Warframe does all of that too? I never really got into it because of their “no auction house ever” stance, but good to know
As long as they continue to entertain me with the game, I’m willing to support it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if expansions were paid for.
Things can change over the years.
It’s just that I pay because I want more fun! 
I’ve been playing since the beta and they’ve continued to make the game more fun and better.
To me, it’s worth the money.
2 Likes
It would have to come down to two issues with expansions, being how much and how frequently.
Honestly if season 3 had launched under an expansion model that prevented you from getting primordial uniques unless you shelled out $10, I’d refuse on principle, and those uniques are a clear example of a power swing.
When it comes to charging for an expansion it will clearly have some level of p2w behind it, like restricted gear or classes, or possibly new zones that are more engaging than the current mono grind. When I think expansion, I just assume a fairly sizable upset to the current game.
No matter what they charge, they will lose customers who won’t want to encourage such behaviour.
Tell that Nintendo for example, they provide you with a cartridge that has no data on it! 
If they provide a expansion that’s paid + a base game then it’s at least double the price for the base-game of PC.
I’m not talking about base game vs. base game. The premise was that they would piss off PC players with a paid expansion and hence can only realistically do it for console… and then comparatively it would be double-price.
Yeah, but that’s not comparing like with like. Why aren’t you comparing the base game + all DLC for DLC heavy PC games to the base game cost of a console game? I can think of a few PC games that are several thousand GBP for all the DLC. That’s totally comparable.
Yep, and they should plainly spoken just fail rather then some whales fully paying for them over and over again.
I won’t compare things to predatory business models unless the task is specifically set up to do so. Why? Because they’re not even worth mentioning. You’re supposed to be disgusted by the existence itself of those things… not lean in to call them ‘viable options’.
If your business cannot sustain itself while being ethical then your business has no position to exist at all.
ANd plainly spoken? If EHG decides to go back on their promise I absolute hope it fails. Why? So others don’t copy this shit-show and instead are respectively turned away from trying the same anti-customer shit.
Ignoring the paid part of this. My concern is that this expansion is later, not for next season, and perhaps not after that. How many resources are going into this expansion to make it worth the cost? How poor will future seasons be until this is released? Because of we are getting half assed seasons, then the player base windles. Enthusiasm reduces as the games future is murky and unsustainable.
I didn’t, I just wanted to know why you were being intellectually dishonest enough to compare A+B with C & wonder why C is half. I was even comparing the same game on pc/different consoles (& marvelling at the confusion that is the Fifa pricing since that’s all over the place) like you were implying you had.
And as nice & aspirational as that is, reality disagrees. But feel free to live in that ivory tower of yours.
2 Likes
As Llama said, reality would like to disagree. In fact, pretty much all the businesses that thrive in the modern world have a very loose grasp on the word “ethics”.
In fact, it’s quite rare to find a company that adheres to ethics and thrives these days.
2 Likes
Because the whole premise was taken on relation to the disparity of customer base.
Going into the console market would allow them to apply costs to a expansion as all people paying into the product there would be new customers without fail. No kickstarter backers, no EA backers, no customers from release forward.
Hence no terms apply as they’ve not been monetary incentivized beforehand.
PC players though have a legal background of a monetary situation applying to them, which is ‘the full experience for only the shelf-price’.
That was what my statement is based on and why I excluded the expansion price for PC.
And you both are 100% right in your arguments!
Which though also doesn’t make it ‘fine’ now, does it?
If you give a business a finger they rip off your hand, that’s a given.
So… don’t give em a finger I guess.
What you’re arguing there is ‘if companies are not bound by ethics then you cannot treat them as if they have them’.
So… my question is then… why did you two excuse any even mildly inappropriate situation then? Because on that strict basis we would have no gray-area… we would only have black&white, which means no lenience… ‘you didn’t provide us with the exact promise? No excuse… do it now or refund!’ after 2020 + a single extension of the timeline (as legally obliged)… as well as ‘refund us completely now!’ after 1.0 as initial goals haven’t been upheld.
But… people didn’t do that, right? ‘Because there was leeway’. You cannot have it both ways though… either you accept that a company is inherently not bound by ethics and hence needs a strict treatment as you can’t ‘guide’ them to do the right thing without force… or you accept they have ethics and hence you can which allows leeway to allow a method of learning.
Because there is no alternative with capitalism, especially because those that can actually do something about it are the ones most profiting from it, so they have no incentive to.
Once capitalism fails and we get something else in its place, then we’ll have alternatives.
Would it be nice if companies were ethical? Sure. It would also be nice if education, housing, food and health care were always free. But we don’t live in a utopia, so we have to make do with what we have and place expectations accordingly.
With capitalism, once a company gets big enough it only cares about survival/growth. It’s a sort of evolution theory for organizations. And survival/growth isn’t usually compatible with ethics or morals. Or even law, oftenly.
Dunno… my education housing and food is free as long as I’m not denying the option to take a job if one is present and actually doing it.
I live in middle-europe, we got social support systems for that which apply universally. I get my nearly 1000€ per month no matter what unless I say ‘no’ to working.
But that all you wrote doesn’t answer my question… if it’s a inherent aspect of a company… why ever give any lenience?
Or spoken differently: Why would a company ever need goodwill if you’re not in a win-win relationship with them but instead in a combat-situation to get what you agreed on rather then being basically scammed out of it?
Then you’re a very priviliged person, because that is not the reality in barely any part of the world, including the majority of the EU.
Because their goodwill actions are the scam. They’re supposed to make you turn a blind eye to all the unethical crap that they do. And it works. Mostly because consumers, in general, don’t care about that. They just want their cheap product, even if there’s blood on it.
Well, it is in Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Portugal, France, Spain, Netherlands existing in one way or the other.
Some have limited timed safety measures, and they get more money then those in Austria - which is roughly in the middle-line - comparatively though.
We also can move to Denmark, Sweden and Norway for similar systems despite not being a EU country.
Sure… if we take the UK or the US then it looks like shit… but the EU countries commonly are vastly above anywhere else world-wide… and there’s some of the richest countries in the world there.
Well, there’s no ‘blood’ on EHG’s hands now, is it? Not like they use child labor or anything of the sort, and that was also not the topic, was it now?
It’s solely about goodwill and why we should give them any of that ever.
So… if it’s just a guaranteed unethical behavior you would be plainly spoken a idiot to even give a miniscule leeway, right?
So… why do you do it? What’s the incentive for it? You cannot defend a company for anything if they ar prone t exploit it always after all, isn’t that the case?
It’s not. And I can guarantee you that it’s not in at least Portugal and likely many of the others you mentioned.
Even if you want to work, you don’t get food, housing or education for free unless you’re below the poverty line. And even then, plenty of people don’t get those benefits.
And no one gets their “1000€ per month” for sure, either.
Because consumers only care about the end product. It doesn’t matter if there’s actual blood on it or not. A company does sketchy unethical shit, consumers don’t care as long as they still want the product.
Best example is Blizzard where despite all the crappy stuff they’ve been doing they still sell millions and profit billions. Because players don’t actually care about ethics. They just care about the game they want to play.
Yep, but why would someone defend said company or product then?
I get the ‘I want to have it’ and that’s fine.
But why defend anything a company does rather then demand more from your side non-stop?
Since the company does try to go the opposite direction isn’t overreaching and being one absolutely entitled mess not the way to counter-steer it then? 
It’s the same on the other side of the business exchange, isn’t it?
I’m not sure what to think after the announcement that EHG hasn’t turned a profit since 1.0.
My biggest question now is why would Krafton spend $96 million on a game that hasn’t made a profit?
You can’t actually counter-steer it, though. EHG could decide to go full P2W and you wouldn’t be able to change that. You could “vote with your wallet” or just leave, but others would join and spend money on it. Which is why Diablo Immortal is still doing fine.
The instances where the player community was actually able to change something like that are very very few and far between. Because for the most part players don’t actually care and can’t be bothered to “fight” for the game they want.
Welcome to ‘law’, which is how to counter-steer it You paid? You got rights. EHG wants to go full P2W? Here comes the lawsuit from the EU! They’re not allowed to as they stated ‘no microtransactions outside of MTX’.
The expansion has vastly more legal ground to exist then a P2W implementation as that would go actively against the premise… we could at least argue ‘the core experience is the full experience and the expansion is on top of that.’ which would be a potentially viable legal standpoint.
Where did they state that in any official document? All we have are unofficial statements, which aren’t worth anything legally. It’s not legally binding.