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?
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.
Contrary to statements regarding ‘all future content will be free’, which imo always had enough aspirational language to allow for a future change, the language EHG used to exclude P2W MTX was very strongly worded.
The only form of real money microtransactions Last Epoch will ever have are cosmetic, our currency for such is even named Cosmetic Points (CP) to emphasize this point. We will continually add in new exciting armor skins, skill effects, companion pets, and whatever else we dream up that can make your character visually more awesome and unique. No experience speed items, stat boost items, character boosts, or any other source of player power will be purchasable with real money. We do not believe in pay-to-win models.
These are not aspirational goals, they are worded as a guarantee to the customer.
Or from their official FAQ here in the forum:
Will there be an MTX store in Last Epoch?
Offering MTX in the form of cosmetics only has always been our plan since our Kickstarter days. This will allow us to keep supporting content for years to come making Last Epoch the game we desire and the community deserves. That being said, as Last Epoch does have a box price, this allows us to not have either power or convenience in the MTX Store. Any features that we will look to add to Last Epoch to enhance the game for convenience or power, such as items, stash features, anything that has in game interaction will be included for free as part of the core game.
It was Judd that said that categorically, sometime before launch. Can’t be bothered to look it up. Don’t know if he said that on the forum as well, but I’m pretty sure he said it on reddit.
Either way, even if you exclude the mastery respec, the language they used to say that the box price would give you all future content was also very strongly worded and not an aspirational goal. And yet all signs point to this no longer being the case.
My point is simply that unofficial statements, like replies in the forum/discord/reddit aren’t actually legally binding and are something they can change their mind upon and do an 180 on.
No. Can’t people read in full context of a paragraph?
Create connections to the Risk & Challenges section and use a minimum amount of critical thinking?
The planned pay model for Last Epoch upon release
That’s a plan. The goal is financing, the strategy is laid out, but it’s still just a plan. Plans don’t always work out, they are aspirational in nature, not a guarantee.
Just because they’ve said that in general terms, doesn’t mean they didn’t say it categorically elsewhere. I’ll point you to this statement by Mike:
"Additional future content won’t be locked behind an additional paywall like a traditional paid expansion.
We will continue to have new supporter packs which include cosmetics. No pay to win elements." (if you don’t want to click the link).
Or, if you want a statement from the big man himself:
"We want to continually update the game with small and large content patches. These will never be paid for ".
Those seem very categorical to me and not aspirational at all. (didn’t bother looking for other examples, but I’m sure there are plenty. They’ve been saying that for a long time now).
They haven’t made a profit on seasons. They probably made a nice profit on the base sales and will certainly make a very large profit on console ports. Add in paid expansions and they felt it was worth it I guess.
The planned pay model for Last Epoch upon release is for the game to be free to all players until level 20 with restrictions on player interaction in order to deter spamming. To advance beyond level 20, players may spend $14.99 to unlock the rest of the game's content and full social features! These restrictions on free players will go a long way to deter spam and botting accounts, which will help keep the game’s community and economy healthy. This one-time payment will be all that a player will have to spend to have the complete Last Epoch experience and be on the same footing as other players.
It states the following things:
14,99. This is adjustable depending on inflation and non-applicable to the backers anyway (as they get a key, always)
Free until level 20. This can be ignored (no payment no contract yet. It’s solely about the pay-in to the product, becoming a customer or having the intention) ‘This one time payment will be all that a player will have to spend to have the complete Last Epoch experience and be on the same footing as other players.’ This depicts neither P2W models or expansion models being allowed. Neither would allow a player to be ‘on the same footing as other players’ now, would it?
Also the notion of what @HorusKBZ said, his quotes apply directly. They are legally binding as it’s official information which was never rescinded. Hence it is contractually binding.
The only thing excempting it is the wording of ‘microtransaction’. Since expansions are not microtransactions by the definition of the law they hence wouldn’t apply for that aspect. Still has a bit of weight related to the kickstarter campaign.
Which is not legally binding as there is no mention of that being guaranteed to uphold in the kickstarter or ever after. It’s a design philosophy they followed and defended but then toppled over.
If it weren’t a small aspect of the total game (which allows non-usage as well… however nonsensical that argument sadly is) then actually there would be a legal situation potentially available.
Once more… pricing of a product is excempted within limitations from the law, at least in the EU.
There you’re factually wrong.
Twitter, Reddit, Discord… whatever else is there, as long as it comes from a developer in the position to be allowed to provide this information and doing so directly while speaking with the product in mind it means that it’s a legally binding promise.
Look up the major issue ‘The Bazaar’ had with their change in monetization. It was the exact same issue EHG is steering towards. They had to backpedal completely as they lost tons of players which went to threaten legal steps, having to refund them each individually.
By the way, I was one of the people refunded there too.
So it’s not a legal guarantee. If pricing is exempt, then they can change it at a later stage, like you yourself admitted.
So expansions going from 0 to 10€ or however much is a price change.
Not going to explain it when you just wanna wringle and twist stuff around. We’re not in court here.
You cannot change ‘none’ to ‘something’. Simple as that. You can adjust the initial barrier to buy in (which is the shelf price) but you cannot add extra costs of any kind as that is already contractually bound to the initial payment.
If you don’t get this concept then a example:
You buy a car, paid in full, up-front. No more costs outside of personal upkeep (as it’s a physical good and needs to be repaired). Now a year later the company says ‘from now on we’ll demand a yearly fee for usage or we block 90% of your electronic systems’.
Is this legal? No?
Why not? Explain in legal terms why.
It’s the same on the other side of the business exchange, isn’t it?
