Reminds me of Blizzard’s commandments, none which qualify under the rule of Activision.
So many boots, so few tongues to lick them with
3 Likes
69% the rating goes from Mostly Positive to Mixed. >.>
It’s not my goal. Certainly not someone’s whos in the industry, so I’m not sure what is it you’re talking about really, but it sounds kinda maximalistic.
Alternative to what? Fighting windmills? I didn’t think reiterating the actual things you and I can do was necessary. You err in thinking that I’m driving at anything in the first place - I just don’t like seeing people in this and other threads getting all self-righteous and feign appalled indignation as if this whole thing may be some kind of a mistake or misunderstanding. I think things like that are the other extreme which just inflates the drama where there is none.
I mean look, we know the cash shop is a ploy, FS damn well knows it is a ploy - they made it, they know exactly how and why it works. Then they know that we know, so what’s the song and dance about? Why not just cut the crap, don’t buy the game, refund if you already have, bomb the reviews, tell you friends to stay away from this bullsheise and move on with our lives? I mean, making unthinking customers think more and saving the industry? Where does this come from? Sorry, it sounds disingenuous.
As for the Steam reviews, thanks everyone for clearing that up - I hope the more recent reviews will pan into that running average, and the overall rating does tank. As it should.
I really do find this post odd. I wasn’t arguing with you. I made my position clear, and I think it’s consistent, not particularly dramatic. Or disingenuous? I’m expressing basic, pro-consumer sentiment, in a feedback forum.
Ok? I was talking about what I would like to see. You asked ‘who cares’, and I gave you my answer. I would like to see people push back more.
I’m in the industry. And regardless, I’m passionate about games and their future, I don’t see what being in the industry has to do with anything; companies respond to what consumers do with their wallets. It seems to me then to be no bad thing, and incredibly inexpensive, for consumers to gather and discuss these things. You don’t have to be here if you don’t like the conversation.
What about anything I said is maximalistic? Or hard to follow? I’ve been very explicit - I am taking the incredibly uncontroversial position that the outlined practises are anti-consumer, and grubby. I am stating my reasons for thinking so (there are many who do not agree), and my intent not to participate in them. I encourage others not to either.
The alternative to voicing arguments and making objections and actually discussing the problems. On a forum. I am not naive; there is no silver bullet, no panacea to be found in doing so, but it is better than the flacid resignation you seem to espouse.
A road to nowhere and fighting a windmill is different… how? I mean don’t get me wrong, I’m a cynical soul, I can almost appreciate the omnidirectional bitterness you’re putting down, but please pick a position on what you deem futile discussion and stick to it.
Well that’s just hyperbole and non-sequitur.
The former is obvious; people are just vocalising objection to anti-consumer practise as they see it.
As for the latter, it seems to me nobody here thinks it is a mistake or a misunderstanding, and such a conclusion does not logically follow at all to begin with.
On this we agree, in cases of genuine melodrama. I have already had it out with someone before launch in this exact vein. All it does is muddy the water.
You seem to think my position is that if I just complain enough Fatshark will see the error of their ways. I know they’ve made a deliberate choice. It’s a business decision. They don’t care.
But some people genuinely don’t see how this is anti-consumer. Some people are on the fence. There is value in making noise.
You are welcome to stop participating in the forum at any time, nobody here asked for or requires your intervention for the sake of their mental health. It amazes me that you came out with this, and had the temerity to say it’s me being disingenuous.
I guess it’s easier to have no discernible position on grubby business practise other than some supine variation of “it’s inevitable”, and look down on people for voicing objection.
You are not the unwavering, objective beacon of cold logical light, piercing through the veil of drama and naive futile struggle in the face of corporate inevitability. I’m sorry. In this universe, we don’t need a pontifinomican to navigate the forum and decide for ourselves what is worth talking about.
“Cut the crap” indeed.
I’m not refunding the game, the core of what is there is good, I am getting my money’s worth. I just won’t be giving them any money in (macro)transactions, for reasons we apparently agree on. I don’t think others should either. There we go. Hopefully you now get the gist.
5 Likes
Wow…Very intelligent comment with legit arguments and very good structure. Bravo. I bet it took you couple of hours to write that.
Thanks to people like you we have stuff like that in first place.
5 Likes
Don’t engage with people that can’t discuss in good faith.
They’re usually just trying to incite you into losing your temper to get moderators involved.
Ignore.
2 Likes
Thank God you are so mature and so brave and self-aware of knowing that you don’t have to buy cosmetics. We would have never figured it out without you. Here we are debating issues with phychological sales tactics manipulating customers into purchasing stuff, but here comes our savior, telling us: “Just don’t buy. Wow”
2 Likes
I mean, sure. But it’s also funny :). I posted it on my Discord, so people like that at least are entertaining even if you know they are not serious (though, it’s scary to think they are, right?)
This was fantastic banter. Well structured and well delivered!
2 Likes
Nice Full Damage Control from Fatshark co-founder Martin Wahlund: They forgot 
"“We forgot to add one of the bundles. The idea was always to be 1:1. We realized a bit too late that one of the bundles wasn’t in.”
1 Bundle?! What about items costing 700? 400? 800? Where are Bundles for those items? This guy doesn’t even know what he is talking about. There are MULTIPLE items in store with prices that are above or below currency packs available. 1 single Bundle won’t make it 1:1. This proves he is lying, this was never their intention, they are just panicing becasue of devastating feedback from us and on media.
Loads if PR BS.
But they didn’t forgot to put timers on to create FOMO. He probably doesn’t even know about that.
Come on Fatshark. I have large company, I know how PR and damage control works. We all know you didn’t forget anything, you are just in full damage control. Which is good cause that means our voice and your PR disaster on launch is getting effects so overall I am glad to see some changes will be executed.
But don’t go with “we forgot”. Stop treating gamers like kids, we know how corpo works.
13 Likes
The truth of matter is that it’s 20usd to buy the skin, as if 12usd isn’t extortionate enough. You get some extras - or the next skin is cheaper - whatever way you want to look at it, but it’s 20usd to buy a cosmetic in a game.
This is truly a matter of exclusivity. The skin is not made for you or I. The skin is made for a very small minority who will pay 20usd for some pretty clothing for one character in a video game.
You, and most other people, are not being sold the skin, Fatshark are simply selling 20usd skins for someone else and they’re not interested in selling you any dlc cosmetics.
1 Like
That is BS. I would buy 20usd skin pack if it’s good. Just sell it to me normally without premium currency, without timers for FOMO and that’s it. In Norma store with catalog and local prices. I am honest customer and I want honest sale.
I bought every single cosmetic in V2, some that I even didn’t use so your point is moot. I am all for supporting good product with money but not when I am being manipulated.
1 Like
Yeah that’s the thing that upsets me too. Some of the representatives of Fatshark have been giving us patronizing answers regarding the game - referring to Hedge’s responses from discord that people shared on this forum. We’re all adults here and can read between the lines.
3 Likes
This is the PR equivalent of “The dog ate my homework”. But it’s progress.
9 Likes
“Oh no, you figured out our deceptive and scummy money-grubbing tactic! Better fall back to the age-old ‘We didn’t mean to heartlessly scam all of you people the entire time,’ even though it’s clear that we were caught with our pants down. Please keep buying our predatory FOMO garbage.”
3 Likes
Oh yeah they couldn’t care to post something on their official chanel’s about the issue but they had time to give PCGAMER a interview, what a joke
And prices are still high for the bundles with the slightly green sword skin I’m not interested while I wouldn’t be able to buy just the clothing for a smaller price
8 Likes
If i hear what they say about the reasons for using this Aquilas and more …
You really want me to belive in the whole company is nobody how can do this math:
500 Aquilas = 2.49 USD
100 Aquilas = x.x USD
to make it a better way to spend the right anoumt of money?
Or this would be “hard” to implement?
Really are you serious?
This and a lot of other reasons make me feel like a fool.
I know some of my posts are very sarcatic sometimes.
And maybe bacause i am not a native speaker also have the wrong wording and also spelling errors.
And pointing out why and how they do certain things is because i wanted this game to be good and sucessful over a long period of time.
Why? Because the game itself it is a lot of fun.
And also who thought it was a good idea to consider a beta without knowing what the game will end up at gamescon awards?
This endet up with winning “Best Multiplaye Game” at the 2022 gamescom.
Just another point from a lot more, were i can see how perfect the marketing was fleshed out to sell as most as possible “before” relaese.
Having monopoly money IS the predatory option.
It dissociates the value of money from the player, making some not understand how expensive the skins are.
3 Likes
Alright, I think I have found the real reason we have this altercation in the first place. This:
I think it is very odd to call something anti-consumer when some of the consumers are really ok with it. And no matter how much noise you make, it will be dismissed if people just don’t mind the shop, which is frankly as valid as any other stance relative to it.
But since you went on and expanded on a number of curious points, it’s only polite for me to match it.
My condolences. I guess I don’t need to tell you that more unthinking consumers and less thinking consumers makes it easier to control consumer markets and therefore make your job more profitable then. By noone in the industry I guess I should’ve phrased it like ‘noone who makes large-scale decisions about the industry’ - in this I accept that I’ve been too implicit.
This is:
The first one implies some kind of a ‘goal’ that is supposed to be ‘the goal’, but there is no real context for what the definite article is actually denoting. Hence my reaction that was aimed at getting at that context, but you did not elaborate. Instead you told me what you ‘would like’ to see or people to do.
The second one implies a certain logical implication that if the trend does get opposed, it will cease to exist, which sounds correct, but the vague phrasing makes it sound like you’re trying to conflate the real opposition to the trend that can yield measurable results with a bunch of jaded guys on a backwater forum discussing a cash shop in an obscure game made by a ‘small dev team’. This last one is what made me call it maximalistic - the notion that you can save Titanic from sinking by working a bucket really vigorously.
And it is peculiar that you don’t see the bit you quoted as a comment about how people act as opposed what everyone knows. There is an ‘as if’ in there for a reason.
Speaking of drama.
I’m sorry, but if you could not discern my position, it doesn’t mean it was not discernable. Take this one post in this very thread for example:
Take a hint?
Well you make it easy:
And yet:
This is a package deal. You don’t get to pay half the price for the gameplay and withhold the other half because you don’t agree with how they set their live service modle up. You either pay the full price or you don’t. If you do, there appears tiny green check mark on their monitoring system that makes them conclude that they did everything right and therefore they’re getting a crapton of money on launch. Yes you can skip buying the aquilas, but the actual data about the shop’s effectiveness will not be viable for some time, while launch sales is an immediate indicator that the devs are closely watching as we speak, and that’s the one you can actually affect. So much for flacid resignation.
This kind of conflating ‘talking about’ with ‘taking a stance’ is what ultimately devalues real action by equating it with forum blabbing.
I’m all for bashing FS for what they did, what I have problem with is people starting to act all Che Guivara like they’re out to overthrow the game industry. By writing on the forums while still paying sнit devs the full price for the sнit game they made.
Thanks for pointing at the door, but you’re not getting rid of me that easily.
3 Likes