Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Master_Chief69

Informed consumers will still be informed

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

54
[90THD]
Beta Testers
145 posts
2,175 battles

From a business perspective I can somewhat understand the motivation behind the embargo of  CC content until the ships release or close to it. This will not stop consumers from being informed. Many of us will simply wait for the unbiased review positive or negative from the various CC's  and decide from there if a ship is worth the buy. By intentionally keeping your player base in the dark WG you are opening yourself up to yet another public relations nightmare to the point where the mere appearance of deception whether intended or not will cause a drop in player activity. We are not walking wallets without a conscience. We are human beings with brains. Like it or not we as a community will make informed decisions. 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88
[B-Z]
Members
157 posts
22,051 battles
10 minutes ago, Master_Chief69 said:

...... We are not walking wallets without a conscience. We are human beings with brains. Like it or not we as a community will make informed decisions. 

Like it or not your "we" doesn't appear to apply to a large percentage of the player base.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles
17 minutes ago, Master_Chief69 said:

From a business perspective I can somewhat understand the motivation behind the embargo of  CC content until the ships release or close to it. This will not stop consumers from being informed. Many of us will simply wait for the unbiased review positive or negative from the various CC's  and decide from there if a ship is worth the buy. By intentionally keeping your player base in the dark WG you are opening yourself up to yet another public relations nightmare to the point where the mere appearance of deception whether intended or not will cause a drop in player activity. We are not walking wallets without a conscience. 

Many players (if not most) will just just buy the ships wihtout seeing the reviews. This is probably the point of this CC changes. Directly or indirectly, many players would see some reviews and disscussion in YT, foruns, Reddit, other social medias. I guess ships that were rated as bad or average would probably no sell much because of that, so WG is just cutting the reviews to have less discussion around ships. 

20 minutes ago, Master_Chief69 said:

 We are human beings with brains. Like it or not we as a community will make informed decisions. 

This is the thing, most players dont have a brain, or they have but dont use it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
188
[BBMOD]
Members
348 posts
5,767 battles

I guess i don't understand the fuss over this. In the real world, reviewers prepare their reviews based on finished products, not prototypes. The auto industry typically doesn't hand out preproduction models for the journalists to review. They wait for early production models and write their reviews off of those. Not sure why WG is being held to a different standard.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
364
[KMS]
Beta Testers
291 posts
16,700 battles
5 minutes ago, John_Crace said:

Like it or not your "we" doesn't appear to apply to a large percentage of the player base.

see my post today  about paying $4 for 2.86 in random bundle

how many people are gong to take the time to do the math and see that there is an often big difference in received value vs price in bundles and containers.

for the last 8 months the overall value/price for containers and bundles has been dropping this is especially true in the Armory.

there are some good deals, esp in the gift shop, but there are overpriced stuff also,

given the known price (in game or shop) of gold , credits, coal or xp for items will allow one to extrapolate a value for anything else with a calculator.

in the long run WG will make more money by giving good deals, highest possible pricing does not equal max overall profits. 

silly example: sell 4 ships for $500 or 10,000 ships for $20, which makes more for WG, WG is selling mostly Air so it is a  very simple Eco 101 solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,346
[_RNG_]
Supertester
3,135 posts
5,008 battles

Exactly correct, informed people will always be informed. However, they can and will draw their own conclusions that will not rally the community with hatred. 

 

Look at Slava. That ship had its reputation DESTROYED, primarily because of CCs. People could have seen how powerful she was in testing/looked at her stats and drawn their own conclusions, and she would have been quietly been balanced and  brought in line with the meta. However the CCs rallied the entire community and there was huge outcry. Now Slava has to dissapear and be scrapped or mothballed, because her reputation is obliterated.

 

I think Happa used Indomitable as an example too. 

 

Just in my opinion, CCs are obviously wanting to take things to the extremes. Who us going to want to watch a review of an average ship when they can see Slava 20km dev strikes. 

 

I mean I am neither a CC nor WG, and just saw the change in a post yesterday... but I do think it is for the better. It sucks that new stuff wont be covered, but I think in the end it will help PR as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,520
[TARK]
Members
6,594 posts
2,520 battles
8 minutes ago, Grimm262 said:

I guess i don't understand the fuss over this. In the real world, reviewers prepare their reviews based on finished products, not prototypes. The auto industry typically doesn't hand out preproduction models for the journalists to review. They wait for early production models and write their reviews off of those. Not sure why WG is being held to a different standard.

WG does not sell finished products.

The entire game is still prototypes.

The problem with this model is that historically, WG has relied quite heavily on feedback from the community to guide marketing of the prototypes.

There seems to be an concerted push to hide market feedback from WG business leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,520
[TARK]
Members
6,594 posts
2,520 battles
3 minutes ago, _BBaby said:

Exactly correct, informed people will always be informed. However, they can and will draw their own conclusions that will not rally the community with hatred. 

 

Look at Slava. That ship had its reputation DESTROYED, primarily because of CCs. People could have seen how powerful she was in testing/looked at her stats and drawn their own conclusions, and she would have been quietly been balanced and  brought in line with the meta. However the CCs rallied the entire community and there was huge outcry. Now Slava has to dissapear and be scrapped or mothballed, because her reputation is obliterated.

 

I think Happa used Indomitable as an example too. 

 

Just in my opinion, CCs are obviously wanting to take things to the extremes. Who us going to want to watch a review of an average ship when they can see Slava 20km dev strikes. 

 

I mean I am neither a CC nor WG, and just saw the change in a post yesterday... but I do think it is for the better. It sucks that new stuff wont be covered, but I think in the end it will help PR as a whole.

The problems with Slava abd Indomitable are NOT caused by CC bad reviews.

The ships themselves are bad for the game in their various ways.

This is NOT the CCs fault.

The root cause is a poor development process.

Stop blaming outsiders for your own problems.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,346
[_RNG_]
Supertester
3,135 posts
5,008 battles
7 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

The problems with Slava abd Indomitable are NOT caused by CC bad reviews.

The ships themselves are bad for the game in their various ways.

This is NOT the CCs fault.

The root cause is a poor development process.

Stop blaming outsiders for your own problems.

I never said it was the CCs fault. Not one bit! What CCs did do is take the Slava and rapidly turn it into bad PR for the company, so much so that WG had to mothball the ship.

 

The development process is one thing, but it didnt even get to run its course before being shut down by negative rep, primarily fueled by videos and clips of those 20km dev strikes and amazing dispersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,654
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,735 posts
21 minutes ago, _BBaby said:

Just in my opinion, CCs are obviously wanting to take things to the extremes. Who us going to want to watch a review of an average ship when they can see Slava 20km dev strikes. 

I'd rather watch a good review, that actually shows me the numbers and armor scheme and such on a ship, than a cherry-picking rant-fest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,913
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
14,098 posts
19,199 battles
1 hour ago, Master_Chief69 said:

By intentionally keeping your player base in the dark WG you are opening yourself up to yet another public relations nightmare to the point where the mere appearance of deception whether intended or not will cause a drop in player activity.

I'm waiting for the official release that states: "We realize we are going to totally screw these new ships up, so we are taking steps to insure the player base doesn't find out about it until we already have their money. Thank you and have a nice day!"

31 minutes ago, _BBaby said:

Look at Slava. That ship had its reputation DESTROYED, primarily because of CCs. People could have seen how powerful she was in testing/looked at her stats and drawn their own conclusions, and she would have been quietly been balanced and  brought in line with the meta. However the CCs rallied the entire community and there was huge outcry. Now Slava has to dissapear and be scrapped or mothballed, because her reputation is obliterated.

Wow, you REALLY wanted a Slava, huh? Poor Pookie, as a supertester you know WG and the Devs pay attention to NOTHING the player base says, and even less than that when it comes from the NA player base. So why don't you just tell the truth and say that the CCs screwed you out of your totally OP super BB; we'd respect you more, though we couldn't care less.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles
1 hour ago, _BBaby said:

Exactly correct, informed people will always be informed. However, they can and will draw their own conclusions that will not rally the community with hatred. 

 

Look at Slava. That ship had its reputation DESTROYED, primarily because of CCs. People could have seen how powerful she was in testing/looked at her stats and drawn their own conclusions, and she would have been quietly been balanced and  brought in line with the meta. However the CCs rallied the entire community and there was huge outcry. Now Slava has to dissapear and be scrapped or mothballed, because her reputation is obliterated.

Slava had its reputation destroyed for a reason, it was a OP ship. WG tried to ignore the feedback, but once it got to big they just removed the ship. They could have avoided this but just rebalancing the ship. But no, WG is always pushing things to the limit, they are always trying to see who is going to step down first, the community or themselves... This is the same for other ships aswell. 

1 hour ago, _BBaby said:

I mean I am neither a CC nor WG, and just saw the change in a post yesterday... but I do think it is for the better. It sucks that new stuff wont be covered, but I think in the end it will help PR as a whole.

Of course is going to help their PR, to not have to deal with negative feedback they just remove the feedback... By the time CCs are allowed to show their reviews the ships are already in final state and coming into the game, so there is not much the community can do about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[BUOY]
Members
1,008 posts
14,525 battles
1 hour ago, _BBaby said:

I never said it was the CCs fault. Not one bit! What CCs did do is take the Slava and rapidly turn it into bad PR for the company, so much so that WG had to mothball the ship.

The development process is one thing, but it didnt even get to run its course before being shut down by negative rep, primarily fueled by videos and clips of those 20km dev strikes and amazing dispersion.

This is all part of a cycle, I remember the early days when NDA's were strict and you didn't get ship announcements until a month or less before release and no details until a week or two... and that worked fine (aside from the Nikolai)... until the Graf Zeppelin 1.0 hit like a Tallboy bomb...

But now things have swung the 'No Man's Sky' other way with the community affecting decisions way too much such as obliterating the Slava like it was a certain ship holed up in a Norwegian fjord and with all the VMF CA line split rage and etc.

They'll swing back when the next GZ 1.0 hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,914 posts
11,593 battles
1 hour ago, _BBaby said:

I never said it was the CCs fault. Not one bit! What CCs did do is take the Slava and rapidly turn it into bad PR for the company, so much so that WG had to mothball the ship.

 

The development process is one thing, but it didnt even get to run its course before being shut down by negative rep, primarily fueled by videos and clips of those 20km dev strikes and amazing dispersion.

thats what the Slava's problem was, it was a BB that could snipe from the back, something that didnt need more encouraging with the current meta of camping BBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,520
[TARK]
Members
6,594 posts
2,520 battles
1 hour ago, _BBaby said:

I never said it was the CCs fault. Not one bit! What CCs did do is take the Slava and rapidly turn it into bad PR for the company, so much so that WG had to mothball the ship.

 

The development process is one thing, but it didnt even get to run its course before being shut down by negative rep, primarily fueled by videos and clips of those 20km dev strikes and amazing dispersion.

Classic gaslight. You 'never' said it was CCs fault...then say its the videos and clips from the CCs showing actual gameplay of the product that 'stopped development.'

This is such a duplicitous argument.

The behavior of the ship caused the PR problems. Those PR 'problems' arent actually problems...but feedback that could and should have been used to develop the concept further into a non-broken performance state.

But instead of taking that valuable feedback and completing the development cycle to recoup the revenue of the ship...the staff threw a tantrum, stopped all work...and blamed the players for the staff's own laziness.

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,040
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
11,403 posts
15,843 battles
2 hours ago, Grimm262 said:

I guess i don't understand the fuss over this. In the real world, reviewers prepare their reviews based on finished products, not prototypes. The auto industry typically doesn't hand out preproduction models for the journalists to review. They wait for early production models and write their reviews off of those. Not sure why WG is being held to a different standard.

So much this. 

I love this change. Will make things so much smoother and less confusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×