|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 14, 2015 6:12:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Dec 14, 2015 6:28:24 GMT
Damn. After years of these changing hands, why is it suddenly, on the cusp of major backers leaving, within supposed reach of "alpha", are they just now getting around to charging for it?
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 14, 2015 6:35:17 GMT
Damn. After years of these changing hands, why is it suddenly, on the cusp of major backers leaving, within supposed reach of "alpha", are they just now getting around to charging for it? Someone probably ran the numbers and figured they could make an extra 2.5k a month by charging for free stuff. What is next?
|
|
Joviex
Strong in the Force
PERMABANNED
Posts: 123
|
Post by Joviex on Dec 14, 2015 7:44:09 GMT
Damn. After years of these changing hands, why is it suddenly, on the cusp of major backers leaving, within supposed reach of "alpha", are they just now getting around to charging for it? Someone probably ran the numbers and figured they could make an extra 2.5k a month by charging for free stuff. What is next? The irony of all ironies is why. They are so inept at managing the business and production ends, they didn't realize to do this sooner to make even more money and/or cover their operation costs for those requests etc.. hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 14, 2015 7:50:43 GMT
Someone probably ran the numbers and figured they could make an extra 2.5k a month by charging for free stuff. What is next? The irony of all ironies is why. They are so inept at managing the business and production ends, they didn't realize to do this sooner to make even more money and/or cover their operation costs for those requests etc.. hilarious. Should have put it in right before all that Royal Founder melt/split business. They'd have easily raised 100k from it.
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Dec 14, 2015 7:53:36 GMT
They are so inept at managing the business and production ends, they didn't realize to do this sooner to make even more money and/or cover their operation costs for those requests etc.. But IM makes a good point: those requests didn't seem to take that long to accomplish. It seems like it was a relatively easy thing to do, and it was one of the things they did to smooth out the "buyer's remorse". Are these just for account/pledge transfers, or for any store add-on? If it's just pledges, it sounds like they're trying to keep players; there can't be that many pledges swapping hands that suddenly they need to start charging for it after 2-3 years. If it's for all items, then that's just lame.
|
|
|
Post by nemolives on Dec 14, 2015 8:41:26 GMT
This is a weird one; the only expenditure they have on this service is the hours spent for someone sat working the email and database. Which indicates that the requests for Account Services must be rising, so it's taking more time. But their whole model has been built on the assumption of rares trading, and in Alpha at this point, the only way to do that is via Account trading. Once the game launches, you can hand over the physical item (assuming it's in game by then and working, but I fully expect huge swathes of items not too, not if we want to see the game this side of 2020) but that was always going to lead to the issue of what if someone submits a bug for an item they should have, but don't... because secretly they've traded it off? They've not for instance fixed the missing Tricorne Hat which is tied to your account, but that doesn't stop me promising it to someone else; why can't I sell it when it reappears, claim I didn't, and claim a new one back off Portalarium because hey, it's still "bugged"?
However this new charge on Account Services doesn't seem to stop you just selling your own account and walking away from it; that is, to someone who takes the whole account. As long as the new owner is happy with the user name, and just changes the password, they don't get hit by the charge. Of course the simplest, and cheapest response would have been to allow user name changes too. The only reason I can think that they've implemented it this way is because right now, selling it to a pre-established account does nothing for player retention, so they're hoping to direct those cashing out to at least replace themselves with someone new, instead of selling it to the Mega Whales who are still foolishly hoping to make a profit from account trading.
Also also of course, because they're obsessed with store pricing everything. But unless there's really been a huge increase in W2W trading just recently, the only reason that makes any sense is they're trying to crack down on inter-Whale trading because the player numbers are cratering.
|
|
|
Post by kb on Dec 14, 2015 9:52:37 GMT
The only reason I can think that they've implemented it this way is because right now, selling it to a pre-established account does nothing for player retention, so they're hoping to direct those cashing out to at least replace themselves with someone new, instead of selling it to the Mega Whales who are still foolishly hoping to make a profit from account trading. But unless there's really been a huge increase in W2W trading just recently, the only reason that makes any sense is they're trying to crack down on inter-Whale trading because the player numbers are cratering. This appears to me to be a way to make it a bit more troublesome and painful to offload an account. Most people buying an old account prefer a different name/etc, and when a new player or whale buys an account that already exists, that's a sale of a new pledge that port won't make. So, this is probably a way for them to make something off of the process (where they had made nothing before) and slowly make it more and more difficult for people to leave and to buy a discounted account on the secondary market. It reminds me of how impossibly hard some companies make it to cancel their service. Stories abound of companies like Comcast to AOL (back in the day of their "free trial" offers) stringing along customers, lying about their system going down, all in the name of "retention at all costs"... Also it is starting to remind me of the scummy timeshare industry where suckers who are sold a bunch of dreams and "invest" in the ongoing maintenance fees and upsells are too late in learning it is a headache to offload their white elephant. Not a good sign for those still holding on when companies start to resort to such pathetic examples of nickel and diming. What do I know. I'm just some "slimy" guy who posts here with all of you slimy people... ;P
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 14, 2015 9:59:02 GMT
After reading nemolives post I just realised how totally out of luck the Steam buyers are. I feel for the Steam purchasers of anything <250 as the transfer itself is a significant cost of the game if you try to split and offload :/ Not a good sign for those still holding on when companies start to resort to such pathetic examples of nickel and dining. What do I know. I'm just some "slimy" guy who posts here with all of you slimy people... ;P Hells yeah, what's a slime gotta do to get a mop up in this bitch??
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 14, 2015 10:58:59 GMT
So, this is probably a way for them to make something off of the process (where they had made nothing before) and slowly make it more and more difficult for people to leave and to buy a discounted account on the secondary market. Agreed. When they first made the Player Marketplace at the forums, I railed against it. I said, NO ONE should be managing transactions except Portalarium. Because Port should be making the money and do the secure transactions, not a bunch of vampires who prey on new players. Plus I said they should be adding a fee for the service. Guess who argued with me. Guess who moderated me. You got it. I was actually sticking up for Port to make more money. And why? Because I wanted a game produced. I was not in it to make money, scalp people, or any of the rest. And yet I'm the bad guy here. God you dipshits.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 14, 2015 11:09:44 GMT
Good article, IM, but I do think there should be a fee. $25 is steep. But I've always believed Portalarium should have their own ebay-type department, so that they continue to make money on all transactions, to continue to create a better game for everyone. Buying an account from a vampire does no one any good except the vampire. It doesn't help develop the game.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 14, 2015 13:01:14 GMT
Good article, IM, but I do think there should be a fee. $25 is steep. But I've always believed Portalarium should have their own ebay-type department, so that they continue to make money on all transactions, to continue to create a better game for everyone. Buying an account from a vampire does no one any good except the vampire. It doesn't help develop the game. Maybe a modest fee on placed on the actual sale of the account to someone which is adjusted so that whales pay more of a fee than plebs like us, then maybe
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 14, 2015 16:37:31 GMT
Good article, IM, but I do think there should be a fee. $25 is steep. But I've always believed Portalarium should have their own ebay-type department, so that they continue to make money on all transactions, to continue to create a better game for everyone. Buying an account from a vampire does no one any good except the vampire. It doesn't help develop the game. Maybe a modest fee on placed on the actual sale of the account to someone which is adjusted so that whales pay more of a fee than plebs like us, then maybe I actually think Port should get a percentage, not a flat fee.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 14, 2015 16:39:27 GMT
Yup, that is what I was half assed suggesting. like take 1% for every $500 they are into the game for or something. Have a lower limit and an upper limit but scale it so they can take more from Whales.
|
|
|
Post by fossil on Dec 14, 2015 17:03:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dewderonomy on Dec 14, 2015 17:20:24 GMT
KUREDITU KAAADUUUUUU
OPUUUUNNN
|
|
|
Post by nemolives on Dec 14, 2015 19:02:16 GMT
So, this is probably a way for them to make something off of the process (where they had made nothing before) and slowly make it more and more difficult for people to leave and to buy a discounted account on the secondary market. For a slime, you sure are a sweety Because I think for once this is where I'm much more cynical than everyone here! I agree with all you suggest, they're trying to make it harder to leave, and squeeze the trading market for more income now... but I suspect it's deliberately harder for a certain kind of player. You can still broker the entire account independently without having to go through Portalarium; the new owner, or the broker between them just has to change the password and associated email. Unless, as Insanemembrane points out, you're someone who foolishly tied an account to Steam. Then you have to buy a second account first to merge the rewards into, thus giving Portalarium another $45 on the replacement account, and then the $25 for swapping pledges off your Steam account to the new one. They did indeed really get the shaft. The only other people though who worry about not selling their entire account are those who want to keep the account name. That won't be a new player, because they won't care about the account name, as long as they get all the rewards. It'll be someone who is already in game, perhaps with a posting history on the forums they don't want to lose. Of course you could sell "Account Name Changes" in the store; That would break the link between account and forums. Might open up Pay2Troll, but it would also allow the new account owners to start fresh without needing a second account. But they didn't do that. They specifically went for charging on the merges. And I suspect they did that knowing full well it biases you towards selling to someone who doesn't have another account. Why would they do that, when they lose the potential $45/$70 Steam sale for a new hosting account? Because someone coming into the game fresh is likely to also spend more money in the store; Someone cashing out has spent all they ever intend too. So burn them as they go for the door. And encourage them to avoid the charges by picking someone new and innocent and more likely to spend instead. And then burn the innocent in the store too. It's less like timesharing and more like a pyramid scheme; you rely on the suckers below you in the pyramid spending enough to allow you to get out before the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down. Pass that rubbish on to some other poor sucker who still believes! Oh, and hands up who thinks they could change the database for a single request in under an hour, say? So that's a $25 per hour data entry job there folks. $100 an hour if you could do 4 in an hour. The "using up more resources" line has got to be a lie; Who on the staff was being paid $100 an hour for spreadsheeting? And who wouldn't take a job like that which paid that well? They're just burning the remaining customers whilst they can.
|
|
|
Post by kb on Dec 14, 2015 22:08:15 GMT
Of course you could sell "Account Name Changes" in the store; That would break the link between account and forums. Might open up Pay2Troll, but it would also allow the new account owners to start fresh without needing a second account. But they didn't do that. They specifically went for charging on the merges. And I suspect they did that knowing full well it biases you towards selling to someone who doesn't have another account. Why would they do that, when they lose the potential $45/$70 Steam sale for a new hosting account? Because someone coming into the game fresh is likely to also spend more money in the store; Someone cashing out has spent all they ever intend too. So burn them as they go for the door. And encourage them to avoid the charges by picking someone new and innocent and more likely to spend instead. And then burn the innocent in the store too. It's less like timesharing and more like a pyramid scheme; you rely on the suckers below you in the pyramid spending enough to allow you to get out before the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down. Pass that rubbish on to some other poor sucker who still believes! I'm glad you point out the Steam thing. I forgot that it did indeed make things more convoluted when I sold my account because I had linked it to Steam. I can understand how this does make some extra work for them, and now that it looks like the floodgates might be opening up a bit, they are probably frantically trying to stop the deluge in whatever way they can. But, it strikes me as a futile gesture like closing the barn door after the "animals" have long ago escaped. Also, it reeks of desperation that they seem to be resorting to a way to compel people to stay (or, like you said, at least find some fresh blood to replace the income stream before they leave). Very shady and not confidence inspiring (if I were still backing at higher amounts).
Finally, Caliya (and Membrane_on_Vacation to a lesser degree), I hear what you are saying about some sort of fee for services like this (after all, it likely does result in some expenditures that don't benefit the game's development, however overstated they might be by Port). However, let me ask you this... for all of Comcast, AOL's, AT&T's, and Verizon's bullshit fees and ways of coercing people to stay tethered to a service they no longer want, do you honestly believe that that added income from such unsavory business practices *REALLY* results in an improved service for the consumer? Do early termination fees result in a better cellphone network (or simply more profitability for the company stockholders)? Does prodding customers to stay, giving them the third degree and refusing to listen when they want to cancel their account, or pretending it's not possible to disconnect their service because their computers are down (and then asking the customer to call back another day in hopes that they will forget to and keep paying), REALLY make the product being offered better? Sure, retaining customers might bolster the bottom line, but that increase in revenue does not automatically mean the service will improve. In fact, when companies resort to such low tactics, it's normally a sign they are in full "money-grubbing" mode and whatever money they can bleed from their remaining customers will go into the pockets of investors and CEOs (and the quality of the service will continue to degrade). In fact, I think it is possibly more healthy for these companies in the long term when their customers finally start voting with the wallets and feet and leaving in droves because it pushes the companies to invest in their business and actually start competing for customers (instead of treating their customers like a captive audience/cash cow that are there to be milked mercilessly). This often results in better service and terms for consumers (but less profitability for institutional investors). Case in point: Facing stiff competition from Tmobile (who, admittedly, has a shit network), Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T have FINALLY started to dial back some of their unpopular practices like 2-year contracts and are now offering prepaid plans with costs in-line with Tmobile. This is a big departure from even 5-10 years ago when Verizon and AT&T's dominance of the marketplace and draconian ToS meant they could milk customers hard. While it's certainly true Verizon's bottom line probably won't be as lucrative now as it once was, considering they were likely facing a slow decline into obscurity (like AOL) if they refused to change course, LESS (SOME) money now is better than NO money in the future. What's more, consumers benefit from the lower cost and more freedom when it comes to buying and using network compatible phones (and most of the big carriers have been MUCH better about updating phone operating systems than they used to be back when they wouldn't update Operating Systems on older devices as a way to entice people to upgrade and re-up their contract). Competition and consumer-friendly practices are GOOD for the marketplace, instill more confidence in consumers to spend their money in that marketplace, and are ultimately positive trends for the industry as a whole (vs. the detrimental effect that it has when a few monopolistic companies act like vampires and drain those customers who have no choice but to use their service). Anyway, enough ranting, but I really cringe when I see the belief advanced that $25 or 1% or whatever for these types of services will really result in a better game. Port asked for $1 million but received roughly $8 mil. Has the game *REALLY* benefited from the extra revenue to the tune of $7 million? Just wanted to point out that when your project is hosed and the underlying nature of your pledge rewards, game engine, way of interacting with your community, and scores of other things are totally anti-consumer, it doesn't matter how much money you get from people leaving the game or combining pledges or whatever other way you can bleed your customer base for a few pennies more. A bad game and exploitative business model is still going to bleed customers and ultimately under deliver. Throw all the money you want at the problem, it won't fix the rotten systemic core.
|
|
|
Post by kb on Dec 14, 2015 22:31:34 GMT
P.S. If you ever have the opportunity, check out a documentary about Bill McGowan called "Long Distance Warrior" chicagotonight.wttw.com/2011/09/21/long-distance-warriorBefore they were merged into Worldcom, MCI were young upstarts bucking AT&T's dominance of the telephony system. Back then, Ma Bell had a stranglehold on the consumer, and while it is true that MCI was able to do what it did by piggybacking on Ma Bell's infrastructure, it is questionable just how much of their profits the monopolistic phone company was putting back into their aging infrastructure. Competition was good for the industry and helped the consumer, arguably laying the foundation for the prominence of wireless technologies that were to come. P.S. Yes, Caliya , he was hard-living, womanizing, white male CEO corporate oppressor (heh). Just sharing a documentary that covers a lot of the points I was making above (and epitomizes why an increasing revenue stream doesn't always translate into better goods and services for the consumer). Hope some of you can find it. I can't find it online or on YouTube, so perhaps torrents are the way to go for any able, inclined, and curious. It's surprisingly interesting despite how dry the subject matter might sound.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 14, 2015 22:55:52 GMT
kb I don't disagree that there are problems with nickel and diming a consumer to death. What is the cost of business? Were extra services built into the price of the service or product? The amount of time they have to expend, to change over accounts, is not built into the price as far as I'm concerned. They didn't expect the mass exodus, obviously. They were short sighted in not setting up fees to begin with. Just like they're short sighted on absolutely everything they do. Let's remember the POT fiasco, they didn't think they'd sell so many that they'd have to instance and connect towns. Or maybe they did know, and used it as an excuse to get people to accept it. Who really knows. I'm just not into conspiracy theories. For Portalarium to act as an intermediary between customers, it is an extra service. That's just how I see it. And an extra service does entail actual time expenditure. Whereas, an early disconnect fee like cell phone companies, etc., is just to discourage disconnecting. They already made their money on a customer in their first couple months probably. I don't follow the cell phone industry and markup, so I'm not really sure.
|
|
|
Post by kb on Dec 14, 2015 23:17:07 GMT
kb I don't disagree that there are problems with nickel and diming a consumer to death. What is the cost of business? Were extra services built into the price of the service or product? The amount of time they have to expend, to change over accounts, is not built into the price as far as I'm concerned. They didn't expect the mass exodus, obviously. They were short sighted in not setting up fees to begin with. Just like they're short sighted on absolutely everything they do. Let's remember the POT fiasco, they didn't think they'd sell so many that they'd have to instance and connect towns. Or maybe they did know, and used it as an excuse to get people to accept it. Who really knows. I'm just not into conspiracy theories. For Portalarium to act as an intermediary between customers, it is an extra service. That's just how I see it. And an extra service does entail actual time expenditure. Whereas, an early disconnect fee like cell phone companies, etc., is just to discourage disconnecting. They already made their money on a customer in their first couple months probably. I don't follow the cell phone industry and markup, so I'm not really sure. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory at all. How do you think it would have gone over if, at the start of all of this, Port had to let people know that there would be fees associated with melting items into store credit, merging pledges, buying/selling accounts, finding work around's that address the problems of linking the account to Steam? It would have been huge red flag for people and cut into Port's bottom line, so they didn't do it. It might be true that they didn't have the foresight that something like this would happen, but in either case, it doesn't justify them suddenly deciding to charge for something that every other company in their place would offer for free and just consider the cost of doing business (and a step to keep consumers confident that you have their back, thereby more apt to spend in the future). As for the cellphone comparison, it could be argued that early terminations DO require actual time expenditure. What about the customer service rep who took the time to take your info, activate the account, teach you how to use your phone in the "verizon store" (or wherever) when they offer those classes to new users, or what about the salary for the retention specialist who they connect you to that will try to convince you to stay, or what about paying the customer service rep to take your info and go about terminating your service? Then there's probably back-end stuff (that was far less automated in the past than it is today) like regulatory fees associated with connecting/terminating a line. That stuff is largely built into and subsidized by the pricing of the service (even if line item charges exist for it as well), and those are all things that the consumer never likely sees. While it's very true that huge companies like Verizon probably pay out pennies on the dollar when they have to terminate a customer's service early (back when contracts were still their primary M.O. for their business model), at some point in their growth as a company the costs and burden of such services were probably far more substantial and the hefty ETF fees were likely justifiable in just the same way Port justifies them now. And, the whole point of them "making their money" in the first couple of months is moot. How has Port not done the very same thing selling their electronic 1's and 0's, their virtual luxury goods? At least with a phone company, they are often selling you a physical good with a tangible service associated with it. While Port does have costs associated with servers and running their service, it is probably no more difficult for them to "make their money" in the first couple of months when the mean contribution from their backers is around $120 (if I am remembering the figures quoted here correctly). Anyway, I apologize for putting you on the spot (and Membrane_on_Vacation , and for giving Mordecai a hard time too). I understand I am one of the angry people here who probably makes the rest of you look bad (it really bothers me how titsup was treated in that Envy thread, and how Mordecai was called out for posting here in an earlier thread by Hendoman). I really get tired of this sympathy for the devil though that I see crop up here from time to time. I realize I am a recalcitrant bastard, but I really think Port would NEVER have put in a fee for these kinds of services unless they were trying to discourage more of their already captive audience from fleeing the sinking ship. I'm steadfast in my belief that if they had proposed this kind of fee from the start, less people would have backed them. I have no idea what the number would have been, but I can tell you, despite their lack of foresight and poor business acumen, they likely have enough sense to realize that many consumers would not feel comfortable signing up to a luxury service like this if there were financial obstacles to their exit.
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 14, 2015 23:27:14 GMT
I really get tired of this sympathy for the devil though that I see crop up here from time to time. Thing is, I have no sympathy for them. I can separate business from personal opinions. I would have suggested that business practice to anyone, not just Portalarium. But think about this - some guy like Envy buys up accounts, with the intent to sell them and scalp people. He also intends to charge rent in his POTs. He will be making profits that Portalarium won't, on Portalarium's work to develop a town, etc. Who should be making the profit? Him or a company? How does it help the company to sell one account and never see it again, and it could be a form of scamming unless a legal entity does the transactions. So you're essentially saying it's better for someone like Envy to make all the profits, and for a customer to somehow trust a dickhead like him. That's the way I see it anyway. I'd much rather a company like Portlarium, or any gaming company, handle transactions than scalpers.
|
|
|
Post by kb on Dec 14, 2015 23:35:20 GMT
Caliya , not every customer is like Envy. There are plenty of people who have need for the type of services Port wants to charge for that are not trying to scalp people. I am one such example. My account was linked to Steam. Lord Andernut was able to do the transfer (after some of my add-on stuff was melted to cover the $45), but you somehow think I should have had to pay $25 because I was somehow trying to scalp or scam people? Look beyond Envy's bad example at all of the other average Joe's (and Jane's) who might have very minor, but valid reasons to have things in their account fixed/adjusted/whatever. There are always people like Envy, but that doesn't mean you design a fee to target the lowest common denominator. It will drive more customers away than whatever revenue you gain from those who buy your product anyway. To me, it's a very penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to doing business. I believe great customer service and a good consumer experience will not only defray any of the added expenses associated with said customer service, it will actually make your company stand out and possibly be more profitable in the long run. Just look at Walmart vs Costco. While I realize Costco has had to change their lifetime/no questions asked return policy because people were abusing it hardcore, it took them years to do so and it REALLY set them apart and was a big reason people would go there, buy a membership and buy big ticket items like flatscreen TVs (back before they were as cheap as they are now). Walmart on the other hand offers their "low" prices by being quite ruthless and are a lot less customer-centric (I will admit they still have a decent return policy, if you don't mind standing in line and dealing with surly clerks behind the guest services counter).
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 14, 2015 23:42:29 GMT
kb so you would rather have made the profit than Portalarium to continue game development. We simply disagree on this. Whether someone can be trusted or not is not the issue. The issue is, who should be handling the transactions? You think a customer can and should make money on games. I don't, and never will. That is where we differ. The Ebay days of UO were a nightmare for those who got scalped. It was a heyday for those who were making profits. But did any of that money go to the developers for improving the game? No. I have a real problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by nemolives on Dec 14, 2015 23:45:26 GMT
Sure, retaining customers might bolster the bottom line, but that increase in revenue does not automatically mean the service will improve. In fact, when companies resort to such low tactics, it's normally a sign they are in full "money-grubbing" mode and whatever money they can bleed from their remaining customers will go into the pockets of investors and CEOs (and the quality of the service will continue to degrade). Yes, exactly. I went through my old magazines to find a page from Amiga Power in 1996, when the magazine had had it's staples and cover removed to save money, and was losing pages every month, but still found time to run informative little snippets like this one; and why I deliberately use the word "Burn"; it's been part of industry jargon, and business practice for decades. They know full well they're doing it, don't they Pinky?
|
|
|
Post by kb on Dec 14, 2015 23:46:38 GMT
Caliya What profit? I lost money. Quite a lot. Should I have lost even more so Port can continue to design their cash machine that masquerades as a game!? Where did I ever say I think the customer can and should make money on games? You are putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate being characterized this way. I am merely pointing out that there are extenuating circumstances beyond the scenario you are talking about. While I grant there are people like Envy out there, there are also people out there who will be taking a loss and who just want to get rid of their pledge and be done with the bad experience of backing this "game." Should they also have the salt of paying $25 to such a disreputable company poured into the festering wound of their bad choice to back this comedy of errors so that you can rest easy knowing the Envy's of the community are paying for their greedy aspirations?
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 14, 2015 23:59:35 GMT
kb I asked: The issue is, who should be handling the transactions? I'd like to stick to that topic. If someone is buying accounts to sell, they are doing it for personal gain. If a game tanks, that's the risk a person takes. The fact they lost money, instead of making a profit, is not the issue. The issue is, what was the intent when buying multiple accounts? If you didn't buy extra accounts, with the intent to sell, then you are excluded from my examples. I'd still like an answer to my question, in quotes above.
|
|
|
Post by kb on Dec 15, 2015 1:00:22 GMT
kb I asked: The issue is, who should be handling the transactions? I'd like to stick to that topic. If someone is buying accounts to sell, they are doing it for personal gain. If a game tanks, that's the risk a person takes. The fact they lost money, instead of making a profit, is not the issue. The issue is, what was the intent when buying multiple accounts? If you didn't buy extra accounts, with the intent to sell, then you are excluded from my examples. I'd still like an answer to my question, in quotes above. Show me where I ever said it should be gamers or third parties doing the transactions? Why are you arguing points with me that I'm not even making (straw-man). I was being direct and didn't think I was slinging mud. I made comparisons to other industries and services (you never responded to what I said about ETF's the second time). I was talking about things from the customer experience. In every example I've given, I'm not talking about 3rd parties being the one to handle these transactions. Just that Port shouldn't be charging $25 for ANYTHING like this. You say stay on point, but I was the one who initiated all of this and you responded to me. It is you who are going off on a tangent based on all kinds of unfair assumptions. If I had my druthers, Port would be the one dealing with all of this stuff (not Lord Andernut) AND they wouldn't be charging people for this kind of stuff. Because, again, NOT EVERYBODY is doing this stuff with the intent of making a profit. Just FYI, I backed at Lord and Citizen and had a shit-ton of add-on stuff (even though I really hated how much they pushed things). You want to know why? Because when I first bought the second pledge, there wasn't going to be "multiple characters" per account and I wanted to roleplay two distinct flavors of the same persona. Kuno Brauer was going to be a pacifist monk who grew crops, cooked wholesome rustic food, and brewed beer and fermented wine to sell "at cost" to whatever noobs this harsh P2W world might attract. Conrad Brewer, on the other hand, would be the belligerent younger brother of Kuno, always getting into trouble, adventuring and making a nuisance of himself, but he would also be a bit of a well-meaning trickster underneath the roguish ways, a younger brother who seemed to outwardly disapprove of his gentle older brother, but more times than naught, would funnel new players to Kuno if they needed help. As for the housing and plots associated with these two accounts, Kuno's Town Lot was going to be a druid tree, very modestly decorated in a rustic fashion (no showcase of bling or rewards, just the simple necessities of life). As he met new players of the carebear demeanor who might be struggling to get established in the world, he would open his house and goods to them, using add-on stores items as special parting gifts (or just to celebrate achievements with them -- i.e., something to make the game memorable and fun). Conrad, on the other hand, would have a Village lot (but use Kuno's extra Knight keep) and form a "black brotherhood" modeled after the Knight's Watch (befriending landless but honorable rogues and allowing the plot of land and its content to be ran in an egalitarian fashion that would serve both those who lived there, and the broader "landless" playerbase -- i.e., space and things equally divided among all in the guild, with an underlying mission to have fun adventures, but also do good in the world and help make the P2W world of SotA more bearable for newcomers). I also intended, if I could pull it off, to use both characters simultaneously (multi-boxing) to create simple "quests" for new players with tiered rewards. A simple example: Approaching a new player in a town as Kuno, I would ask them for help to find my missing brother, Conrad (under the pretense that Kuno was too weak and gentle to fight off the dangerous creatures along the way to his brother). After a short while of traveling, and overcoming a couple of minor dangers, they would "find" an injured Conrad in a scene ("trapped" by woves or kobolds or whatever) and if the noob player helped Kuno save his brother (COURAGE), they would reward the noob player with swag/gold/whatever on the spot (and then a twist to the "quest" would be to see if the noob player would stay with Conrad and Kuno as the injured Conrad "limped" home -- LOVE, demonstrated by whether or not he character would stick with them even though Conrad was clearly RPing crippling injuries and making the walk out of the scene take much longer than it should). If the player stuck with them, Kuno would give them another reward while Conrad was resting inside. There would be one more test (TRUTH). Kuno would make an excuse why he had to run to town ("to buy herbs to treat Conrad's wounds"), but ask the noob player to check on his brother one last time before leaving. Once inside, Conrad would thank the noob again and offer him another reward (saying something like "my idiot older brother probably forgot to reward you, here, take this"). If the noob took it, that would be the end of the quest, but if he confessed Kuno had already rewarded him, then he would receive a special item (some kind of rare, possibly a nice add-on item if there even is such a thing) along with a summary of his performance during the quest. ^This is why I bought more than one account. I bought the add-on stuff mostly in the hopes it would reward them for good progress (things like adding a "melt" option in the account page for items) and to hopefully take the pressure off of them so they wouldn't feel the need to keep hocking the stuff so hardcore. When it became clear to me that Port was not conducting themselves in an honest way and that I was contributing financially to a cash machine that was going to prey on the nostalgia and envy of people, I became disgusted and started to rail against them over various topics (getting banned and ultimately learning I could get in touch with Lord Andernut to sell my pledges). I had need of the money when I sold, and I was so disgusted with the project so I sold quickly (so part of losing money was on me, but I still think I would have lost money regardless because I was an F and not an RF like you). As I hope you will now see, I did not buy multiple accounts to sell them for a profit (nor the "rares" from the add-on store, which were meant to be given away as quest rewards/etc.). Not everybody who buys multiple accounts does so with the intents of people like Envy (many bought extras for friends or family who never wanted to play). Simply owning more than one account doesn't necessarily mean a person has nefarious intentions, and I really resent that you lumped me in with those people (without any cause) and didn't apologize for it. I get called out by you for thinking gamers should make money on games, when in fact I said nothing of the sort. I point this out to you (and ask that you show me where I said that). You conclude I've made money on selling my pledges and have some greedy motive for taking the stance I have (which is simply that Port shouldn't be charging people for services that other game companies offer for free, or hardcode into their account features), and yet when I correct you on this mistake, you don't even have the decency to apologize for likening me to the Envy's of the community and you fall back to redirecting me to a topic you want to talk about, not all the spurious claims against my character that you've unfairly made (also ignoring my response about the ETF's and that Port is just selling luxury goods/1's and 0's and it's not hard for them to make money off of their customers, even the low paying customers). I know you might not like to hear this fact, but not everybody who owns multiple accounts or have backed at higher amounts had greedy motivations. While I will admit, it can be argued that my motivations are still selfish (because I would be enjoying the quests that I described, and I would likely gain "friends" from some of these people I had helped out), I wasn't out to gain financially from any of this. I worked for 5 years as a teacher, earning a teacher salary, and for the past several years I've been unemployed. I live in a $100k house that was built in the 50's, my income is well under the poverty level and am only now just starting to get myself re-established by selling full-time on Ebay of all things (funny you'd snipe at it). I pride myself in my good customer service. I've had people with genuine issues, and likely scammers or idiots, but I just write it off as a cost of doing business and do my best to make them happy and make things right with them. Doing so not only helps me, but it makes people more trusting of buying off of a platform like ebay (drawing more customers to the platform and benefiting the whole marketplace). In contrast, sellers who do a shitty job drive customers away (and hurt everybody, not just themselves). The things I am talking about with regard to Port and how they deal with customers are things I live by in my own life. Currently, though I don't have a lot of feedback because I've only been doing the reselling full time for 1-2 years, I have 100% feedback rating on ebay and lots of very positive feedback after over hundreds of sales (this is a big part of why I took such offense to how Starr was trying to screw with the review process). Yes, I understand how shitty it is when people leave an unfair review/feedback, or initiate a refund with "item not as described" as a way to just avoid having to pay for return shipping -- even though I would have just given them a refund anyway if they just contacted me about the issue (and their action gives me a "defect" under the way things work on ebay, even if I refund them immediately and they leave me a positive feedback, ultimately threatening my "top-rated seller" status and discounts). But, that doesn't change the fact that he was wrong to ask people to pump up the score (I have never asked friends or family to buy from me just so they could leave me a positive... maybe that makes me a stupid business person, but I'd rather have integrity than business savvy in this case). I share this stuff with you so you might undrestand that I live a VERY modest life, in what most would consider an area falling into "urban blight," and the work I did before as a English teacher in a public Jr. High was hellishly hard (so I worked very hard for that meager amount of $ that I had in savings). The $2k I contributed to SotA (and closer to $3k-3500 if counting the beer and beer glasses/books) was a HUGE percentage of my annual income, not to mention how much of it represented my "net worth." I really balk at seeing you summarily dismiss the things I was saying above as if I, and however many like me there are, are just greedy scalpers like Envy who want to exploit people. All I was trying to say is that if Port embraces anti-consumer practices, it is actually bad for them (and for games and crowd-funded games in general) in the long-run. I still don't understand how you have conflated me with somebody who sold to make a profit (when I actually lost money), or somebody who thinks gamers should make money off of their games (when I never said anything of the sort). Now you go off about who should handle the transaction, as if I am arguing the other side. Again, show me where I said anybody but Port should handle the transaction. I was merely saying Port shouldn't charge people for services that are free industry wide (and that customers will expect regardless of how much they cost). If Port wasn't putting out such a shoddy product, people wouldn't be bailing. If Port wasn't engaging in such underhanded, shady business practices, people like me wouldn't have wanted to sell and be done with the project. It's really unfair of you to ascribe to every person who are doing these transfers and support requests such greedy motivations. Most are just well-intentioned buyers who now have buyer's remorse and, given that Port has allowed for them to possibly recoup some of their losses, people took them up on that offer (and it was a show of good faith on Port's part to allow people to sell). I grant that Port should have been handling things, not 3rd parties like Lord Andernut, but again... where did I ever say anything to the contrary of that? I'm frankly exhausted by all of this and I doubt anybody will read this wall of text, but I apologize if I somehow derailed the topic. It seemed to me what I had to say was right on topic, but clearly it wasn't in your eyes. I'm done now. If you're going to put words in my mouth and make unfair assumptions about me without apologizing, it's clear this will just continue to go nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by Membrane_on_Vacation on Dec 15, 2015 1:38:37 GMT
All I was trying to say is that if Port embraces anti-consumer practices, it is actually bad for them (and for games and crowd-funded games in general) in the long-run. I think some time ago, maybe right around the time they attempted to charge $5 for forum access, they wrote off new customers. I think that they are focusing now on who they have, all of these accounts are already purchased. They don't make or lose money off them, until now because of the new account fees on changes. It is a good system, they can lose customers but cannot lose money they already have. No subscriptions, technically no refunds though it is possible, and the only real thing they lose is the new customer. But their forum is so sanitized and information base so sparse and created by fan boys it would be hard for a new customer to make the right decision. Ironically it seems that steam is the best indicator of customer satisfaction in SotA's case. I guess steam is actually good for something in the end! Also and for the record, I don't think they should have done this, I don't think anyone should be allowed to profit from the transfer of accounts, and my suggestion of a percentage was only meant to be an indicator of a better way to screw people like us less who don't have 30k dumped into this game if they had to put it in at all, rather than a flat fee. Where is the logic in having a person with a $45 account charged $25 for a transfer?
|
|
Caliya
Strong in the Force
People fight to gain things they can't take with them in the end
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by Caliya on Dec 15, 2015 10:53:11 GMT
If you didn't buy extra accounts, with the intent to sell, then you are excluded from my examples. kb I'm really not sure how that quote of mine can be misconstrued with accusing you of anything? I didn't accuse you, and since I did not, what have I to apologize for? I appreciate you pouring out your heart, and details about your personal life, but I was talking about the company and what they should or shouldn't be doing, in my opinion. I even agreed to disagree. I know you feel strongly that Port should not be charging a fee. I still think it's acceptable, within reason (like the percentage that IM and I discussed).
|
|