Jakajan

Premiums and power creep, thoughts on premiums done right and not.

  • You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

61 posts in this topic

Well, about destroyer premiums for example. Most of the time battleship premiums are just better than their tech tree counterparts, where Destroyers, Russians aside are more side steps.

 

Sims is somewhat better than Mahan I guess.

Oddly Lo Yang is a weaker Benson with hydro but still okay.

Anshan is okay, but there are better TO DD and more interesting.

Blyska is strong, but matched well vs Sims and Shiratsuyu. Honestly TO DD are well balanced.

 

Lol, am I complaining about good balance? Maybe I should stop now.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I am saying is DD premiums are well balanced vs tech tree DD, yet the premium BB must always be stronger than tech tree. Strange eh? German BB aside.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

And you - and for that matter, I, are tiny minorities in the player base in the "will surpass any grind wall" thing.

 

Think back to the Christmas special achievements marathon.

 

Of the people who won a battle, something like half weren't able to get the 1 container per day required for one of the other medals.

 

The vast majority of players are some form of casual who can't spend the time grinding the content, and are willing to pay to get past a grind wall.

 

~~~~~~

 

While my principles are mine, they have at least some basis in reality.

 

> If free players weren't needed for the success of the game, they wouldn't be allowed

> Given the number of games that either feature, or are transitioning to a F2P/F2Demo model of monetisation, having non-paying players around must be doing some form of good to the game.

> Selling power attracts P2W accusations, which hurts your marketability - especially to free to play players.

> Several games have collapsed with P2W as a central problem (among general mismanagement). I used to play Archeage, and the entire in game economy - and even crafting and earning gold - was based on certain cash shop items. Partly thanks to that, the game's entire economy crashed, and people left in droves.

 

Therefore:

 

> Since F2P players are necessary for the game, Selling power hurts the game as a whole

 

This is why you do not sell power. Furthermore, selling unique gameplay will inevitably lead to selling power at some point, unless you make a point of making premium ships objectively inferior - which is also a bad idea.. So how do you monetise the game?

 

> There are several wildly successful games that only monetise on cosmetics and convenience

 

Well, there's your answer.

 

~~~~~~

 

Your opinion is based on.... what?

 

"Well, I wouldn't spend money if the game was monetised that way, so your ideas are wrong".

 

The thing is Issm i'm drawing from the fact I own all the premiums sans the two I mentioned, i'm the spender. I can present myself as evidence. While I don't represent everyone I do represent one. Who can you present as evidence? Match the one and i'll concede but if you can't then you lack even enough evidence to match the little I present. That said Issm I am a fair person. I understand your point and I endorse fair play. But people aren't parting with cash, 90% anyway, given an option to avoid it. Yes that statistic is made up but would you really argue against it being a reasonable approximation? Also, which ship can I pay for that doesn't have loss as an option? Edited by _Caliph_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is Issm i'm drawing from the fact I own all the premiums sans the two I mentioned, i'm the spender. I can present myself as evidence. While I don't represent everyone I do represent one. Who can you present as evidence? Match the one and i'll concede but if you can't then you lack even enough evidence to match the little I present. That said Issm I am a fair person. I understand your point and I endorse fair play. But people aren't parting with cash, 90% anyway, given an option to avoid it. Yes that statistic is made up but would you really argue against it being a reasonable approximation? Also, which ship can I pay for that doesn't have loss as an option?

 

I see a few major issues here.

 

1) You can't handle nuance. Ships aren't P2W just because they don't have 100% W/R. Ignoring the fact that premiums dominated the last ranked season, or how Takao and Kutuzov were extremely strong picks for the season before that.

 

2) I provided evidence. Your problem is you seem to be unable to accept anything but anecdotes as evidence - which, unfortunately, means you are unable to accept evidence, period.

 

My evidence:

 

- The proliferation of games that are F2P or have F2P elements demonstrate hat having free players around is necessary. If they weren't, the for profit companies would't be letting people mooch off their products and services.

 

- P2W being bad. I provided the example of Archeage. The majority of the game, crafting, trade runs, etc, all depended on cash shop items. The P2W elements in the game, combined with an economy based on the assumption that X amount of cash shop content would be used ended up driving hordes of players away from the game.

 

  - WoWS isn't bad on the first case, outside of a few exceptions, but the second is in definite conflict with the expectations some players may enter the game with 

  (I'm going to get to play a Yamato......what do you mean it'll take me a year of grinding just to get there, and upkeep requires me to play 2 T5 games for every Yamato game I play?)

 

  - An additional addendum, Being actually P2W is not as important as an appearance of P2W. Having high profile issues like "Buy a Belfast to rank out" = not god.

 

- As for evidence that games can get by without selling unique gameplay, I point you no further than LoL. LoL only works because of it's playerbase? Then I point you to games like DoTA, Hearthstone, Path of Exile, CS:GO, and so on.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like ships like the Molotov, Graff Spee, and Atlanta in the spirit of premiums. Ships that either don't fit in a practical way in the trees or are slightly buffed, but uptiered versions of a tree ship. NOT the Belfast which is a tree ship, 'nerfed' and dropped a tier, or a blatant better version of a tree ship like the Texas.

 

I mean, the texas' only real draw is ungodly AA, so in matches without carriers you still are forced to show enough side to get citadelled and her bow can still be punched through by her own guns. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just please don't make more Kutusov and I'll be happy. 

Kaga? No need to fear just wip out a Saipan or an Atlanta and all your problems are solved. Plus Kaga will see Baltimore's so idt its over powered at all. 

 

As a CV, the iteration of the Kaga that I saw on youtube appeared massively OP.  Sure, it can show up in a match with Baltimores, but I would just cross drop DDs.  Two squads of 6 TBs with super fast torps will wreck DDs.  It might take some time to learn how to do that cross drop, but once mastered, they wouldn't stand a chance.

 

As for the Saipan...  I think I could deal with it.  It would be tough, but I think I could pull it off.  I really wish I could get my hands on this ship to test it though.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Texas is better than a new York though with no drawback but .5 knots.

 

The Arizona is better than New Mexico.

 

And now a days every single premium BB will be compared to German BB of the same tier because they are so forgivingly sturdy.

 

Just like Harekaze will be compared not so much to Kaveri, but more so to Benson because she is the queen of DD for that tier


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Look at your internet model without a internet connection some day and tell me how nice it is.

 

Since I am not living on the moon this is unlikely to happen and could be compared to nighttime with the power cut. Very unlikely to happen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

I see a few major issues here.

 

1) You can't handle nuance. Ships aren't P2W just because they don't have 100% W/R. Ignoring the fact that premiums dominated the last ranked season, or how Takao and Kutuzov were extremely strong picks for the season before that.

 

2) I provided evidence. Your problem is you seem to be unable to accept anything but anecdotes as evidence - which, unfortunately, means you are unable to accept evidence, period.

 

My evidence:

 

- The proliferation of games that are F2P or have F2P elements demonstrate hat having free players around is necessary. If they weren't, the for profit companies would't be letting people mooch off their products and services.

 

- P2W being bad. I provided the example of Archeage. The majority of the game, crafting, trade runs, etc, all depended on cash shop items. The P2W elements in the game, combined with an economy based on the assumption that X amount of cash shop content would be used ended up driving hordes of players away from the game.

 

  - WoWS isn't bad on the first case, outside of a few exceptions, but the second is in definite conflict with the expectations some players may enter the game with

  (I'm going to get to play a Yamato......what do you mean it'll take me a year of grinding just to get there, and upkeep requires me to play 2 T5 games for every Yamato game I play?)

 

  - An additional addendum, Being actually P2W is not as important as an appearance of P2W. Having high profile issues like "Buy a Belfast to rank out" = not god.

 

- As for evidence that games can get by without selling unique gameplay, I point you no further than LoL. LoL only works because of it's playerbase? Then I point you to games like DoTA, Hearthstone, Path of Exile, CS:GO, and so on.

 

No Issm what you are doing is creating your own terms and definitions and changing them on the fly as you need to.

 

Let's start with Pay2Win. This term you toss around to place yourself in a moral high ground for anyone reading it. But if the ship can not be forced to win then it isn't Pay2Win. It's you labeling something you can not or will not afford as such. It's the personal name you give to the straw man you like to beat up.

 

You've provided no evidence. You have made assertions and fallacious claims.

 

Free players aren't necessary. They are useful though. Without free players the community would be smaller but financially stable. Free players provide none of the actual revenue needed to keep the game above water.

A large community isn't necessary for the games survival, a spending community is however because the servers cost money to run and the dev team has to be paid. I suppose theoretically a mega rich CEO could keep the game open with no income coming in if they wanted, but it's not the case here nor anywhere else.

 

This isn't Archeage. And what may or may not be bad in that game has no relevance to this game. It's just more of you demonizing things you can not or will not afford by muddying the waters with rhetoric about that game.

This isn't Dota or LoL. And actually I could display proof of how much money I've spent in Dota. I'm in for a few hundred every year around the International for the limited edition costumes and map that comes with the levels of the compendium. I would not buy cosmetics in this game for ships because the camos look ridiculous and it's just not the same.

 

If you enter the game with expectations whose fault is that? You're a free player, why expect anything? You certainly don't have an entitlement to anything.

 

The game doesn't appear Pay2Win to everyone. Just you. You speak for yourself. There is no large crowd of free players behind you, if that would even matter.

 

The proliferation of Free2Play games doesn't show free players importance. It shows a decline in peoples interest to pay a subscription for theme park mmos, patch cycles, forum politics that result in nerfs based on whinge and just the public waking up to being milked for a subpar experience. It also shows that a few Dev Studios considered if they could bring a million players to the game that if even a small portion spent some money that maybe they could be successful. The free players were never the important part. That's just the bait. As one who has played both I can tell you free players aren't the heaven sent influx you like to insist they are. Not only do they not have a financial stake in the games success, they have no fear from rule breaking and just as too many immigrants at once can change a country to the point it's cultural fabric is destroyed so to can a sudden wave of people who aren't tied to the community. Granted in WGs case this started as F2P so it doesn't apply. But much of the toxicity people complain about in games comes from free players. Anyone with money tied up in the game thinks long and hard before doing such.

 

Edited by _Caliph_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You pay, in case of the Prinz Eugen, 50$ for a detailed model of the ship. It can't get broken by your cat, you can sail it out, watch it fire, watch it burn, watch it sink. The only downside is that you don't hold it in your hands, other than that it is far better than any ship model I have ever seen.

 

My RC combat models sail out, shoot at things, and sink them/get sunk.  They cost a hell of a lot more than an 80 dollar prinz eugen though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My RC combat models sail out, shoot at things, and sink them/get sunk.  They cost a hell of a lot more than an 80 dollar prinz eugen though.

 

Can you set it on fire as well? :trollface:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~snip~

 

No, what you're doing is forcing absolute definitions, and ignoring nuance.

 

There is literally no game where paying literally hands you free wins. P2W ALWAYS comes in the form of "pay to have a huge advantage you'd have to be an idiot to lose with"

 

Furthermore, I'm not even accusing WoWS of being P2W. I've explicitly defended the game against such claims in the past.

 

HOWEVER.

 

Things like ranked last season, with the dominance of T7 premiums like Belfast and Scharnhorst, certainty does give the impression of being P2W - and impressions are, sadly, as important as substance.

 

~~~~~~

 

Second, I ask you again, IF FREE PLAYERS ARE NOT NESSESARY, WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED?

 

No, free players are not needed to financially support games.

 

But free players ARE necessary to maintain a quality level of gameplay.

 

Free players are necessary such that MM doesn't take 5 mins to find enough people for a 10 minute match, or that WG can keep a 3 tier spread with reasonable queue times, instead of having 5 tier spreads just so people only wait 5 minutes for a match instead of 10 minutes.

 

Online games need PLAYERS as well as revenue to survive.

 

It doesn't matter if the reason F2P is rising because people are no longer willing to pay for a subscription, or to B2P.

 

What matters is that you can no longer maintain a large enough playerbase through only paid users to have a game worth playing.

 

Regardless of reason, this makes free players necessary.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

No, what you're doing is forcing absolute definitions, and ignoring nuance.

 

There is literally no game where paying literally hands you free wins. P2W ALWAYS comes in the form of "pay to have a huge advantage you'd have to be an idiot to lose with"

 

Furthermore, I'm not even accusing WoWS of being P2W. I've explicitly defended the game against such claims in the past.

 

HOWEVER.

 

Things like ranked last season, with the dominance of T7 premiums like Belfast and Scharnhorst, certainty does give the impression of being P2W - and impressions are, sadly, as important as substance.

 

~~~~~~

 

Second, I ask you again, IF FREE PLAYERS ARE NOT NESSESARY, WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED?

 

No, free players are not needed to financially support games.

 

But free players ARE necessary to maintain a quality level of gameplay.

 

Free players are necessary such that MM doesn't take 5 mins to find enough people for a 10 minute match, or that WG can keep a 3 tier spread with reasonable queue times, instead of having 5 tier spreads just so people only wait 5 minutes for a match instead of 10 minutes.

 

Online games need PLAYERS as well as revenue to survive.

 

It doesn't matter if the reason F2P is rising because people are no longer willing to pay for a subscription, or to B2P.

 

What matters is that you can no longer maintain a large enough playerbase through only paid users to have a game worth playing.

 

Regardless of reason, this makes free players necessary.

 

No one is going to buy $50 ships that are excluded from ranked play. Whether it's an advantage or not the reality is that it's how things are going to be. So it's pointless to argue over. If the ships are balanced enough for play at tier 7 random then whether they change the name to ranked or league doesn't matter. If you exclude them then the argument can be made that something is unfair about them so why allow them at all in any mode. You might as well build a bridge and get over that issue because WG isn't going to kill their income to appease your sense of fairplay.

 

Free players are large blocks of potential income. Until they become income they are a liability. They require extra server space to support. It's a gamble. That's why they are allowed. The same reason the casino allows people to come into the casino without demanding they provide a bank statement and cost of living report.

 

You're using circular logic to justify ever more need for more players. The queues wouldn't take any longer to fill, save for a game with literally not enough people to fill the queue to the point the game starts, than it will with a million people. You either have the required amount of people in the right ships to start the game or you don't. And there will always be stragglers waiting for enough to fill the next queue after every possible game has started. Further, if but 500 people in total played WoWs the game size could be scaled back to accommodate that. There is also a maximum amount of concurrent games the server could host and having too many people could very well increase queue times with that too. Unless those free players become spenders the hardware doesn't magically expand to accommodate them.

 

Quite frankly, having too many free players that do not convert to spenders increases the server overhead and cost to the point that the spenders can not possibly spend enough money to keep the game viable. So in reality the more that play and refuse to spend can very well lead to the games closing assuming they refused to start charging to play and opted to cancel the project instead.

 

 Sure ad revenue brings income but not what many like to claim it does. First, if you don't click those ads they bring nothing. Advertisers have many places to spend their advertising dollars and they aren't paying that money to host a gif on your site that no one bothers to click. Even if they do click the ad the revenue is chump change in the grand scheme of things. It's supplementary income at best and wouldn't scratch the paint in terms of cost if this forum and website were plastered with ads to the point every spot you clicked had one. Free players aren't going around clicking ads for a hobby either. It's a pipedream. Just like the dot.com collapse in the 90s.

 

Your whole premise boils down to games without large populations aren't fun and can't be successful. If that were the case we'd all be playing Warcraft, CSGO or Dota at the moment.

Edited by _Caliph_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No one is going to buy $50 ships that are excluded from ranked play. Whether it's an advantage or not the reality is that it's how things are going to be. So it's pointless to argue over. If the ships are balanced enough for play at tier 7 random then whether you change the name to ranked or league doesn't matter. If you exclude them then the argument can be made that something is unfair about them so why allow them at all in any mode. You might as well build a bridge and get over that issue because WG isn't going to kill their income to appease your sense of fairplay.

 

Free players are large blocks of potential income. Until they become income they are a liability. They require extra server space to support. It's a gamble.

 

You're using circular logic to justify ever more need for more players. The queues wouldn't take any longer to fill, save for a game with literally not enough people to fill the queue to the point the game starts, than it will with a million people. You either have the required amount of people in the right ships to start the game or you don't. And there will always be stragglers waiting for enough to fill the next queue after every possible game has started. Further, if but 500 people in total played WoWs the game size could be scaled back to accommodate that. There is also a maximum amount of concurrent games the server could host and having to many people could very well increase queue times with that too.

 

Quite frankly, having too many free players that do not convert to spenders increases the server overhead and cost to the point that the spenders can not possibly spend enough money to keep the game viable. So in reality the more that play can very well lead to the games closing assuming they refused to start charging to play and opted to cancel the project instead.

 

- Which is why I suggested that, you know, those premium ships be made available for free, in a difficult, but reasonable manner, a la Missouri, except without any premium bonuses.

 

But no, just because that wouldn't convince YOUR special snowflakeness to buy premium, it clearly would never work.

 

- Please, show how I'm using circular logic. You seem to be confusing "circular logic" with "feedback loop".

 

My logic is straightforwards and linear:

 

1) Online games are not fun if there are not sufficient people to play with

2) As B2P/S2P games lose players, the game slowly becomes less and less engaging.

  Ergo, fewer people > less fun > even fewer people > even less fun > etc.

3) The cause of this is completely irrelevant to the argument. It can be because people don't like the changes to the game, because they get sick of forum politics, whatever,

4) Free players solve this problem, by opening up the game to a huge new potential playerbase.

 

And sure, having too many free users for your paying players to support can absolutely be a problem, and pretending this isn't a valid problem is delusional. But pretending that free players are completely unnecessary is just as delusional.

 

If you want a successful game, you have to balance keeping your free players happy with converting enough of them to paying users to keep the lights on. Be too nice to the free players, and you risk running a deficit. Monetise too aggressively, and you risk losing your free playerbase. Both are bad for your game.

 

Selling objectively more powerful ships is a clear case of monetising too aggressively.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

- Which is why I suggested that, you know, those premium ships be made available for free, in a difficult, but reasonable manner, a la Missouri, except without any premium bonuses.

 

But no, just because that wouldn't convince YOUR special snowflakeness to buy premium, it clearly would never work.

 

- Please, show how I'm using circular logic. You seem to be confusing "circular logic" with "feedback loop".

 

My logic is straightforwards and linear:

 

1) Online games are not fun if there are not sufficient people to play with

2) As B2P/S2P games lose players, the game slowly becomes less and less engaging.

  Ergo, fewer people > less fun > even fewer people > even less fun > etc.

3) The cause of this is completely irrelevant to the argument. It can be because people don't like the changes to the game, because they get sick of forum politics, whatever,

4) Free players solve this problem, by opening up the game to a huge new potential playerbase.

 

And sure, having too many free users for your paying players to support can absolutely be a problem, and pretending this isn't a valid problem is delusional. But pretending that free players are completely unnecessary is just as delusional.

 

If you want a successful game, you have to balance keeping your free players happy with converting enough of them to paying users to keep the lights on. Be too nice to the free players, and you risk running a deficit. Monetise too aggressively, and you risk losing your free playerbase. Both are bad for your game.

 

Selling objectively more powerful ships is a clear case of monetising too aggressively.

 

No, you do not have the right to acquire what others have paid for free. Particularly when those people who paid for the ships were not informed that option would become available. But beyond that it's not going to happen because all it will do is further reduce the number of spenders as they migrate to free players. Free players are not going to migrate to spenders after you give them an option to get everything free.

 

Your logic is straightforward and linear but completely devoid of reality and business acumen. I'm being harsh because you are being stubborn. I don't like that position because you are civil and I feel like a bully but you are just asking for things that aren't going to happen and you are intelligent enough to understand why.

Edited by _Caliph_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

No, you do not have the right to acquire what others have paid for free. Particularly when those people who paid for the ships were not informed that option would become available. But beyond that it's not going to happen because all it will do is further reduce the number of spenders as they migrate to free players. Free players are not going to migrate to spenders after you give them an option to get everything free.

 

Your logic is straightforward and linear but completely devoid of reality and business acumen. I'm being harsh because you are being stubborn. I don't like that position because you are civil and I feel like a bully but you are just asking for things that aren't going to happen and you are intelligent enough to understand why.

 

I certainly have the right to acquire for free what others have paid for.

 

It's called the Missouri, or, for that matter, any other ship which can be acquired for Free EXP.

 

"Especially not if they were informed the free option would be available"?

 

Wrong again, it's called the ARP Takao, the Kamikaze ® (To a lesser degree, there was no reason to expect she would be offered as an earnable prize a second time), any ship ever offered as a contest prize or SC drop, and any ship available for doubloons (also to a lesser degree, as doubloons are available as various prizes).

 

As for your delusion that no one would pay for premiums if they could get the ships for free, would you care you explain why people convert free exp, or purchase FXP flags and premium time to grind her out?

 

I don't give a damn if you personally wouldn't do it, there are plenty of people who would.

 

~~~~~~

 

Devoid of business acumen?

 

I wonder what companies have used the model of offering free services to gain market share, and boost user base...... Oh, I don't know, maybe all of [edited]social media?

 

It's a pretty damn successful business model

 

Devoid of reality? You can go look at game after game that eventually go F2P in some form as they lose subscriber base.

 

Aion, EVE, Tera, ESO, and so on.

 

The market for sub based, or buy to play games only goes so far. Once a few major titles, say, WoW, or Overwatch take a majority market share of players willing to subscribe or buy the game, you NEED free players to make up the difference, or you'll be stuck with an online game with insufficient people playing it to make it a engaging experience.

 

For something as niche as WoWS, there probably isn't enough of a playerbase willing to support it via subs or B2P, period.

Edited by issm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

I certainly have the right to acquire for free what others have paid for.

 

It's called the Missouri, or, for that matter, any other ship which can be acquired for Free EXP.

 

"Especially not if they were informed the free option would be available"?

 

Wrong again, it's called the ARP Takao, the Kamikaze ® (To a lesser degree, there was no reason to expect she would be offered as an earnable prize a second time), any ship ever offered as a contest prize or SC drop, and any ship available for doubloons (also to a lesser degree, as doubloons are available as various prizes).

 

As for your delusion that no one would pay for premiums if they could get the ships for free, would you care you explain why people convert free exp, or purchase FXP flags and premium time to grind her out?

 

I don't give a damn if you personally wouldn't do it, there are plenty of people who would.

 

~~~~~~

 

Devoid of business acumen?

 

I wonder what companies have used the model of offering free services to gain market share, and boost user base...... Oh, I don't know, maybe all of [edited]social media?

 

It's a pretty damn successful business model

 

Devoid of reality? You can go look at game after game that eventually go F2P in some form as they lose subscriber base.

 

Aion, EVE, Tera, ESO, and so on.

 

The market for sub based, or buy to play games only goes so far. Once a few major titles, say, WoW, or Overwatch take a majority market share of players willing to subscribe or buy the game, you NEED free players to make up the difference, or you'll be stuck with an online game with insufficient people playing it to make it a engaging experience.

 

For something as niche as WoWS, there probably isn't enough of a playerbase willing to support it via subs or B2P, period.

 

That's the exception Issm, not the rule. The people that may have paid had the same option you did earning it. Nor is it a right merely a privilege. The trip into your alternate reality is mentally taxing and at the end one comes out with nothing gained, none of your ideas implemented and still having to endure you saying the same things as if everything said to you was stated in an alien language. Social media is a successful business model? Zuckerberg still hasn't found a way to monetize facebook. Investors are hoping he finds a way and gambling on it. As of now ad revenue is all he has and his fortune is composed of other peoples money hoping he finds a way. Edited by _Caliph_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I no longer have any valid criticisms or rebuttals, so I'm going to run away like a female dog while pretending I have the high ground.

 

Fixed it for you.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

Fixed it for you.

 

No you didn't. The problem is you're a guy with no income, can't afford anything that you want, a limited education and you brow beat people with concepts that have no application in the real world. If they did you'd be earning your free ships right now instead of trying to convince everyone that allowing cheapskates and deadbeats to earn everything free would turn WG into a mega successful company with money that makes Microsoft jealous.

Edited by _Caliph_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

My ideas are incapable of standing on their own merits,  so I'm going to take the idiot's way out and sling petty insults.

 

Fixed it for you

 

PS: Microsoft gave out a few billions dollars worth of Win10 for free last year, and probably loses billions on bundled installations of their OS, because Microsoft, unlike you, understands that in real life business, building and holding user base and market share is just as important as extracting money from their user base.

Edited by issm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

Fixed it for you

 

PS: Microsoft gave out a few billions dollars worth of Win10 for free last year, and probably loses billions on bundled installations of their OS, because Microsoft, unlike you, understands that in real live business, building and holding user base and market share is just as important as extracting money from their user base.

 

Okay Issm now i'm reporting you for putting words I didn't say under my name. That isn't allowed on the forums. You've the lost the debate and you're raging and trolling and you called me a [edited]. You are starting to really piss me off.

 

Microsoft gave windows 10 to users that had a copy of Windows already you simpleton. They didn't go handing it out free to Linux users. Bundled installations are included in the price of new PCs. You can have the world's attention, marketshare, but if you have nothing to sell them because you give away free it means absolutely nothing. You are clueless.

Edited by _Caliph_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Okay Issm now i'm reporting you for putting words I didn't say under my name. That isn't allowed on the forums. You've the lost the debate and you're raging and trolling and you called me a [edited]. You are starting to really piss me off.

 

Microsoft gave windows 10 to users that had a copy of Windows already you daft simpleton.

 

No, actually it is.

 

Impersonating WG staff is not allowed, the rules make no mention of impersonating other users.

 

Furthermore, you lost the debate when, as I pointed out, you fell to petty insults and "I'm bored and leaving". (Oh, and "whaaaa I'm running to the moderators" is yet another admission of defeat)

 

And as for Windows 10, while it was offered as a free upgrade to existing Windows users, it was a free offer that Microsoft DID NOT HAVE TO OFFER.

 

If you want to upgrade now, after the offer period, it's a paid product.

 

Furthermore, you ignore how MS offers their software bundled at steep discounts pre-installed on consumer PCs.

 

But if you don't like the MS example, I can simply point you towards Google and their Android OS, which they allowed phone manufacturers to use at zero cost.

 

Wow guys are you okay? Would any of you like a sandwich?

 

Meatball sub, everything but tomatoes, thanks.

Edited by issm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

No, actually it is.

 

Impersonating WG staff is not allowed, the rules make no mention of impersonating other users.

 

Furthermore, you lost the debate when, as I pointed out, you fell to petty insults and "I'm bored and leaving". (Oh, and "whaaaa I'm running to the moderators" is yet another admission of defeat)

 

And as for Windows 10, while it was offered as a free upgrade to existing Windows users, it was a free offer that Microsoft DID NOT HAVE TO OFFER.

 

If you want to upgrade now, after the offer period, it's a paid product.

 

Furthermore, you ignore how MS offers their software bundled at steep discounts pre-installed on consumer PCs.

 

But if you don't like the MS example, I can simply point you towards Google and their Android OS, which they allowed phone manufacturers to use at zero cost.

 

 

Meatball sub, everything but tomatoes, thanks.

 

Okay well you'll learn. You can not take someone's name and put under that as a quote something they did not say. When you get your warning consider that a pimp slap and a lesson learned.

 

 As for your endless examples don't bother. Because you aren't going to join the have's without expending the currency. You don't have to convince me, you have to convince WG. And you quite frankly can't convince the forum to pay attention to anything you write let alone a company to cut their own throat so you can have things you can't afford.

Edited by _Caliph_

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Okay well you'll learn. You can not take someone's name and put under that as a quote something they did not say. When you get your warning and you will get one if I have to file a report on the actual website consider that a pimp slap and a lesson learned.

 

Please quote the rule I'm violating.

 

Oh, and while we're on rule violations, try this one:

 

"Certain content for names, avatars, images/video, signatures & clan logos, have no place on the World of Warships forums or within the World of Warships game, due to their extremely offensive, annoying or inappropriate nature.

 

The following list is only a summary, but it gives some idea of names, images, signatures, avatars and clan logos which are not accepted with the World of Warships environment:


Names, Avatars, Images/Video, Signatures & Clan logos ....

  • that contain reference to current mainstream religions that may create offense, i.e. names such as God, Jesus, Allah, etc."

 

I assume you know what a "Caliph" is, and the historical and modern baggage that goes along with it? 

 

People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Edited by issm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.