As soon as EGH hitched their ride to Krafton, the worst company in gaming, it was the beginning of the end for LE. Just by association LE is now in trouble. Steam reviews have soured and damage is being done. LE took everything it had going for itself and traded it in to be in Kraftons corner. The same company that screwed over Subnautica 2 devs on purpose as proven in court. People hate Krafton so its going to be hard to dig themselves out of this deep deep hole. Not impossible but nearly so.
Retracting from their initial statement for why I bought this product is indeed ‘extra big shit’ for me.
Didn’t mention any of the disasters or that stuff. Just for me as a customer.
Much like I don’t buy Blizzard games… or EA games… or - with one single exception of Trackmania - Ubisoft games.
All on my ‘don’t even show me this’ list on Steam for a reason. Company does bad means for me company won’t get any sort of time from me. Unless they show their direction is substantially changing.
EHG hasn’t done that stuff yet. Just hinted at it. That’s why I’m still here.
The second a paid character comes out I’m dust in the wind.
Is there?
The question was ‘would you rather have them go bancrupt then to pay for the class’.
That was my answer, ‘bancrupt’.
So now let’s follow the logical conclusion, should we?
If from the multiple-choice question of 2 answers ‘buy class’ and ‘bancrupty’ I choose ‘bancrupty’ I get thrown arguments at my head related to ‘How dare you do that! You would rather see the people on the street!’.
So I can only pick the first which is ‘buy class’ as a reasonable answer, right?
Hence ‘I cannot stop my support’ for the reasonable answer provided, since that is inherently included in the question anyway, simply answering between those 2 choices takes away the nuance kinda, doesn’t it?
So now my only leftover choice is ‘do it at my own cost despite not wanting to’ which is the sole leftover solutions… as I’m not allowed to pick the other without getting flak and being insulted about having no empathy, being callous, a dick and so on.
So go ahead… tell me exactly how my answer to a direct question with 2 choices was unacceptable 
Still appalling beyond end.
Yep, obviously for fucks sake. Want all of them on the street after over-hiring massively?
I mean… come on… don’t become a massive clown now.
‘Company not profitable, bleeding tons of money, still hiring.’… maybe stop hiring and remove the people which were hired beyond your means?
Sorry… but that’s how you keep the doors open and at least some people with a damn job…
Doesn’t state good.
States solely that when you play dumb games you get dumb prices.
Responsibility and results.
Then lets reframe my argument since there seems to be a massive problem with perception. So from the top basically:
We have 100 employees.
Let’s say every employee (example numbers simply) costs 3000 per month, which we’ll for the sake of the argument say they need fully to survive their day to day stuff. Rent, food, and so on.
Now… the company bleeds for example… 90k per month. We got 3 months left before it shutters if we don’t change that.
Now what do you do? You got basically 2 options since in 3 months you cannot turn the ship around that much.
Option 1: You pay everyone less money, so every single employee either looses their home or starves themselves.
Option 2: You remove 30 employees to be at a net-zero. 70 people can survive onwards.
Which is your choice? Do you sacrifice all of em… or sacrifice some of em to keep things going?
Wanna hear my solution? The hard one? The one which you get flak for but is the only viable one?
Guess which one it is then…
As the concept of the company entity? Yes they are the borg basically. Sorry but here we differ between individuals and companies.
But… I don’t have a relation with the individual employee, I only have one with the company.
One appendage of the company (a employee) will potentially interact with me for specific aspects… but at large I do interact with the whole things of ‘the company’.
So I don’t speak about ‘Bob from customer support’ but about ‘EHG’. Because who do you fault with a cummulative decision? You got the top which decides. You got the lower rungs which either haven’t spoken up when something goes awry or haven’t stood up for it. You cannot fault the lower rung either because of the power difference. You cannot even fault the top-brass entirely because they don’t get the info directly but through second or third channels and got other stuff to do and loose the connection.
So who do you blame?
Leaves only to blame ‘the concept of the company’.
Yes, but that’s a you-problem. Outside an egocentric bubble, it’s a minor issue of company behaviour.
I’m not suggesting at all that you should buy anything else from LE if you’re not happy with the product.
So, where did I ask that at any point?
1 Like
So if that’s “extra big shit”, I guess child labour & the shady stuff that Nike/Apple/etc have done is a crime against humanity & every employee (including all employees of the their competitors, obviously) should be put to death.
I mean, the’ve not hinted at it, they’ve said they’re doing it.
Yes. There is stuf inbetween super-white & super-black. I believe the rest of the world calls it “shades of grey”. That’s why legal jurisdictions have a variety of punishments other than nothing & the death penalty.
First off… not going into the hyperbole of Llama who knows completely well that there’s a distinction and I’m utterly sick and tired of explaining those in novels which should be common sense from the get-go.
But also missed entirely the point.
But the one from you Horus is a decent one to get into:
Yes, obviously it’s about the egocentric bubble.
Who would I need to care or have to care as a customer what other customers think, want, and drive their decisions on?
That’s the obvious thing here that it’s a egocentrical bubble decision, and it doesn’t have to be more.
Not every decision has to become some holistic world saving thing 
It all started with this:
And the answer:
It’s taken literal, it’s obvious to be the exception of some dimwits being included. First problem and went a step too far hence. But my explanation then pushed it all off ending with this part:
For clarification:
Ill-will demands intent.
Not caring is simply not taking the burden of the world onto your back.
It’s impossible to do after all, and if you try you’ll ruin yourself and everyone around you at best.
You would need to start thinking in terms of… ‘is this tomatoe I’m trying to buy ethical now in all aspects?’ What about pesticies used? Endangering animal or human well-being with it in some way if so? is the farmer well payed? The transport properly handled? The driver well paid? How about the grocery shop displaying it, only using ethical products overall and hence right to be supported? Is the employee there paid well?
It becomes a mess. Hence you stop at a stage very close to yourself. You improve the narrow area around you and hope others do the same so it becomes overall better.
Anyone which asks for actions accordingly but isn’t going out into the world to go to the places needing the absolute most of change and doing it directly is a hypocrite and should piss off. And that’s what pushed it off entirely.
My argumentation line went from ‘not taking over responsibility which is not yours isn’t evil’… which is a truthful statement. As that’s idiocy if you universally follow it. And the differantiation between goodwill and responsibility… which clearly is not a concept well known as the answers provided specifically from @Llama8 . It’s important, learn the difference.
Scale is of no matter here… small wrong is still wrong, large wrong is still wrong. It matters only for outcome, not for the foundational principle.
Your argument @HorusKBZ was for:
And my whole argumentation line was ‘I won’t provide a company money which doesn’t uphold the trust-basis between me and them in business terms’.
That’s it.
And from there I got called callous, lacking empathy and so on.
Which comes down to ‘Do you rather have them go bancrupt or pay for the class’.
Does that suffice as a logical roadmap? (By the way, more information then EHG’s roadmap and I didn’t need 7 weeks for it!)
If you talk about principle then no, there isn’t inherently. It’s the second step after that as you rightfully state. Circumstance applies for a reason.
You can call it ill will, but why should I take responsibility for what EHG the company did? I didnt fuck over the employees, EHG did by taking on too many, and spreading their resources thin.
if I worked at ehg id be pissed that now my job is on the line because the administration above me didnt take care to look out for the company as a whole which is what effects my bottom line as an employee.
“Stupid consumers didnt buy my 1 million dollar 1996 toyata I was forced to sell by my stupid boss, how could they”
or maybe you got fucked over by your stupid ass leadership now you and them either do more stupid shit, or you go down under your new overlords.
Ttrying to appeal to the bleeding heart just isnt gonna fly, especially for anyone in america who gets repeatedly beaten into the dirt by their bosses and managers etc on chain.
At the end of the day it sucks that a lot of people who cared are likely going to lose their jobs in a few years, but thats not my fault nor is it ill-willed to not support their crappy administration/leadership who is tanking the PR of their company.
If anything I hope the devs who do good work jump ship and go someplace else where their work can be used profitably instead of getting run into the dirt by poor leadership.
me hating mcdonalds and hoping they go out of business is not ill-will towards any individual employee working behind a counter, treating corporations like people with souls is what gets us into these messes in the first place.
2 Likes
And where in this do you find that I ask people to continue to pay just to save EHG? Whatever someone else wrote has nothing to do with the point I make.
It’s about people like you basically stating that you rather have them close down than ‘breaking their promise’, because if they can’t deliver on that, they would not have a right to exist in the first place. You did say something along that line multiple times, right?
Yes, mostly, that’s why I said in response to you making the point of not caring:
But you have at least twice stated at some points that you want/suggest people to get fired, in the discussion about productivity or how many people work for EHG etc.
You don’t appear to be just not caring - you appear to me as spiteful and vindictive.
Sorry if I consider this ill-will from your part, but I reserve my right to have that opinion.
Aside from that:
Not caring about others is one of the fucking problems why psychopatic assholes who lead companies fuck over customers so often. They don’t have ill-will towards the individual who gets poisoned, or gamble away their fortune with gambling lootboxes boxes. They simply don’t care.
I didn’t imply to take over responsibilty.
There is a difference between stepping away as a customer from a company (voting with your wallet) and wanting them to fail.
1 Like
Yep, the model can work, but it’s genuinely a “needle-in-a-haystack” chance. PoE is honestly the exception, not the rule, the “F2P funded off microtransactions” model is almost guaranteed to fail, and is even more likely to fail if it’s “B2P and then funded off microtransactions.”
Their best bet was to use the Krafton acquisition to explain that reality didn’t match their expectations and going forward they’ll be operating off a “classic-style ARPG model with seasons.” Where they’d move to paid expansions w/ bonus classes (like GD, TQ1, and D2) while offering a seasonal ladder like D2.
Sure, they’d have balked on a kickstarter promise, but most long-term fans would have been understanding and most newer fans wouldn’t have known the original promise anyway. Their current strategy is not working.
I just checked in to see if my suspicions after the acquisition were correct, and it seems like they were. Guess GD and TQ2 are the only ARPGs I’ll be playing going forward.
1 Like
A lack of care by design cannot be intentful… for intent you need to want it.
If you don’t care you just don’t bother with it, simple as that.
Yes, I want the company to rather close down if they can’t deliver instead of giving them more money.
Do you keep paying someone for not doing what you paid em for? I mean… you do you… just seems rather nonsensical.
That this is even a point of discussion is utterly baffling.
Yes, I did, and if you don’t want to keep ripping it out of context you would realize what absolute idiotism it is to not suggest this solution, and what bigger one it is to not follow it even.
As stated… company bleeds money. You can now go bancrupt, turn it around or downscale.
Bancrupty is a complete ‘it’s over’, hence obviously not a solution.
Turning it around takes time, and EHG just burned the goodwill of the consumer base to an all-time low. It’s unlikely that this recovers in any reasonable time.
So that leaves only damage control. Every reasonable company downsizes when it’s mandatory to keep their doors open. Because let’s be entirely clear… if EHG doesn’t go ahead to turn a profit then Krafton will either dismantle the studio and take the losses… they’ll demand full control over decisions so they don’t bleed money further. Or they cut their losses and sell for a lower price with the stipulation that the other company buying it can take over control.
That’s the options.
This is not a damn tech startup company to focus on a patent sale and hence using money to sell for more afterwards. This is a ongoing service. You got individual customers. If you don’t provide things customers pay for and/or you’ve not enough customers providing money then you’ll go bancrupt. A service works on ongoing income versus expenditure, not on singular large sales. So to keep it running you gotta have the employee base at a size to stay profitable.
This is not the case, hence obviously you need to reduce the employee count.
The alternative is being more productive, be it through qualitative PR (more willing paying people for the same quality) or by providing quality (more willing paying people for merit).
EHG is absolutely horrendous with their PR since a good while. EHG is awful with their content and quality release since a good while.
So both seem to be unrealistic expectations.
Leaves only downsizing.
It’s idiotic to think otherwise plainly spoken.
Do I wish for it to happen? No, I don’t.
Does it need to or even more people get on the street? Yes, it does.
And people caring too much for the wrong stuff are those enabling those companies to do it in the first place.
They also don’t have ill-will and are empathic, but nonetheless they fuck it up for everyone else.
Just mentioning it, to give a little nudge for thought.
And there’s a difference between wanting them to fail and stating that they deserve to do it.
I do, it doesn’t feel like you do. You appear to get so focussed on the principle that you forget any form of pragmatism or reality.
No, just because a person isn’t planning on doing bad things to another person doesn’t mean there’s no ill will. The ill will leads to the intent, not the other way round.
Ill will is a feeling you gave towards someone where you wish harm/bad fortune to them (such as that they’d be made redundant), ill intent is the malicious motive to do some form of harm to someone.
Last I checked, this forum wasn’t a court of law stocked by lawyers.
Which was a strawman since I don’t believe anyone said it was.
The term ‘ill-will’ is is simply described as ‘animosity or bitterness’ towards someone and hence wishing them negative things.
That’s the most basic of basic descriptions.
The legal description on the other hand is ‘a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim.’
Which already puts the intent into it, no intent… no ill-will.
To harbor negative thought towards someone (individual) rather then something (a concept or a item) hence you need to have a hostile feeling towards that and wish negativity to happen. It’s the darn definition of ill will that you have a will attached to it.
Not providing a thought towards it (Hence not ‘caring’ about something) removes the will from it. Hence you cannot define it as ill-will.
As you personally state:
Where you wish it into someone. Hence intent is there.
And also since it seems to be coming from the word ‘intent’ itself:
Intent outside of the legal definition is stated as ‘The thing you plan to do or achieve’. Hence there is intent of thought present as well, which is the issue seemingly.
If you want them to become jobless then you need to intent it hence. That would be bearing ill-will.
If you state ‘they deserve to close down’ it first of removes the individual from the equation. hence no thought is given towards the individual. This inherently removes intent as there is no want for that. It’s a side-effect, side-effects are not intended.
Also the statement ‘deserve’ is not ‘want’. There is a distinction here as well. If someone deserves something it means you wouldn’t mind it happening best-case. If you want it instead it means you would feel negative if it doesn’t happen. You can want something for someone and they do deserve it. Those are separate things.
In my case I solely stated they deserve it. Not that I want it. What I want is for EHG to pull a No Man’s Sky, because that would be the optimal outcome for everyone, company, employee, customer. It’s a given unless you got some sort of issue to want that.
Which is distinctly different from what they deserve.
No, you can step away as a customer. That’s fine.
That I have to repeatedly try to explain the difference between stepping away and actively wanting someone to fail is utterly baffling. It’s not that hard.
I’ll stay, because I never bought into any promise of free content forever. I bought into 5 classes as announced at the steam store page. I’m fine with paying for a 6th, if I think it will be fun and if it is reasonably priced.
The context is your tone. As I said, you appear to me as a spiteful, vindictive person. For someone not caring, your attitude in writing seems to contain quite to much negative emotion.
Sometimes, a company needs to actually expand to produce something that then creates profit. Pushing through, getting additional investment, is sometimes the story of success.
That is not only true for patent selling tech start-ups.
To both, I wholeheartedly agree. EHG seems to be an internal mess with people who are not particularly good at their job.
They were in trouble a long time ago when development of the basic tech of the game took way longer than they anticipated.
I get different vibes.
1 Like
Yep, and where did I actively want them to fail?
Downsizing a company is avoiding it to fail… that’s what you don’t get.
Yeah, people loose their job.
You know when they also do that? When the studio gets shuttered for whatever reason. So kinda a priority to avoid that.
That’s a full-on ‘you’ problem.
My attitude in writing is at best being pissed off or annoyed in terms of negativity, but I tend to write the topics themselves as seeing it from a detached position without emotion.
Hence that’s why I’m also willing to simply say ‘throw some of those employees onto the streets’ as that’s what you can do when you’re not needlessly inserting yourself into it and instead try to view it from a outside point.
EHG is overbloated to heaven already in size.
If they’re unable to produce something with that size then they’re not better then all those ‘AAA’ studios which shutter down repeatedly since years now.
It’s a idiotic direction and has been proven over… and over… and over again not only directly in the gaming sector but in history overall.
Hence I don’t see it as a viable option.
Sitll a ‘you’ problem.
I can’t tell you enough how happy I am that I’m no longer interacting on the forum.
I thought things couldn’t get any worse after Shrukn got banned…
How do you manage to put up with that guy for so long without going crazy? 
1 Like
Perhaps here, but perhaps it’s a me-problem that I interpret your unwillingness to compromise, you advocating for EU customers to seek legal action against EHG to make an example etc. as you actively wanting them to shut down because things don’t go the way you want them to.
1 Like
That was related to their strategy, not the business.
Sorry, that was my bad there definitely.
For the remainder: Yes, obviously I do. Customers have a right to advocate for their rights… that’s a given. It would be dumb otherwise.
That may be how you feel as you’re writing your posts but that’s not always how your words come across. Part of that may be a language/translation thing as we’ve already seen with the difference Germans seems to take versus native English speakers.
Yeah, I miss you mate, hope things are going well for you.
The one thing that keeps me such a happy fluffy personality is that I know things can always get worse.
2 Likes
True.
But I think that insisting on one’s rights isn’t always the right thing to do - sometimes waiving your rights leads to a better, more practical outcome.
1 Like
Yes, absolutely true as well.
But that’s up for each individual. We can only make our rights known, but we should never infringe upon the rights of others.
LE is a buggy mess. That is one of the biggest reasons its taking a hit in steam as well as the Krafton mess. You never know if anything you are picking in skills or passives are working or even entire items. Streamers have made many vids on this. LE is a broken mess. Say what you will on Krafton thing but number 1 problem is that it doesnt work. Broken game is not going to be getting many postive reviews.
Krafton needs to immediately throw a ton of $ to get this game in working order and maybe they can recover by shutting up naysayers with a great product again but this is not what Krafton is known for but paid classes are.
1 Like