Dr_Darkspeed

Yes, but it shouldn't! And aren't there a few news stories recently about successes from people who MMO players, and the fact that Computer game lauches outgross Movie ones. Maybe, if people realised that alot of their top applicants played MMOs, they wouldn't be a stigma, and maybe even a positive point? Valuing Guild leadership or economic dominence or community relations...


Yeah, and that definately is an argument and a very good one.

I was just thinking on the more idealised level. Ideally, you shouldn't have any need of privacy whilst saying something, because you would be protected from anyone holding that against you unjustly (again, utopianly, by the fact that noone would)

Though, it maybe part of my point of view from having been raised in the UK, where free speach means speakers corner (i.e. you get up and say whatever you want to say, and noone can hurt you for it, because... well, the laws say they can't). We don;t have free speech gaurenteed to us, but... i don't know anyone who has ever stopped me, or anyone I know saying whatever we like. but, thats just a whole different discussion.

Strange how easy it is to find villains in a City of Heroes though

Thats one of the biggest problems with Villainside, you spend the majority of your time fighting villains. they really should have spent more of the development time developing heroic NPC factions, in my opinion.

Is it going to be sent back to far before irony existed, and have to try and explain to people what irony is so that they can give him information to go destroy it, and that accidently ends up creating the concept of irony?

Spoilers:
























I don't think thats accurate, the contract is what they were told they were getting (and pretty much all iniates to the CoT get told), that the thorns would give them enhanced magical powers. Instead, the thorns rip out their souls and allow them to be possessed. Baron Zoria and the original CoT are completely irrelevant, they found Oranbega but never left it.

For a lot players, I suspect the difference will be ... not much. You don't know who is buying your stuff and who you are buying from, same as always. I doubt most players notice that the markets are seperate (or that they are server wide for that matter) and I doubt they'll notice that they are joined. Some prices might go up, some might go down. There might be more of some stuff and less of others. Same as always.

From my point of view, its just a backend change (like the server optimisation ones they occaisionally have patches for).

Really what you should do is have all the booster costume pieces in the creator for everyone, but only allow those who bought the pack to make a character with them. Have a little info box pop up when someone selects a piece they don't own yet, explaining what Pack its part of, and what else comes with it, with a button taking you to ingame store (the one where you buy respecs etc...) where you can buy it.

That way people can preview all the pieces themselves, making an informed descision on if they want it or not. And, you get more impulse buys

Obviously, also add a toggle to the Costume screen so that you can opt not to show items you don't own, so people who feel its intrusive can opt out.

But, I know thats more programming/UI stuff rather than your area.

Booo!

Of Course!

Nope.

I pre-bought because they told me there would be no bonuses for pre-ordering, and since I was definately goign to buy it anyway, why not?

If they had said at the time: We might have some bonuses for pre-ordering, I'd probably have waited to see. But they didn't, so I didn't.

If a significant amount of people did that, then thats a significant amount of working capital they got up front to help develop GR that they would not have otherrwise got if they had been more straightforward in their dealings (or had just simply been more organised).

I, as a consumer who gave them some money, feel that they haven't been particular forthright with me, and my feedback is that I'll now question their future marketing afforts in the future.

What would I think would fix this?

a) give everyone who pre-purchased before this announcement the pre-order bonus too, thus making their original statement correct
Or
b) offer refunds for anyone who pre-purchased so that they can choose to pre-order instead, thus removing the percieved damage done by the incorrect information
Or
c) make it so that if someone applys a pre-order code to an account that has GR pre-purchased, some bonus is given (like say, 2 free months gametime) to make up for people having bought it twice.
Or
d) somethigng else that indicates they know that some people are unhappy about this and that they want to make it up to them

If they do any of those then I'll be happy. If they don't then I will be unhappy.

So, given the suitable length of time used last time, you expect these will become vet rewards about 2 and half years after the release of GR?

So, are they going to refund people who changed their minds about pre-purchasing and now want to pre-order instead?