregarded as well? There wouldn't be a thread to discuss then, would there?

 

You start out your "decluttering" by trying to remove the main point of contention: It is a broken promise. It's not the first, and it's likely not going to be the last. So what you said here invalidates anything you may have said later, because when you start out with this much wrong, and based your entire post on it, there's no way anything else is valid. When posters point to the EULA in regard to this, they are stating that BW can, in fact, break this promise, because they own the content and can do what they want with it. It must be nice to be so privileged as to dismiss the legit concerns of forum posters. I mean, I can't even use the same language against my detractors w/out getting official PMs...

[juliushorst]

Same follow up to you then.

 

Now substitute DvL event for "sub for 6 months" its easy to do and most of us are doing it anyway.

Now look at the question, is that fair?

 

I thought we already agreed that I would be happy if you and everybody else who already have the chapter should got some alternate reward. Even if BW is not legally bound to do such thing, it would be nice and good business practice to do so.

[Joonbeams]

So "any argument that can't be shouted down with "but it's not fair that you have something I don't"" should be disregarded? Here's my take on this thread, any argument based on "It's not fair that people did something to get bonus content, so BW should make it available to everyone" should be disregarded as well? There wouldn't be a thread to discuss then, would there?

 

You start out your "decluttering" by trying to remove the main point of contention: It is a broken promise. It's not the first, and it's likely not going to be the last. So what you said here invalidates anything you may have said later, because when you start out with this much wrong, and based your entire post on it, there's no way anything else is valid. When posters point to the EULA in regard to this, they are stating that BW can, in fact, break this promise, because they own the content and can do what they want with it. It must be nice to be so privileged as to dismiss the legit concerns of forum posters. I mean, I can't even use the same language against my detractors w/out getting official PMs...

 

I'm not sure what you read, or what you're responding to. But it's not the post I made. The 'clutter' is that there are numerous "generic" arguments of contract breach, ToS, ethics, fairness, etc. being made. Some are strong, others not so much. The debate is now muddled. But by generic, I mean the ones that are not tied to someone actually harmed by this. In other words, those arguments that anyone can make - even non subs, non-players, and space aliens:D. And no one is saying that there is no place anywhere for generic arguments. It's just that this thread it getting cluttered with arguments that are all over the place from people who have no greater interest here than the space alien.

 

What I have attempted to do is clean up the debate a bit by prioritizing arguments from people who are actually (or potentially if there is a change) harmed by this: a) people who subbed in reliance on this being one-time only and b) people who missed out and now want the rewards (to be clear, for now, I didn't explicitly include people who could have done the promo but chose not to at the time either). The idea is to percolate the arguments from the "harmed" groups up to the top of the debate where they belong.

 

All other groups don't have an argument that's based on harm, and IMO in this framework, their arguments (which include my own arguments) should be heavily discounted (which is what the algorithm tries to do)...

[Joonbeams]

I applaud your effort to get the thread back on track and trying to make some sense of the discussion.

...

 

Thanks Trixx. This is all I'm trying to do here...