Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic Smile
Yep...old school D and D here and I agree I enjoyed solo table top, Torment, BG, BG2, and the Fallout series (special not D&D) but all "single player" games. In a MMO the forcus is interaction...soloing is fine I do it...but when soloing is a detrement AS SEEN BY A.net if mho isn't enough then it should be "nerfed"...else why be multiplayer. Perhaps I got a bit overzelous but the truth still is no one can claim solo farming isn't having a large impact on GW society...be it good or bad iyo. Just look at all the posts on it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenrth
About the 50 dollars thing/you bought the game, that's a common misunderstanding with games/software in general. The reality is you don't. All you pay for is the priviledge of playing their game. In essence you are paying Anet/NCSoft so that they give you permission to play their game. In the world of the EULA, you effectively have no ownership, and no automatic right to play the game or anything at all. All control and power is with the developer/publisher etc. Take it from someone who's worked in the software industry, they could decide tomorrow to turn off the servers and stop people playing (and it would be perfectly legal, all in the rules).
|
Anyways, back to my statement, considering our vested interest in the game (spending money), we have no legal right to complain, but we DO have a "consumer right" in that we paid for (the use of) it and reasonably expect the producer to respect the fact that we have opinions on the product (not to necessarily respect the opinions all the time, of course :-). While we can't sue (or should'nt if we don't like it and it hasn't been changed into a completely different product), the power of a customer (monopolies withstanding) is to be able to shutdown a producer, especially if that producer needs current customers to re-invest in order to stay in business.
Having said that, I believe that ANet/Gaile listens very well (sometimes maybe too well lol). The original comment was aimed at those who like to answer for ANet (if you don't like it, go to WoW, or something like that). Let ANet answer that subject. I'm quite sure they don't wanted jaded players to go to WoW, but would rather try to find some middle-ground, hence our vested interest (paying for the ability to play their game, possibly paying again in the future) is probably reckognized and regardled highly by ANet. After all, chances are they aren't reading WoW message boards to see how people complain about GW (people with possibly no vested interested) and making corrections based upon that..
I run into this problem all the time in fact, so don't feel singled out :-) Quite a few people I know are in my industry and you have to be on your toes and not simplify for fear of a prolonged 'technically/word definition' argument. I group up and worked around quite a bit of blue-collars and we would use words in their general meaning, not webster-meaning, like calling any soda a coke :-) I do it myself. Btw, if a company or representative tells you in the future the EULA says such-and-such and you have no right to such-and-such, well... that's their job. It is to their benefit that you believe them so that there is not even the remote possibility that they are proven wrong. I refuse arbitration clauses when I buy a new vehicle, not because I think they can't be negated (my state has a lemon law which will negate it in many cicumstances, even though it's a contract), but because I can. They always cave in when they see a sale going away :-)