Thank you Community Managers - Bans taking place.

[Realist 504]

7 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

You just demonstrated you didn't understand the reference. I didn't call you Don Quixote because I think you're crazy. There are a million examples you could name that are more immediate and recognizable to readers of a forum if you want to compare someone to crazy. I picked Don Quixote for a very specific reason. Cervantes knight crusaded against an evil which existed only in his mind. The windmills were real, they were there, just like WildShot™ Only they were neither good nor evil, just like Grapecard™. They just were.

For the record I don't think you're crazy. There is nothing in any of your posts that indicates lunacy. I just think you're misguided. You have decided a company which is neither good nor evil, merely great at coming up with game concepts and horrible at implimenting them well, is in fact evil. If you are dead set on crusading against anything in the gaming industry, which, I will remind you, is not an industry of life or death, but rather an industry of leisure and entertainment, let me offer you a suggestion:

Crusade against lootboxes.  The FTC is currently investigating whether lootboxes constitute illegal gambling. Regardless of their findings, we know that lootboxes are in fact a form of gambling, we know that gambling can be an addictive behavior, and we know that large numbers of minors play games with lootboxes in them. If anything in this industry needs changing badly, I would suggest it might be lootboxes. Why not direct your considerable energy towards something much more potentially dangerous and destructive, that can have real consequences for people's lives, rather than simply railing against a company trying to make a product, which, at the very worst swindles it's customers out of a few bucks they could afford to lose?

I admire your passion. I just think it could be put to more useful ends.

 

If I played games that had lootboxes I probably would. I pretty much stay away from anything like that. I chose my own crusade for my own reasons. I see the evil because it is actually there. 

I am really surprised at this point how anyone would bother trying to sway me since I am that passionate about this. 

Oh well though, we can all have our opinions right?

i do like how you tried to tone it down to just a company making a product. That isn’t the case. There has been plenty of shady and unethical behavior. I am fine with where I am at

[Jean Lafitte 451]

2 minutes ago, strawman said:

if i were doing as bad a job as the people at grapeshot, then yes, i'd hope someone would tell me how bad i'm fucking up

And when you did get something right?  

[mndfreeze 92]

1 minute ago, Realist said:

If I played games that had lootboxes I probably would. I pretty much stay away from anything like that. I chose my own crusade for my own reasons. I see the evil because it is actually there. 

I am really surprised at this point how anyone would bother trying to sway me since I am that passionate about this. 

Oh well though, we can all have our opinions right?

i do like how you tried to tone it down to just a company making a product. That isn’t the case. There has been plenty of shady and unethical behavior. I am fine with where I am at

I don't think you play any games, just sign up on forums to throw tantrums.

[Dorf 73]

2 minutes ago, strawman said:

if i were doing as bad a job as the people at grapeshot, then yes, i'd hope someone would tell me how bad i'm fucking up

Ok... I'm not saying you're wrong they deserve some push back for sure.

In other words: fair enough:)

[Realist 504]

1 minute ago, mndfreeze said:

I don't think you play any games, just sign up on forums to throw tantrums.

That would mean I just randomly picked this games name out of a hat and went with it lol

I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t have a reason

26 minutes ago, Omgthisnamesux said:

I put on underwear and pants this morning before I left the house.  Nobody high-fived me or gave me kudos as I walked around town though for that.

Nice  

[mndfreeze 92]

1 minute ago, Realist said:

That would mean I just randomly picked this games name out of a hat and went with it lol

I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t have a reason

The reason is forum tantrums to be an internet troll, obviously. As for picking games huge hordes of people already do he same thing.  It's quite trendy these days to pick a new game coming out and jump on the hate train.  

[Jean Lafitte 451]

 

3 minutes ago, strawman said:

if i were doing as bad a job as the people at grapeshot, then yes, i'd hope someone would tell me how bad i'm fucking up

Years ago there was a book written called, "The one minute manager."  In that book it gave some very basic philosophies and analogies on how to deal with employees.  In one example it asks you to imagine a mouse in a maze.  If you want that mouse to successfully complete that maze you lead them down the path with cheese.  You do not pick them up, slap them in the head and put them back in the starting corner when they go the wrong way.  EVERYONE appreciates and deserves recognition for doing their job, whether you're a janitor or a game developer.  In the case I stated in the OP, they were just doing their job.  But, unlike some of their other efforts, this tells me that they are making efforts in the right direction.  By making that post, unlike some of the other posts on this forum, mine included, I am not slapping them in the back of the head, I'm offering them a piece of cheese with the hope that they feel even a slight sense of pride in doing what the community has asked for so many times and continue down that correct path.

So if you don't mind, please put your baseball bat down for a moment and recognize the fact that THIS is the right way for them to go through the maze they're trying to traverse.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

2 minutes ago, Realist said:

If I played games that had lootboxes I probably would. I pretty much stay away from anything like that. I chose my own crusade for my own reasons. I see the evil because it is actually there. 

I am really surprised at this point how anyone would bother trying to sway me since I am that passionate about this. 

Oh well though, we can all have our opinions right?

i do like how you tried to tone it down to just a company making a product. That isn’t the case. There has been plenty of shady and unethical behavior. I am fine with where I am at

Sorry, but although I see questionable decisions, poor communication and a pattern of apparent failure to learn from past experience, I do not see evil. Evil means malevolent intent, and I have seen nothing in this company's behavior that rises to that level. I think that you and I have a different understanding of the word evil. To you it seems to be something more casual, a bar that can be met by a company peddling a product which however deficient, does no actual harm, and is not essential in any way to anyone. To me evil is more profound. I'm not even sure that I would call lootboxes evil, just problematic and concerning, and I clearly view them as more troublesome than anything here.

[Realist 504]

2 minutes ago, mndfreeze said:

The reason is forum tantrums to be an internet troll, obviously. As for picking games huge hordes of people already do he same thing.  It's quite trendy these days to pick a new game coming out and jump on the hate train.  

Ah ok. Yeah that is definitely not me. Didn’t mater if this was a new game or not. I don’t like wildcard. 

Not trolling or just hating on a new game. Just speaking my mind on a company I dislike

2 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

Sorry, but although I see questionable decisions, poor communication and a pattern of apparent failure to learn from past experience, I do not see evil. Evil means malevolent intent, and I have seen nothing in this company's behavior that rises to that level. I think that you and I have a different understanding of the word evil. To you it seems to be something more casual, a bar that can be met by a company peddling a product which however deficient, does no actual harm, and is not essential in any way to anyone. To me evil is more profound. I'm not even sure that I would call lootboxes evil, just problematic and concerning, and I clearly view them as more troublesome than anything here.

That fact that atlas was originally going to be a dlc but was later made into a full game just to make more money is definitely evil in my opinion. Very shady to say the least.

really not going to go into everything but I have my reasons 

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

2 minutes ago, Realist said:

Ah ok. Yeah that is definitely not me. Didn’t mater if this was a new game or not. I don’t like wildcard. 

Not trolling or just hating on a new game. Just speaking my mind on a company I dislike

That fact that atlas was originally going to be a dlc but was later made into a full game just to make more money is definitely evil in my opinion. Very shady to say the least.

really not going to go into everything but I have my reasons 

A) source?

B) No I definately would not call expanding your dlc into a full game evil, and I'm not sure why you would. You pay for a dlc, you pay for a game. You might find it mildly inappropriate or questionable, but if that is your definition of evil, you're going to find evil everywhere you turn for the rest of your life.

C) Why is trying to make more money inherently evil? If you try to make more money by harming others or pursue profits in a way that is negligent of the public welfare (see: tobacco industry), that is one thing, but changing your gaming product from an expansion dlc to a full game? That doesn't even harm anyone, and you can't credibly argue that it does. If I pay 25 bucks for a gaming product,  it makes zero difference whether that product is marketed as it's own game or a dlc expansion. 

[strawman 114]

5 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

I'm not even sure that I would call lootboxes evil, just problematic and concerning, and I clearly view them as more troublesome

lootboxes are just gambling, which has been recognized for many centuries by many cultures as evil

7 minutes ago, Jean Lafitte said:

"The one minute manager."

yea, i've read it, and here's the thing: positive reinforcement isn't working. sometimes people are too stupid or arrogant to respond to it, sometimes the people who matter (grapeshot execs) aren't paying attention. plenty of people have made posts here and on reddit applauding the few good decisions grapeshot has made - yet they still keep trashing the game and only responding to outrage (see the elephant nerf). nothing else to do now but quit logging in and start screaming on the forums

[mndfreeze 92]

13 minutes ago, Realist said:

Ah ok. Yeah that is definitely not me. Didn’t mater if this was a new game or not. I don’t like wildcard. 

Not trolling or just hating on a new game. Just speaking my mind on a company I dislike

That fact that atlas was originally going to be a dlc but was later made into a full game just to make more money is definitely evil in my opinion. Very shady to say the least.

really not going to go into everything but I have my reasons 

The fact that you don't play Atlas, but are here trying to stir up shit is exactly why it is you.  At least own your shit if you're going to be a troll.  No need to deny the obvious that everyone can see.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

Just now, strawman said:

lootboxes are just gambling, which has been recognized for many centuries by many cultures as evil

yea, i've read it, and here's the thing: positive reinforcement isn't working. sometimes people are too stupid or arrogant to respond to it, sometimes the people who matter (grapeshot execs) aren't paying attention. plenty of people have made posts here and on reddit applauding the few good decisions grapeshot has made - yet they still keep trashing the game and only responding to outrage (see the elephant nerf). nothing else to do now but quit logging in and start screaming on the forums

I agree that lootboxes are gambling. Many cultures consider gambling evil. Many do not. It is an entirely subjective thing. What is not subjective is that it is a behavior that is potentially addictive, so while gambling *might* be okay for adults fully aware of their actions and consequences, I'm firmly against gambling being heavily incorporated into games not only available to, but heavily marketed towards, minors.

[Realist 504]

3 minutes ago, boomervoncannon said:

A) source?

B) No I definately would not call expanding your dlc into a full game evil, and I'm not sure why you would. You pay for a dlc, you pay for a game. You might find it mildly inappropriate or questionable, but if that is your definition of evil, you're going to find evil everywhere you turn for the rest of your life.

C) Why is trying to make more money inherently evil? If you try to make more money by harming others or pursue profits in a way that is negligent of the public welfare (see: tobacco industry), that is one thing, but changing your gaming product from an expansion dlc to a full game? That doesn't even harm anyone, and you can't credibly argue that it does. If I pay 25 bucks for a gaming product,  it makes zero difference whether that product is marketed as it's own game or a dlc expansion. 

 Except eventually that dlc will be 60 dollars. Call it mildly inappropriate all you want. It is a very unethical thing to do.

 

1 minute ago, mndfreeze said:

The fact that you don't play Atlas, but are here trying to stir up shit is exactly why it is you.  At least own your shit if you're going to be a troll.  No need to deny the obvious that everyone can see.

I said I don’t like the dev company. I don’t need to own the game to have an opinion on the company. 

[Jean Lafitte 451]

1 minute ago, strawman said:

yea, i've read it, and here's the thing: positive reinforcement isn't working.

Look on these forums and count just how many 'positive' threads there have been.  The only positive posts I have seen have been attempts offset the irrational screaming being done.

I am quite vocal. I will be one of the first to start shaking a finger at misguided, screwed up patches.  But I'd like to think that I'm also going to be one of the first who pats them on the back when they do get it right.  Why? I can tell you now that if I was Jat or Dollie, I would have stopped reading these negative threads long ago. And peeking at what Jat does read on these forums, I suspect he does just that.  While everyone was screaming about the stone nerf, he was reading posts on the Linux server thread. It's really hard to keep your motivation going when everyone is intent on shitting on you. In order to prevent being demotivated, the easiest solution is to ignore them.

So, you can continue with your screaming if you wish and hope for the best. Just do me the courtesy of not screaming on threads that I start that does try to pat them on the back.  I'd rather they not be forced to ignore these as well.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

Just now, Realist said:

 Except eventually that dlc will be 60 dollars. Call it mildly inappropriate all you want. It is a very unethical thing to do.

 

You still didn't site a source for your assertion that Atlas was originally supposed to be a dlc, so we're going to call that assertion unsupported for now. As far as whether Atlas is 25 bucks or 60, that has no bearing on the underlying point. At both price points it's not evil to change your product from a dlc to a full game. If the full game at 60 dollars isn't worth it, then just like any other game on the market gamers will be free to decide that for themselves.  It's not even approaching unethical because nothing is being concealed.

This is our dlc for x number of dollars, buy it or don't buy it based on what it offers.

This is our game for x number of dollars, buy it or don't buy it based on what it offers.

 

Nothing unethical here.

[Realist 504]

1 minute ago, boomervoncannon said:

You still didn't site a source for your assertion that Atlas was originally supposed to be a dlc, so we're going to call that assertion unsupported for now. As far as whether Atlas is 25 bucks or 60, that has no bearing on the underlying point. At both price points it's not evil to change your product from a dlc to a full game. If the full game at 60 dollars isn't worth it, then just like any other game on the market gamers will be free to decide that for themselves.  It's not even approaching unethical because nothing is being concealed.

This is our dlc for x number of dollars, buy it or don't buy it based on what it offers.

This is our game for x number of dollars, buy it or don't buy it based on what it offers.

 

Nothing unethical here.

Sure, you are right that people don’t have to buy it. Selling something at an inflated price than what it should be is still unethical 

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

Just now, Realist said:

Sure, you are right that people don’t have to buy it. Selling something at an inflated price than what it should be is still unethical 

Who made you the arbiter of what the price should be?

[Realist 504]

Just now, boomervoncannon said:

Who made you the arbiter of what the price should be?

It’s common sense. This game is 30 dollars which is half of a released game price. This is nowhere even close to half the game.

plus we are giving them free testing of their game in the first place, which I don’t care how many companies do it, that is unethical and plenty of people think so. Many game critics have already done videos on it. That is unethical.

to add everything together with how broken everything is, even if it was half way done it is no where near in a half working state at the very least.

 

[mndfreeze 92]

27 minutes ago, Realist said:

 Except eventually that dlc will be 60 dollars. Call it mildly inappropriate all you want. It is a very unethical thing to do.

 

I said I don’t like the dev company. I don’t need to own the game to have an opinion on the company. 

You direct a lot of energy and attention towards a game you haven't even played, on a forum specifically for the players of that game.  Not liking the company would be leaving them a bad review at various places or something along those lines not spending time here. lol.  Man up to what you are. We all see it. Everyone knows it.  You don't need to lie to yourself anymore.

[Realist 504]

6 minutes ago, mndfreeze said:

You direct a lot of energy and attention towards a game you haven't even played, on a forum specifically for the players of that game.  Not liking the company would be leaving them a bad review at various places or something along those lines not spending time here. lol.  Man up to what you are. We all see it. Everyone knows it.  You don't need to lie to yourself anymore.

Nope, not a troll. I have a cause and reasons so I am doing what I am doing. Doesn’t take that much energy. Only a few seconds really

[Jean Lafitte 451]

3 minutes ago, Realist said:

This is nowhere even close to half the game.

How would you know? Again, you don't own the game.

Half the game compared to what?  Ark? A game that's been out for years?  EVE, a game which, if memory serves me correctly, is 12 years old.  How would you know that it's half a game?  You have never played it. You are trying to convince everyone just how bad this game is and how bad the company is when you can offer no personal experience or solid proof. You have nothing but conjecture and opinions.

Other than ban you from Ark, give me something that I can point to about WC/GS and agree, that's evil (and even that I would say was justified if you behaved there as you do here).  Not opinion, facts.  Give me something about this game that I can say wasn't worth the money I've paid. I have 400 hours into this game.  That's over 3x the amount I have in Civ V and I paid a lot more for it... and you could even call it a 'complete' game.  Tell me, how am I being ripped off, cheated being bamboozled into not getting what I paid for.

Don't sit here and tell me the playerbase is disappearing and I should jump ship too. That's not a good enough reason.  No Man's Sky had a HORRID start. It's playerbase dropped like a rock to 1,000 players for over a year.  But then, they got it right and it's now in the 3,000's (and I'm actually considering buying it now).

If you want to be knighted by me, the innkeeper, convince me you deserve that honor Hidalgo Quixote. Don't just spew.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

5 minutes ago, Realist said:

It’s common sense. This game is 30 dollars which is half of a released game price. This is nowhere even close to half the game.

plus we are giving them free testing of their game in the first place, which I don’t care how many companies do it, that is unethical and plenty of people think so. Many game critics have already done videos on it. That is unethical.

to add everything together with how broken everything is, even if it was half way done it is no where near in a half working state at the very least.

 

Okay now we're talking about two different things. 

With regards to price, it's funny that you talk about it being common sense what the price should be, but then assert that this is nowhere even close to half the game. How could anyone possibly know what the full game will be one month into a two year EA? This assertion fails on, you guessed it, common sense. Putting that aside, if what you say is true, in a free market, especially where luxury goods are concerned (and video games are the definition of a luxury good), if the price is inappropriate for the product offered, the market will respond accordingly. Windmill crusades and claims of evil by you are completely unnecessary to this process.  Framing this as unethical belies a poor understanding of the difference between ethics and just plain old poor business decisions.

Now let's talk about EA and whether gamers should be paying to be testers, because here we have some common ground. I think that Early Access does have a place in the industry, but so far I'm of the opinion that the appropriate use of EA lies with how it allows small independant studios to get their game funded and tested, and thus allows them to offer gamers unique innovative games that might not otherwise see the light of day. When used this way, EA is a win win. When Wildcard started out with Ark, they were the poster child for EA success. Where I think you and I are in agreement is to question whether that model is appropriate for a company like GrapeCard to be allowed by steam to use when they are sitting on a pile of cash from Ark's success and no longer a small unknown under funded indie studio.

Where we likely differ is in our assessment of who is or should be responsible for this decision. I don't fault GrapeCard™ because any reasonable business in their shoes would make the same decision. Up to the point of Atlas's launch, EA had little to no downside for developers, so why wouldn't they? What I think the mess of Atlas's launch has shown is that Steam should strongly consider setting limitations on which developers are allowed to use EA, and clearly defining what pre EA development standards need to be met before the product can be offered for sale. Because where all those critics have a point is that what is now sometimes being called EA used to be alpha or beta testing, and while those testing phases often weren't open, they were always free.

I would contend that the issue of EA and it's appropriate use is bigger than Wildshot™ or Atlas, and that when critics say that the gaming industry is a mess right now and losing it's customer base, slipshod use of EA is a prime example of what they mean. I won't agree with you that these folks are evil, but I will agree that gamers should be loudly demanding more accountability and clearer standards when it comes to Early Access.

[Realist 504]

1 minute ago, Jean Lafitte said:

How would you know? Again, you don't own the game.

Half the game compared to what?  Ark? A game that's been out for years?  EVE, a game which, if memory serves me correctly, is 12 years old.  How would you know that it's half a game?  You have never played it. You are trying to convince everyone just how bad this game is and how bad the company is when you can offer no personal experience or solid proof. You have nothing but conjecture and opinions.

Other than ban you from Ark, give me something that I can point to about WC/GS and agree, that's evil (and even that I would say was justified if you behaved there as you do here).  Not opinion, facts.  Give me something about this game that I can say wasn't worth the money I've paid. I have 400 hours into this game.  That's over 3x the amount I have in Civ V and I paid a lot more for it... and you could even call it a 'complete' game.  Tell me, how am I being ripped off, cheated being bamboozled into not getting what I paid for.

Don't sit here and tell me the playerbase is disappearing and I should jump ship too. That's not a good enough reason.  No Man's Sky had a HORRID start. It's playerbase dropped like a rock to 1,000 players for over a year.  But then, they got it right and it's now in the 3,000's (and I'm actually considering buying it now).

If you want to be knighted by me, the innkeeper, convince me you deserve that honor Hidalgo Quixote. Don't just spew.

Once again, doesn’t mayter if I own the game.

they already talked about everything that would be added, and so far not even half of “everything” is in the game. So yeah not even half a game.

i also never said you had to stop playing. Never said it once

[Jean Lafitte 451]

Just now, Realist said:

Once again, doesn’t mayter if I own the game.

they already talked about everything that would be added, and so far not even half of “everything” is in the game. So yeah not even half a game.

i also never said you had to stop playing. Never said it once

I'm not convinced.  Keep trying.