245 replies to this topic

[TheButtSatisfier]

Most games I've played have outright banned account sale anyway

 

I think Hawken's various owners have too, I just suspect there's no enforcement of it.

 

And to add something new to this, wouldn't the old vanguards still be unique anyway if they keep their weapons, as C05 said old units would? The new vanguard is scheduled to have a baby bear instead of an smc.

 

Correct, the current PC vanguards will be unique compared to the current console vanguards. Actually, every PC variant is going to be different from their console counterparts when the Great Merge occurs because the PC holdovers will have multiple weapon selections that the console imports won't. That is, unless that's changed now and I'm out of the loop.

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 05 January 2017 - 03:31 PM.

[Acguy]

Correct, the current PC vanguards will be unique compared to the current console vanguards. Actually, every PC variant is going to be different from their console counterparts when the Great Merge occurs because the PC holdovers will have multiple weapon selections that the console imports won't. That is, unless that's changed now and I'm out of the loop.

 

Right, so if the old vanguard model was re-purposed with the new baby-bear build, would that be unique or exclusive in some sense of the word? Old players who want the baby bear build on their VI Vanguard (which is actually pretty unlikely, unless it has stat increases or something which aren't transferred across all vanguard versions) might want to continue using their old skin but on new mechs.

[SS396]

Your notion that old players are simply waiting on the sidelines for something to buy is wrong.

You just don't get it.  People are waiting for any scraps they can get, many have waited over 3 years for ANYTHING to be made available. In the recent past (which you weren't around for, so its acceptable for you to not be aware of it) there were sales of COSMETICS that made absolutely no change to the game (no new game modes, no new mech types, etc), people returned to purchase those items, and player numbers increased compared to player numbers the day before.  I can prove this with simple steam charts if needed.  Even just the news of Reloaded buying Hawken caused numbers to skyrocket and old players to return, even when there was ABSOLUTELY nothing new to buy or experience, many veterans even purchased things JUST TO SUPPORT RELOADED, the new owners.  Go back and read some old threads where the devs released HON and then come back here and tell me I'm wrong again, and while you are at it, tell all those people they are wrong too.

 

https://community.pl... parts released

 

 If having something to buy is what causes people to be here,

Wait a minute here, people aren't here because theres nothing new for them to buy, remember.  They need to be aware theres something new for them to purchase in order to return to buy the item for sale.  Cart before the horse much?

 

 

then those people would once again quit the instant they finished buying that product. I mean think about it, would a free product attract fewer people than an identical product sold for money? Stuff like this is why I take you to be naiive. Your entire argument banks off the fact that the exclusive itself would actually bring back players, but that isn't the case. It's something that's primarily only going to be sold to people who are already present. On top of that, it's likely that the sale of an exclusive won't even be possible until an update rolls around anyway.

Why would someone quit after they just bought some product they deemed worthy of spending money on in the first place? I would think they would be inclined to actually display that new product proudly in a social atmosphere.  I mean from the players perspective they can't even SEE and ENJOY the pretty skin they painted on the outsides of their mechs, until the carousel at the end of the match. I'm not sure why you think people would buy something to not use it.  That just sounds like a waste of money.  And yet you are calling me naive SMH.

 

It would bring old players back, similar events have done so before as I explained earlier.
 

I get that he was giving me the data I requested, but the data says this: "he's vain". How is wanting to keep other people from looking like you because you want to be an exclusive special snowflake anything but vain? As I said, stick to listening.

 

Yeah, well you are going to go far with that attitude on the Hawken forums.  Maybe next time don't ask for something if you don't want to hear an answer that differs from yours.

 

 

This is a good point but strikes me as a niche case. Most games I've played have outright banned account sale anyway, which comes off as a fiscally superior decision.

It is against the TOS, but without strict punishment to the offenders like banning the account(s), theres nothing really preventing it from happening.  Its also fairly difficult to prove.
 

And to add something new to this, wouldn't the old vanguards still be unique anyway if they keep their weapons, as C05 said old units would? The new vanguard is scheduled to have a baby bear instead of an smc.

TIL, its much easier to see that a mech has a different primary weapon, than it is to see the ENTIRE CHASSIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (AND COOLER) THAN EVERY ONE YOU OWN OR CAN PURCHASE.  Thanks for pointing that out captain obvious, what have we done without you all of this time.
 

[Acguy]

HON HON HON, WHERE ARE MY BREADSTICKS?

Edit; it should say baguette, I need to remember that there's more to fine Italian dining than olive garden.

 

HON wasn't a limited-time exclusive (you're not a greenfinger, so you should know this, shouldn't you?), which means it's success doesn't imply any new content released needs to be. If anything, that just proves the point that there's no reason to ever take items off the market. On top of that, the people who are willing to return simply to purchase something will return REGARDLESS of whether or not brand-new players are present, so my old+new > old argument still holds, as it always has.

 

Wait a minute here, people aren't here because theres nothing new for them to buy, remember. 

 

Well in your last post you literally said "One of the reasons they aren't here is BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR THEM TO BUY," yet here you are claiming other people have issues communicating.

 

Maybe next time don't ask for something if you don't want to hear an answer that differs from yours.

 

That would be willfully ignorant and disgustingly self serving. I'm not going to turn my head away from an answer simply because I might not like what it is. But hey, if you think that's a good way to live, you do you I guess.

 

TIL, its much easier to see that a mech has a different primary weapon, than it is to see the ENTIRE CHASSIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT (AND COOLER) THAN EVERY ONE YOU OWN OR CAN PURCHASE.  Thanks for pointing that out captain obvious, what have we done without you all of this time.

 

But that isn't what I pointed out, that's what you pointed out, in big ole capital letters. The fact of the matter is that you're just someone who enjoys being upset; just a while ago you were chiding me for providing information other people had, and now you've done a 180 and gotten upset that I've asked TBS for information instead of providing it myself. So for the Xth time, you don't contribute, and you should read more, post less, etc.

Edited by Acguy, 05 January 2017 - 05:28 PM.

[TheButtSatisfier]

Right, so if the old vanguard model was re-purposed with the new baby-bear build, would that be unique or exclusive in some sense of the word? Old players who want the baby bear build on their VI Vanguard (which is actually pretty unlikely, unless it has stat increases or something which aren't transferred across all vanguard versions) might want to continue using their old skin but on new mechs.

 

For the sake of making sure we're on the same page:

 

The "old" Vanguard mech we're talking about is the current PC-Hawken Vanguard, right? If so, then the plan for when the Great Merge occurs is to keep all existing PC mechs the way they are now on each pilot's account. Cosmetics, multiple weapon selections, customizable internals and items, all that should stay the same. In your example, anyone with the Vanguard Initiative components on their Vanguard now will still have them available on that same Vanguard after the Great Merge. They can buy another Vanguard to get the BBY loadout and all the other console-related configurations, but the individual VI mech cosmetic components - the lower, upper, arms - can't be transferred across mechs of the same type. As a result, you can only use the VI cosmetics on the VI Vanguard that you purchased.

 

To address your post: old players that want the VI cosmetics on another Vanguard will know that they can't transfer the chassis components to any other mech, so I strongly doubt that they'll want to have the VI chassis components on a BBY variant, and not just cause that variant sucks. I imagine the exclusivity of those cosmetics is an accepted factor, like if they went into a comic book store and asked for a new copy of issue #1 of Batman. I don't think they'd go, "What do you mean it's out of print? Just print another one. I'll wait here."

 

Anyways, after the Great Merge happens then moving forward all new mechs acquired by the population will have the same stats, configurations, and limitations (when compared to the flexible customization of the current PC mechs) that the current console mechs have, minus whatever changes happen to them between now and then.

 

It's worth noting that having two different "classes" of mechs after the Great Merge - one with all the customization of PC-Hawken versus the comparatively static customization of console-Hawken - will make the grandfathered mechs exclusive in their own right. And not just cosmetically; the grandfathered mechs will have greater in-game functionality than their console counterparts. If this game became popular then anyone sitting on a full suite of grandfathered mechs would have quite the prize account. Assuming, of course, that Reloaded didn't perform further changes down the road to bring the non-grandfathered mechs to parity.

 

Now all of what I said may be old and incorrect information, so in the spirit of laziness I welcome people to correct me.

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 05 January 2017 - 04:59 PM.

[Acguy]

For the sake of making sure we're on the same page

 

By "old vanguard model" I actually meant the actual mesh-model of the VI. By model I meant the cosmetics, by build I meant the actual stat-distribution and weapons.

 

old players that want the VI cosmetics on another Vanguard will know that they can't transfer the chassis components to any other mech, so I strongly doubt that they'll want to have the VI chassis components on a BBY variant

 

Ignoring the fact that the bby sucks, that sounds... exactly why you'd want a re-release? So that you can keep using it with the new equipment? At the very least they may as well gift an updated VI vanguard to anyone who bought the original, I doubt anyone would complain about the loss of novelty there.

 

It's worth noting that having two different "classes" of mechs after the Great Merge - one with all the customization of PC-Hawken versus the comparatively static customization of console-Hawken - will make the grandfathered mechs exclusive in their own right. And not just cosmetically

 

Outside of the SMG on the vanguard and the grenaider keeping i's current secondary, G2 mechs on console are literally direct upgrades on the old G1 versions* stat-wise. Though C05 has said that the G2 direct-upgrade system.

*technically speaking console actually did get a handful of balance patches before implementing the G2 system, so console G1 is not completely identical to PC G1, which in turn means the G2 mechs are technically only completely superior to what the PC mechs would be if they had received all of the pre-G2 patches, which they may or may not end up getting. Even if they don't though, G2 mechs are still better than even PC "G1". The brawler for instance has 900 hp, and the only advantage the PC fred has over the new G2 fred is slightly better fuel recovery at the cost of having less walk speed, air speed, and cooldown time. And this is ignoring the odd possibility that someone wants a mech with worse stats on purpose for the sake of slapping on an advanced detonator, but whatever. Here's a comparison between the soon-to-be-exclusive tow-assault, the current rendition of the fred, and the best version of fred on console:

 

Spoiler

Edited by Acguy, 05 January 2017 - 05:38 PM.

[SS396]

HON wasn't a limited-time exclusive (you're not a greenfinger, so you should know this, shouldn't you?), which means it's success doesn't imply any new content released needs to be. If anything, that just proves the point that there's no reason to ever take items off the market. On top of that, the people who are willing to return simply to purchase something will return REGARDLESS of whether or not brand-new players are present, so my old+new > old argument still holds, as it always has.

Where did I say that HON was a limited time exclusive?  Please by all means enlighten me.  And you say I don't read and understand posts?  I think you are just reading into things just grasping at straws trying to find anything within reach to back your argument.  Also how would it matter if it was or wasn't again, its still something new to buy?
 
My point was (since you obviously missed it completely) is people will return to buy whatever they can if they want, something that you said was wrong.  I proved your statement false with my previous examples.  If you want a graphical diagram from steam clearly depicting it, I'll gladly provide you the link.
 
 

Well in your last post you literally said "One of the reasons they aren't here is BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR THEM TO BUY," yet here you are claiming other people have issues communicating.

What?? Take a moment, relax and think about what you are trying to explain. How does "communicating" have anything to do with old players not being here because theres nothing for them to buy? You've confused me with your unclear ramblings.

 

That would be willfully ignorant and disgustingly self serving. I'm not going to turn my head away from an answer simply because one I might not like exists. But hey, if you think that's a good way to live, you do you I guess.

Hey, I wasn't the one insulting a veteran by publicly calling him vain.

  

But that isn't what I pointed out, that's what you pointed out, in big ole capital letters. The fact of the matter is that you're just someone who enjoys being upset; just a while ago you were chiding me for providing information other people had, and now you've done a 180 and gotten upset that I've asked TBS for information instead of providing it myself. So for the Xth time, you don't contribute, and you should read more, post less, etc.

My point for the last remark I made that you clearly missed was it is much easier to identify its a completely different mech chassis than identifying it has a different weapon enabled.  

 

Who says I'm upset? I'm enjoying the fuzzy bunny out of this. This is what I live for.  You have much to learn young padawan.

[Acguy]

My point was (since you obviously missed it completely) is people will return to buy whatever they can if they want

 

You proved my statement that people would not return for the cosmetic false, at the cost of proving the rest of my argument in regards to new exclusives correct.

 

Read the sentence I have quoted carefully;  "people will return to buy whatever they can if they want". That means anything goes, assuming they want it of course, and hon proves that non-exclusives aren't left unwanted. Ergo there's really nothing to be gained by the sellers by making more items exclusive, it just prevents people who come in later down the line from spending more money.

 

--

 

The statement where I copied your "BECAUSE THERE IS..." line was because you were the one who said "people aren't here because there's nothing for them to buy," which directly contradicted the prior statement "people aren't here BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR THEM TO BUY".

 

--

 

the degree to which they may have played a videogame does not make them a good/admirable person

 

--

 

This is what I live for. 

 

That's unhealthy; I'll have you know that every lawyer I'm friends with is an alcoholic.

 

Slightly biased sample though.

Edited by Acguy, 05 January 2017 - 05:45 PM.

[TheButtSatisfier]

Ignoring the fact that the bby sucks, that sounds... exactly why you'd want a re-release? So that you can keep using it with the new equipment? At the very least they may as well gift an updated VI vanguard to anyone who bought the original, I doubt anyone would complain about the loss of novelty there.

 

Maybe I'm getting our wires crossed, but the only equipment upgrade that a current PC pilot would receive by purchasing a post-Great Merge Vanguard would be access to the BBY. At best, the post-Great Merge mechs will have the same level of customization that current PC-Hawken mechs enjoy, and at worst there's limitations to item/internal/weapon loadouts.

 

I think that the argument that current VI owners should be able to purchase another Vanguard with VI cosmetics after the Great Merge is a weak one. Current VI owners know that VI cosmetics are and have been non-transferable - full stop - so I don't think that that an exception should be made just so they can wear it while wielding the BBY on a new Vanguard. If anything, that's an issue with trying to reconcile the weapon loadouts of PC versus console Hawken, not an exclusive cosmetic issue.

[Acguy]

Maybe I'm getting our wires crossed

 

kinky

 

but you also get superior stats all around unless the G1 got hit with a nerf hard enough to make it's G2 upgrade inferior to PC somehow. VI with miniflak should be completely inferior to a G2 with miniflak, thus VI users might want an upgraded VI for that sort of reason. That's essentially what I'm getting at.

 

I think that the argument that current VI owners should be able to purchase another Vanguard with VI cosmetics after the Great Merge is a weak one. Current VI owners know that VI cosmetics are and have been non-transferable - full stop - so I don't think that that an exception should be made just so they can wear it while wielding the BBY on a new Vanguard.

 

Well yeah, I know the holocaust happened and don't expect anyone to go back in time and change it, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bummer.

Edited by Acguy, 05 January 2017 - 06:02 PM.

[SS396]

You proved my statement that people would not return for the cosmetic false, at the cost of proving the rest of my argument in regards to new exclusives correct.

 

Exclusive or not people WILL return if theres something for them to buy.

 

All you've provided is a good reason for maximizing Reloadeds profits over the long run, what you haven't taken into account is many veterans would like a reward for staying faithful to the game during this 3 years of staleness.
 

Read the sentence I have quoted carefully;  "people will return to buy whatever they can if they want". That means anything goes, assuming they want it of course, and hon proves that non-exclusives aren't left unwanted. Ergo there's really nothing to be gained by the sellers by making more items exclusive, it just prevents people who come in later down the line from spending more money.

Misdirection

 

NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE NOOBS THAT HAVEN'T LEARNED ABOUT HAWKEN OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE.  If they miss out, oh bloody well.  Its not like it was some big secret.

 

The statement where I copied your "BECAUSE THERE IS..." line was because you were the one who said "people aren't here because there's nothing for them to buy," which directly contradicted the prior statement "people aren't here BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR THEM TO BUY".

What?

Sentence one: "people aren't here because there's nothing for them to buy,"

Sentence two: "people aren't here BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING LEFT FOR THEM TO BUY"

Those two sentences look eerily similar except for one word "left", how can one contradict the other? The word "left" has no importance on determining a contradiction with those two sentences.

 

To me both sentences have the same meaning (which explains why I used them interchangeably) , that the players in question own all the the content they have decided is worthy, and no new content is available.

 

I have no clue what you are on about, other than to try to confuse the other party, like an old bugs bunny routine, and I must admit, it is working.
 

the degree to which they may have played a videogame does not make them a good/admirable person

Respect your elders, even if it is in a video game.

And yes, I hold an exclusive Alpha skin (and the closed beta skins too).
 

That's unhealthy; I'll have you know that every lawyer I'm friends with is an alcoholic.

Slightly biased sample though.

You need new friends then.

Edited by SS396, 05 January 2017 - 06:32 PM.

[DieselCat]

Acguy, on 05 Jan 2017 - 6:17 PM, said:

I get that he was giving me the data I requested, but the data says this: "he's vain". How is wanting to keep other people from looking like you because you want to be an exclusive special snowflake anything but vain? As I said, stick to listening.

 

I bought into the Vanguard Initiative and it wasn't because I am vain or wanting to keep this offer from others so I could be an exclusive "Snowflake". I very much enjoy when limited edition specials are offered, whether it's in a video game, a Blu-Ray/DVD movie or series, an automobile, a music album/CD, a PC/Console hardware component...etc....I usually buy into these things.

 

Most times these special items can cost more than the standard product (and are generally the same)...but with some altered add-ons that can make it unique or extend a bit of extra content than the original and are offered for a limited time only. 

 

There is always a promotion and time frame made public to all as to give people enough time to decide if they would like to purchase these items. If one misses out, it's because they weren't paying attention, didn't like it, don't want to spend the money, weren't around at that time or just couldn't care less. 

 

That's why they're exclusive and which makes them desirable to some such as myself. I find it disappointing.. (feel slighted) .. that you feel it's selfish or vain and that it's wrong for someone to think a limited edition item of something should no longer be available when that's the idea of it. 

 

So my intent isn't to prevent other people from looking like myself, but knowing something is special and will only be offered for a short period of time, which all involved during period have an opportunity to get in on.

 

So, you're right to have your opinion if you feel that about others in this situation, but know that in my eyes it's incorrect. and a bit insulting.

 

The VI should and most likely remain as an exclusive for those that did opt in at that time to purchase it.

 

 

 

http://steamcommunit...s/?id=659133948 

[SS396]

For the sake of making sure we're on the same page:

 

The "old" Vanguard mech we're talking about is the current PC-Hawken Vanguard, right? If so, then the plan for when the Great Merge occurs is to keep all existing PC mechs the way they are now on each pilot's account. Cosmetics, multiple weapon selections, customizable internals and items, all that should stay the same. In your example, anyone with the Vanguard Initiative components on their Vanguard now will still have them available on that same Vanguard after the Great Merge. They can buy another Vanguard to get the BBY loadout and all the other console-related configurations, but the individual VI mech cosmetic components - the lower, upper, arms - can't be transferred across mechs of the same type. As a result, you can only use the VI cosmetics on the VI Vanguard that you purchased.

 

You'll have to forgive me for skipping this, and not responding to it until after and I had some free time, but I was involved with something else (as you can clearly read) however I feel it is important to point something out.

 

I'm not sure acguy understands, his whole statement you responded too "so if the old vanguard model was re-purposed with the new baby-bear build" isn't true, there will not be a repurposed VI mech in the new merged PC version, only a repurposed vanguard.

 

There is only one exclusive VI mech, and that is Cupcake, it is completely different than the vanguard... account wise, where the root of the problem lies.  The current vanguard mech is known as Bunker.

 

The cupcake chassis (all parts) can be applied to ALL C class mechs in your garage currently, it is not limited to only the Vanguard C class build.  This was something many veterans fought ADH tooth and nail over years ago, and one of the reasons global cosmetics were even introduced in the first place.  ADH had to do quite a few hacks to get it applied, which is why it was eventually enabled months after the original cupcake parts were given to the account holders.

 

I see no reason why a VI holder wouldn't be able to purchase a new Bunker with a bbybear (or any new C class mech for that matter) (*in the new console build) and simply select the Cupcake chassis.  It would be no different than what they can do in game right now.

[Acguy]

 

I bought into the Vanguard Initiative and it wasn't because I am vain or wanting to keep this offer from others so I could be an exclusive "Snowflake".

 

I didn't say that buying the VI was vain, I said that wishing it to remain exclusive and withholding it from others was, which is factually correct given the definition of vanity.

[Acguy]

Exclusive or not people WILL return if theres something for them to buy.

 

All you've provided is a good reason for maximizing Reloadeds profits over the long run, what you haven't taken into account is many veterans would like a reward for staying faithful to the game during this 3 years of staleness.
 

Misdirection

 

NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE NOOBS THAT HAVEN'T LEARNED ABOUT HAWKEN OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS OF ITS EXISTENCE.  If they miss out, oh bloody well.  Its not like it was some big secret.

 

People who intend to make money care. And again, just incase you've forgotten, this part of the discussion is about releasing more things as exclusive, not the five year old VI. If people return either way, do the way that makes you more money. That's inarguably the better option. There is no way to beat that. You don't have a counterargument, other than "but I like exclusives even though it doesn't benefit the seller to make more of them!". You may as well be newer than I am.

 

 

Edited by Acguy, 06 January 2017 - 08:36 AM.

[wischatesjesus]

 "but I like exclusives even though it doesn't benefit the seller to make more of them!". 

 

Are you saying that people won't buy things that are artificially rare and expensive?

[Acguy]

Are you saying that people won't buy things that are artificially rare and expensive?

 

No, I'm saying that in this particular case they'll get bought anyway, since the HON got bought anyway. Either you release it for a while and old players come back, or you release it forever and old players come back while new players buy it later on.

Edited by Acguy, 06 January 2017 - 09:50 AM.

[wischatesjesus]

No, I'm saying that in this particular case they'll get bought anyway, since the HON got bought anyway.

 

I am not convinced that the first follows the second. Everything that Hawken has released has been "bought anyway" regardless of if it was ostensibly exclusive or not.

 

 Either you release it for a while and old players come back, or you release it forever and old players come back while new players buy it later on.

 

Are you sure there are no other options? Only those two things could possible happen? Either way they don't exist in a vacuum.

 

Back to:

 

"but I like exclusives even though it doesn't benefit the seller to make more of them!".

 

Are you then suggesting that exclusives are not profitable to the creator? On what basis do you assert that to be the case?

[Acguy]

I am not convinced that the first follows the second. Everything that Hawken has released has been "bought anyway" regardless of if it was ostensibly exclusive or not.

 

Which means the first follows the second. You can make it exclusive or not, it will be bought.

 

Are you then suggesting that exclusives are not profitable to the creator? On what basis do you assert that to be the case?

 

What? I'm speaking comparatively. When I say "it doesn't benefit them" I mean "doesn't benefit them compared to the alternative".

[TheButtSatisfier]

I didn't say that buying the VI was vain, I said that wishing it to remain exclusive and withholding it from others was, which is factually correct given the definition of vanity.

 

I (and I'm pretty sure others) think you're significantly overstating your vanity angle here.

 

People purchased a cosmetic bundle that was priced a certain way because it was exclusive. They purchased that cosmetic in good faith belief that the cosmetic would remain exclusive, which increases their perceived value of the cosmetic at the time of purchase.

 

Now, if at the later time the seller decides to say "screw it" and offered the cosmetic to the public again, then it's obviously no longer an exclusive item. The seller has then diminished the perceived value of that cosmetic. Many of the people who purchased that cosmetic may have originally purchased it for $20 (I don't know the actual prices here, so I'm tossing out figures), but if it wasn't exclusive then it's likely they wouldn't have decided to pay that much for it. On average, maybe those purchasers would have only been willing to spend $15 or $10 on a cosmetic that they knew wouldn't be exclusive.

 

In the above example, the owners of that once exclusive skin have essentially been robbed of the difference in value between what they originally paid and the cosmetic's market worth once it's no longer exclusive. Granted, this is all a bit nebulous because we're not talking about hard goods that can be easily transferred and resold, but the perception of value is what forms the basis of opinions that you're seeing throughout this thread. Those early adopters paid a price based on their understanding of what they purchased, and the value of what they purchased will decrease if a valuable characteristic of the product is suddenly taken away.

 

That's it. People would basically feel like they're being robbed of the value of what they originally purchased. They would have been essentially lied to. "Here, we know this cosmetic is expensive, but we're only going to sell it once LOL NEVERMIND WE LIED ABOUT THAT PART AND WE DON'T FEEL LIKE MAKING NEW STUFF." VI owners wouldn't be crying that someone else is running around with their previously exclusive VI Vanguard any more than they get upset when they see another rightful owner of a VI running around now. They may honestly not give two craps about how the cosmetic looks or how it separates them from the rest of the herd, but they may care a lot about being "cheated" out of the value they were told that product had when they first purchased it and it was still exclusive.

 

The basis of what I've described above is simple economics and customer relations.

 

I don't own the exclusive cosmetic and I - and many others - would still trust Reloaded less if they decided to re-release an exclusive skin specifically because it breaches this customer-seller trust. It's literally that simple. It tarnishes the reputation of the seller because it shows they're willing to betray the trust of their customers for the sake of (probably) small profit. I would think the same of any company that takes an exclusive item and then e-releases it later because it speaks to how the company values the trust between themselves and their customers. What else will that company do to shortchange my time/money investment in some manner?

 

I'm going to roll my eyes in advance if you go down either of these roads:

• Vanity is the basis for all cosmetics, and/or
• The desire to not let other people have their skin for the sake of maintaining customer-seller trust is a selfish one, and while not all selfish desires are desires of vanity, fortunately they're close enough in this instance so let's keep going with it

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 06 January 2017 - 01:03 PM.

[SS396]

I didn't say that buying the VI was vain, I said that wishing it to remain exclusive and withholding it from others was, which is factually correct given the definition of vanity.

 

Hey Mr. Webster, whats the definition of "Exclusive"?

 

Oh man, this guy.  I'm honestly laughing my ass off.  

 

 

 

What? I'm speaking comparatively. When I say "it doesn't benefit them" I mean "doesn't benefit them compared to the alternative".

 

Oh what was it you said to me again?  Something along the lines of why do you proclaim yourself to be the "defender of the people", why not let the players (in this case the ones that haven't shown up yet) speak for themselves?

 

Quit being a jerk and worrying about maximizing the long term profits of Reloaded.  If they can hold on to a game for 2 years and only do a few minor changes, and now they have two more platform fanbois to help insert money to the company, I think they are doing just fine.  They at least have to be in the black, no smart businessman would operate a company for 2 years if they were bleeding money left and right.

 

 (And yes, that was meant to be an ironic statement, because thats exactly what Meteor Entertainment did. 29 million to be precise)

Edited by SS396, 06 January 2017 - 01:44 PM.

[Acguy]

I'm going to roll my eyes in advance if you [say]... The desire to not let other people have their skin for the sake of maintaining customer-seller trust is a selfish one, and while not all selfish desires are desires of vanity, fortunately they're close enough in this instance so let's keep going with it

 

I've directly stated that I'd actually be more sympathetic if it were selfish. If you take someone else's bread, at least you get something. It's a lot harder to blame someone when they're in an "it's your or me" situation. This is more along the lines of spite, where you just screw someone over for the sake of screwing them over. That's what's appalling. If they were to feel "cheated" because they spent more money on something simply because of exclusivity, when they had every opportunity to say "hey, I'm not sure if holding this for a limited time is a good idea" instead of demanding it be kept from future buyers, then they may as well deserve it.

 

Whatever function the cupcake serves, when you boil it down, it's returning some quantity of happiness to the owner. If other people gaining that happiness diminishes the happiness the owners have, then they're sick. If not being allowed to keep things away from others makes them feel cheated when it so clearly should be the other way around, then that's a personal problem. My pity and sympathy are going to be pretty limited.

 

 They would have been essentially lied to. "Here, we know this cosmetic is expensive, but we're only going to sell it once LOL NEVERMIND WE LIED ABOUT THAT PART AND WE DON'T FEEL LIKE MAKING NEW STUFF." 

 

I would trust Reloaded less if they decided to re-release an exclusive skin specifically because it breaches this customer-seller trust. It's literally that simple. It tarnishes the reputation of the seller because it shows they're willing to betray the trust of their customers for the sake of (probably) small profit. I would think that of any company that produces and sells an exclusive item and then decides to re-release it later for that very simple fact, because it speaks to how the company values the trust between themselves and their customers.

 

I would trust someone less just for promising to make things [of this nature] exclusive in the first place. You aren't giving the buyer anything extra, yet you're selling it for more money. That's far more deceptive than backpedaling on that mistake would be. If account sale were something our seller condoned and openly banked off of, or we were talking about a sellable product it would be a different matter, but it's literally nothing in this scenario.

 

The fact that they'd be breaking a prior promise is a moot point. If someone says "I promise you tomorrow I'm gonna go shoot up my local movie theater," most would consider it better to break that promise than keep it. There's no point in desiring a promise to be kept if the content promised wasn't a good thing in the first place. This, in turn, means that if people are getting upset over the promise-breaking, then they're still ultimately just getting upset over people getting the skin. If they desire the promise to be kept, then they desire that-which-was-promised. It's a matter of the exclusivity, not the honesty. Imagine being told by the aforementioned shooter "yeah, I've decided to go back on my promise to shoot up that theater". It's going to be rather absurd to turn around and say "But you need to keep your word! This is a matter of honesty, theater and all!". Do you seriously expect people to genuinely believe that it's a matter of keeping promises, and not a matter of keeping that-which-was-promised? That's just unbelievable. 

 

...and for anything else that has to do with reputation, I've stated that going against mass opinion wouldn't be their wisest move as a seller whose goal is to sell, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to as a speaker. Obviously it shouldn't be sold if people do worry about exclusivity, my argument is that they shouldn't in this scenario. I don't think you've forgotten or anything, I just want to throw in a disclaimer.

 

but the perception of value is what forms the basis of opinions that you're seeing throughout this thread

 

This is a few letters off from being a really perfect sentence for this scenario, and I'm not trying to be backhanded in saying that.

 

It is the prescription of value where these opinions come from. I can't taste value, I can't touch it, I can't see it; I simply point and say "that has value". It is designated, not identified. It has not been seen, it has been decided (putting aside matters of free will). What perplexes me is why someone would decide that me having less is a good thing, and furthermore, how they could expect me to believe it's just a matter of honesty. You're saying "this characteristic, which is completely impalpable and unpeceivable, which I've decided to call 'exclusivity', is the reason for which I've decided to do what I'm doing." This is what I'm getting at when I say you may as well replace the word exclusivity with gobbelygook in this case. This is what I'm truly getting at when I say they have "no" reason, and that they're chasing a phantom.

 

...and to put another odd disclaimer here, to get any potential vocabulary-nitpicking out of the way (not that I would mind), I'm using the word "decide" in the way a compatibalist might as far as free-will goes. If you didn't strike issue with the word beforehand then it doesn't make a difference though.

 

Hey Mr. Webster, whats the definition of "Exclusive".

 

The word "good" isn't in it. The only reason why you're humored is because you're the sort to laugh at your own jokes. Do the world a favor and masturbate somewhere else please. There's no reason for people to want to keep it exclusive.

 

Oh what was it you said to me again?  Something along the lines of why do you proclaim yourself to the the "defender of the people", why not let the players (in this case the ones that haven't shown up yet) speak for themselves?

 

When I said "them" I mean "the seller". I don't think asking the seller if selling more products for the same price is more beneficial.

 

Quit being a jerk and worrying about maximizing the long term profits of Reloaded, if they can hold on to a game for 2 years and only do a few minor changes, and now they have two more platform fanbois inserting money to the company, I think they are doing just fine, they at least have to be in the black, no smart businessman would operate a company for 2 years if they were bleeding money left and right.

 

There were two TDM servers last I looked. But no, the game's fine, and I'm selfish jerk for wanting them to succeed, right? Really? What have I stolen? What have I taken? What have I withheld? 

 

Oh, and nice edit.

Edited by Acguy, 06 January 2017 - 02:14 PM.

[TheButtSatisfier]

Okay. Somehow the concept of digital exclusivity and customer relations isn't translating between the two of us, and I think it's safe to assume that we're not going to come to a consensus on either topic. Good chat though.

[Acguy]

Okay. Somehow the concept of digital exclusivity and customer relations isn't translating between the two of us, and I think it's safe to assume that we're not going to come to a consensus on either topic. Good chat though.

 

Fair enough my dude.

[DieselCat]

 

Whatever function the cupcake serves, when you boil it down, it's returning some quantity of happiness to the owner. If other people gaining that happiness diminishes the happiness the owners have, then they're sick. If not being allowed to keep things away from others makes them feel cheated when it so clearly should be the other way around, then that's a personal problem. My pity and sympathy are going to be pretty limited.

 

 

 

 

Nothing personal, but Yes it is and you apparently have, just unbelievable ...now go stand in the corner until you feel better.

Edited by DieselCat, 06 January 2017 - 02:14 PM.

[Acguy]

Yes it is and you apparently have, just unbelievable ...now go stand in the corner. 

 

That's not an argument

[DieselCat]

That's not an argument

 

It's not intended to be

[Acguy]

It's not intended to be

 

Then what I've said remains unrefuted

[DieselCat]

Then what I've said remains unrefuted

 

Really sorry my friend...but sounds like you need a life...seriously 

[Acguy]

Really sorry my friend...but sounds like you need a life...seriously 

 

At least I don't need to spitefully deny the life of someone else to appreciate my own :^)

[DieselCat]

OK

[capnjosh]

Anybody mind if I lock this thread?  We'll start a new one about migration-related cruft.  Sorry to interrupt the impassioned debate, but I think it's pretty remarkable it didn't get too terribly personal and vicious ;)

[SS396]

The word "good" isn't in it. The only reason why you're humored is because you're the sort to laugh at your own jokes. Do the world a favor and masturbate somewhere else please. There's no reason for people to want to keep it exclusive.

I didn't ask whether or not is good was in it now did I, asked you for the definition of exclusive since you provided the definition of vain for us.

 

Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.
 

When I said "them" I mean "the seller". I don't think asking the seller if selling more products for the same price is more beneficial.

 

I didn't say anything about "the seller", I simply stated the exact same thing that you did for me, and that you have no right to fight for the right of these people that haven't shown up yet.  They can speak for themselves, or in this case they can't because they aren't here yet.
 

There were two TDM servers last I looked. But no, the game's fine, and I'm selfish jerk for wanting them to succeed, right? Really? What have I stolen? What have I taken? What have I withheld?

 

No, you are a jerk for insulting DieselCat directly (and all other VI owners indirectly) multiple times, even after he took the time to explain how shitty your myopic viewpoint made him feel.

 

The game is in the current position it is because of years of neglect.  Like I said before, that is another entirely different argument for a different thread.

 

Look you started losing your entire argument when you satisfied Godwin's law pages ago.  Then you resulted to making examples pertaining to guns in a movie theater, and thats when the red flag went off and I just quit reading your fuzzy bunny.  Take it from me kid, you don't want to use references to guns, real or the fake video game ones here on the Hawken forums.

 

You first showed up and people were impressed with your analysis of the issues with weapons, items and components , but now after the stuff you've said, you've just moved yourself over to the list containing SS396, AJK, ArmoredKlown, USM999, and BlackwarGreyMon.

Edited by SS396, 06 January 2017 - 02:35 PM.

[Acguy]

Anybody mind if I lock this thread?  We'll start a new one about migration-related cruft.  Sorry to interrupt the impassioned debate, but I think it's pretty remarkable it didn't get too terribly personal and vicious ;)

 

You want another one?

 

Though I would like to know what's getting updated. All I know (or rather, been told) is that currently-owned suits aren't getting their weapon options changed, and that their stats are a tossup.

 

I didn't say anything about "the seller"

 

Yeah, but I had, and you were responding to something I'd said as though I'd spoken differently.

 

No, you are a jerk for insulting DieselCat directly (and all other VI owners indirectly) multiple times, even after he took the time to explain how shitty your myopic viewpoint made him feel.

 

And those comments were identified through analysis, not prescribed. To ask me to say otherwise is to ask me to lie. It isn't as thouhg I've barged in and said "haha you're fat!" to anyone, and if I actually did say that in an accurate manner with the intent of being descriptive instead of simply bashing people, that's still not something you can pass off as just ad-hom or something. Someone like deiselcat isn't someone I'm just going to bash for sadism's sake. Someone like you, though, I might.

[SS396]

You want another one?

 

No

 

We have seen enough.

 

Please spare us from further ruining of your Hawken forum reputation Mr. Trump.

[TheButtSatisfier]

Anybody mind if I lock this thread?  We'll start a new one about migration-related cruft.  Sorry to interrupt the impassioned debate, but I think it's pretty remarkable it didn't get too terribly personal and vicious ;)

 

First, I appreciate that you're asking us this, even though you don't have to. Thanks for giving us the chance to keep things passionate but not personal.

 

I think we'd better not tempt fate and lock this one while the going is good(ish). Starting a new thread regarding the migration stuff will probably be the best bet to keep things on topic.

[Acguy]

Please spare us from further ruining of your Hawken forum reputation Mr. Trump.

 

Because Donald Trump who thinks the have-nots should have access to more opportunities?

 

Politics is against forum rules; you're not a greenfinger, you should know that.

Edited by Acguy, 06 January 2017 - 07:10 PM.

[SS396]

Because Donald Trump who thinks the have-nots should have access to more opportunities?

 

Politics is against forum rules; you're not a greenfinger, you should know that.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

 

Second best post of 2017.

 

I can't wait to read what you post next.

 

 

BTW we are not talking about politics.  We are talking about Donald J. Trump, the person, who isn't a politician (as of yet, he has never held a formal position in government, true story).  According to Webster's dictionary which you oh so commonly browse and should know by heart, politics is

 

a :  the art or science of government

b :  the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy

c :  the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

 

 

When someone has to take the time out of his or her day to explain the meaning of the joke to you, it loses all its comedic effect.  Go back and read the entire thing, and heres a hint, all of the sentences have an equal amount of importance, not just the last one.  Another hint, maybe check recent news.

 

And quit using the term greenfinger, that isn't even a saying.  Greenfinger seems to be British slang for green thumb, and that is someone that is proficient at gardening.  I'm not sure how its possible for someone to be so ignorant to confuse understanding the Hawken forum rules with gardening, but maybe you are using words you don't understand the meaning of?  Maybe you meant greenhorn, which is a person who is new to or inexperienced at a particular activity, but you've used greenfinger multiple times now, even after I used greenhorn.  Every time you used it, I questioned it and wondered what on earth you were even talking about.  I'm not even sure you understand what the definition of the words you use are.

[Acguy]

You seriously mean to tell me the people talking about the two officials running for president for the past several months were not talking about politics?

 

And for someone who seems obsessed with preconceived definitions, you're rather good at ignoring them:

 

 

The fact that you willingly looked up the definition of "policy" and posted it in a link, but opted not to link a definition of the word "politician" suggests you already know this and are just attempting to put if off to the side.

 

What a greenfinger

Edited by Acguy, 07 January 2017 - 06:09 AM.

[SS396]

You seriously mean to tell me the people talking about the two officials running for president for the past several months were not talking about politics?

Nobody was talking about politics, I already clarified that.  Your argument is invalid.

 

You failed to recognize it and follow it, and now you want to twist the conversation (a seemingly noticeable recurring pattern with you) and derail the thread even further (which is against the rules you GREENHORN) into whether or not people talking about the two officials running for president for the past several months is about politics or not.

 

And for someone who seems obsessed with preconceived definitions, you're rather good at ignoring them:

I wasn't using the lazy google definition of politician you fool, I was talking about the WEBSTER'S DEFINITION (which I explained more than once).  Why didn't you post it? oh thats right it doesn't back up your argument.

 

Definition of politician

1. 1:  a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially :  one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2. 2a :  a person engaged in party politics as a professionb :  a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

 

 

Keyword there  EXPERIENCED.  I also noted how Donald J. Trump hasn't held an official position in government yet.  I would classify that as not qualifying as experienced, but thats just me.  

 

What a greenfinger

Yes, I asked you what the fuzzy bunny is a greenfinger??

It makes absolutely no sense in the way you constantly use it.  I asked you this earlier, but you seem to have not read and understood what I was talking about.

Keep trying.