Well it doesn't mean they won't be available again for a limited time either
I must say though, I don't understand what the point of the limited time availability thing really achieves?
Last edited:
Frontier: Can you please define your understanding of "Limited"
- Thread starter Titus Balls
- Start date
Well it doesn't mean they won't be available again for a limited time either
I must say though, I don't understand what the point of the limited time availability thing really achieves?
Well it doesn't mean they won't be available again for a limited time either
The issue was never about them being available for a limited time again.
They were removed from being limited within their text description and sold at 1/2 the price, 2 months later.
The issue has always been how Frontier have been sneaky - deliberately or through incompetence (and the fact that there is no clear person who is in charge of this, each department is run separately this seems more likely now) - with all of this micro-transaction stuff, rather than being explicitly clear about their intentions.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what it's about. Company promises A. Company doesn't do A. Company loses trust. Company finds it difficult to sell things because of lack of trust. A can be a discount on a million barrels of oil or the exclusivity of a virtual item.
Think it's gone way beyond that.
Yep, a company that's venturing forth on a bold new expensive venture should be fostering trust not losing it.
Yup. Unless you'd care to have a look at the post below (two above yours), as it sums up the thread pretty nicely.
Oh okay, so it's not really about how Frontier forced you into buying paintjobs for your computer spaceships for $$ with marketing speak used by pretty much every video game company ever since the invention of the "console exclusive", it's about integrity in ad copy.
Do you think it would also be worth mentioning to the design team that the U.S. Flag has 5 pointed stars on it, not 6, as depicted on the 'Stars & Stripes' skin for the Viper. Or am I just being pedantic?
You had me counting the points on the skin several times to be sure...they are five poined stars...erm .I think .. :S
The OP has a valid point though (not a star reference
) ..Mr Goon,
I see you are new around here. Welcome. You haven't experienced Frontier smiling at you while slapping you on the back of the head yet.
You are correct it is about integrity in ad copy.
You see, for a start we're British and unlike our slovenly cousins over the pond we tend to appreciate the truth more and don't really hold for this wishy-washy marketing speak.
And yes, no one held a gun to my head to buy the skins but I did choose to buy them, then was told what I bought wasn't actually what I got. With physical items I might just have to accept it, but for digital items where there is no scarcity it's a bit different.
Furthermore Frontier have decided to go this alone, without a Publisher to underwrite it and absorb the costs. This means that they have to be directly accountable to the players.
Remember Monoclegate?
If Frontier continue to play fast and loose with this, and don't tighten up the ship then people who have spent hundreds - to thousands - on this game already will not stand to give them any more money. This is not a subscription game, the MT store is the replacement for that.
Already many people have left over gameplay reasons - many more might also when it comes down to their real money.
Last edited:
They were originally six-pointed. When people pointed (heh) out the error, the skins were corrected in-game but not in the shop's thumbnail for some strange reason. Eventually the thumbnail was corrected too, but you'll still find the occasional reference to six-pointed stars in long-lived threads.
Those sure are a couple assumptions you've got there. I also just can not get enough of the smarmy pseudo-friendly 'tude that's apparently in vogue with the gamers these days.
Yeah, I'd have to say I have no idea what you're talking about there.
Apologies, but it's the fatigue that comes with dealing with some people around these forums. Don't take it personally, it's mostly levity.
Ahh, well here you go:
http://slnewserextra.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/eve-onlines-veteran-players-revolt-over.html
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/06/22/rumour-leaked-document-shows-ccps-microtransaction-plans/
http://massively.joystiq.com/tag/monocle-gate/
Sadly it seems most of it has been purged from the internet too, like someone was trying to cover their tracks.
Quite simply, and as someone with a vested financial interest in the company, I don't wish to see Frontier slide down the same route. They have a chance to be different, and explicit clear about their intentions.
Last edited:
Can someone rename this forum category to "I have a petty complaint and everyone needs to hear about it right now"?
You had me counting the points on the skin several times to be sure...they are five poined stars...erm .I think .. :S
The OP has a valid point though (not a star reference
They fixed that, as someone (not sure if it was T-Dog who brought it up first) mentioned the error, FYI. They USED to be 6-pointed stars - Now they're the correct 5-pointed stars
You could have chose to come in here at any time, not right now - forums don't quite work that way. Also helps if you move from the OP as the issue has moved on from that. Do keep up dear.
What I could get through of those articles before falling unconscious as a result of how incredibly tedious they were made it sound like exactly every other bad microtransaction idea from c. 2006-2015 (my personal favorite was Brad Wardell's "pay per hour" idea he breifly entertained on the Qt3 forum years ago), so I can understand why records of it weren't meticulously preserved.
Hang in there Titus (snigger) Balls
Some of us know what you're trying to do (for those that don't he's trying to help ED/FD) and you should be commended for braving the ire of the forums to accomplish it. You're a better man than me for letting the stupid comments roll off your back (for the most part
) as I probably wouldn't have been as generous or restrained as you have been.Unfortunately Frontier's memory of bad microtransaction mishaps seems to be even less preserved than those meticulously created articles, either that or as it would seem to me, those bad ideas made a lot of money. In which case, stay the course, full speed ahead and keep the "limited" they'll be removed yada yada skins up for sale.
It, IMO, would seem to be thus:
Sales: "Hey let's make skins and sell them!"
Marketing: "Great! We'll put them up as a limited time offer to increase sales!"
Developement: "Great idea! We'll churn some out for you when we get the time!"
Public Relations: "This is great! We'll announce it and plaster it all over the place!"
Sales: "Wow, these things are going like gangbusters!" @Developement "Make more!"
Development: "Ok, [grumble], it ain't like we don't have enough on our plate with this screwed up rush to get barebones features out the door."
Sales: "Wow, these things are going like gangbusters!"
Fans: "Uh, hey guys, those "limited time" skins are not only back up, they're a fraction of the cost they originally were, what gives?"
Public Relations: "Woops!, that was a mistake and we'll fix it ASAP!"
Sales: "Wow, these things are going like gangbusters!"
Public Relations: [crickets]
It doesn't matter that this most likely isn't even close to what actually happened, what DOES matter is this is pretty close to what the public sees as how it happened. THAT would be what (IMO, correct me if I'm wrong Titus) what matters, is hurting FD / ED and what TB is trying to bring to FD's attention. I could be wrong, I usually am but, this "limited skin" thing is just one more thing on the list of loose ends that have people's eyebrows up.