| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
White Tree
   |
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:41:00 -
[1]
'We do not have plans too' is not the same as 'We will never'. You weren't lied too at all.
_______________________________________
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:51:00 -
[2]
Edited by: White Tree on 24/06/2011 14:51:04
 Originally by: Razin
Originally by: eudi
Originally by: Khamelean
Edited by: Khamelean on 24/06/2011 14:40:48
"We have no plans."
does not equal
"We will not."
Originally by: CCP Shadow
Our business model isn't changing, you all have nothing to be concerned about.
You can't argue with apologists. Fanboyizm is a disease of the mind.
Pointing out the factual accurateness of a statement and its structure is not fanboyism get out. Get out.
Originally by: Cataca
Originally by: White Tree
'We do not have plans too' is not the same as 'We will never'. You weren't lied too at all.
For an elected representative of the community, you do a remarkably bad job at it.
What are you even talking about lmao.
_______________________________________
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:53:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Tobiaz
It's not a lie, but it's not honest either.
Agreed, it's not 'honest' but it isn't necessarily a 'lie'. Things change, CCP isn't a static company nor are its philosophies.
_______________________________________
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:55:00 -
[4]
Edited by: White Tree on 24/06/2011 14:55:38
'I am being corrected' does not equal 'I am being preached too by a CCP apologist'
I will literally not allow you to do this. I will drag you, all of you kicking and screaming into the limelight of intellectual validity so help me god. I will turn this bus around and we'll all go home and none of you will have Icecream at all.
_______________________________________
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 14:58:00 -
[5]
Edited by: White Tree on 24/06/2011 14:58:54
Maybe at the time they didn't have any plans to do anything like this. In fact, if I remember correctly, this is actually a relatively new idea. I agree that its a shift in policy and its absolutely being perceived as a negative shift, that I'm not arguing. In fact I agree with the community that the execution of this has been an absolute disaster. I guess at the end of the day we're discussing semantics.
_______________________________________
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 15:04:00 -
[6]
Originally by: M Blanc
Originally by: White Tree
Edited by: White Tree on 24/06/2011 14:58:54
Maybe at the time they didn't have any plans to do anything like this. In fact, if I remember correctly, this is actually a relatively new idea. I agree that its a shift in policy and its absolutely being perceived as a negative shift, that I'm not arguing. In fact I agree with the community that the execution of this has been an absolute disaster. I guess at the end of the day we're discussing semantics.
You've said how it's being perceived, and you've said that it's been a disaster in terms of execution, but I note that you haven't actually expressed your own opinion on the system itself, or where CCP are planning to take it. Are you in favour of the current microtransactions? Are you in favour of microtransactions of the kind discussed in the leaked document - for convenience and/or in-game power?
Good question. I've always thought very reasonably priced Micro-transactions that didn't affect my game or anyone elses game were fine. The price is definitely off, I agree 100% with that.
_______________________________________
|
White Tree
|
Posted - 2011.06.24 15:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: M Blanc
Do you consider microtransactions of the kind discussed in the leaked issue of 'Fearless' for things such as faction standings or unique ships and ammo to be game-affecting?
Yes, and I would object to them entirely as would the rest of the CSM.
_______________________________________
|
| |
|