Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Bravo_Zulu_000

Costs of Murmansk-gate?

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

286
[-B-Z-]
Alpha Tester
715 posts
4,225 battles

 

Living in North America, I can dismiss the $1.27 CAD I spent on the bundle as a cheap mistake, but I was only motivated to buy it after Gunlion made his post about getting to keep the content when OBT was released. I know many others paid more as well based on the "charitable" nature of the payment options and getting the keep the content in any case made it a great value.

 

At the heart of the issue isn't the money spent individually, but the integrity of a promise. I respect Gunlion and I imagine he is between a rock and a hard place right now and it's sad because he has made a significant effort to develop a positive reputation with this community and now WG management seems ready to potentially throw him under the bus. Even sadder, I'm 99% sure he confirmed with others in managerial authority that WG would indeed allow players to keep the content after OBT before he even posted his confirmation. i hope he doesn't become the scapegoat that WG could use to back out of this situation. 

 

At the end of the day, WG can seize this as an opportunity to support their employees and continue developing trust, or damage whatever trust existed between the community and WG as well as any future offer made with other partners. Allowing the content to be given back after OBT is really insignificant in terms of cost or time so WG has little to lose by doing so. For myself, I did only spend a dollar on the bundle but depending on where WG goes with this, it could literally be the last dollar I spend on WG games. After all, it's not like the internet is void of games to play.

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,997 posts
2,336 battles

Agreed, plenty of other games out there. This one is only good because of ships, but i can deal without ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
6 posts
1,440 battles

A very true statement. The apology was nice and all, but it doesn't stop me from being angry at wargaming. just SOME compensation would be nice, even if it's small

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
115 posts
56 battles

Yeah, I concur. I highly doubt Gun is at fault. WG has a chance to right this, and I would give it a while to sort itself out for them. Good post OP and +1 for not going all mob mentality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,313 posts
12,709 battles

I just cant imagine there being significant economic motivation for this on WGs part. Sounds like corporate marketing screw up to me. Gamers have long memories though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[-B-Z-]
Alpha Tester
715 posts
4,225 battles

I just cant imagine there being significant economic motivation for this on WGs part. Sounds like corporate marketing screw up to me. Gamers have long memories though.

 

Apparently news of this has spread to other gaming communities so the word is getting out of WG's screw-up. Otherwise, there is no significant cost either for WG to provide the content. all they have to do is enable the codes again.
Edited by Bravo_Zulu_000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
56 posts
1,400 battles

A very true statement. The apology was nice and all, but it doesn't stop me from being angry at wargaming. just SOME compensation would be nice, even if it's small

 

 

Bull effing crap.  I bought the bundle on the 16th, and was specifically told BY WARGAMING that the bonus content would carry over into open beta.  I don't want small compensation, I want EXACTLY what I was promised.
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
297 posts
222 battles

Me me me, mine mine mine, gimme gimme gimme.

 

That is all I am reading from anyone on the forums today...

 

(Coming from a jaded former sales person who really can't stand the customer mentality, even though it was what paid the bills)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,116
[BOSS]
Beta Testers
2,762 posts
16,839 battles

Me me me, mine mine mine, gimme gimme gimme.

 

That is all I am reading from anyone on the forums today...

 

(Coming from a jaded former sales person who really can't stand the customer mentality, even though it was what paid the bills)

 

Yo bro... you tell your customer he could have this deal and made the sale, maybe you sold tons of a great deal as your former salesperson self.. 

 

..then your company says to you customers, "that deal was a mistake, we're keeping your money, but you're not getting your commission, but put up with the shat from the client will ya?"

 

You'd be quitting too.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
225 posts
757 battles

Me me me, mine mine mine, gimme gimme gimme.

 

That is all I am reading from anyone on the forums today...

 

(Coming from a jaded former sales person who really can't stand the customer mentality, even though it was what paid the bills)

 

Funny, all I'm reading from this is your defense of bad business practices. 
Edited by KariLP
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
23 posts
4,179 battles

Me me me, mine mine mine, gimme gimme gimme.

 

That is all I am reading from anyone on the forums today...

 

(Coming from a jaded former sales person who really can't stand the customer mentality, even though it was what paid the bills)

 

You must not've been very good at it if you don't understand the basic mechanics of a sale. It's only entitled "gimme gimme gimme" if you're not paying for it, which... they did.

 

If they called it a rental or otherwise indicated the deal would expire, that's fine. That's legit. There'd be no reason to complain. I do sympathize, however, with the people who bought something they were told they could keep and then the thing they bought disappeared because the seller decided "never mind lol."

Edited by KineticPenguin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,317 posts
5,857 battles

I think it's going to cost them sales of Murmansks. Think about it, if we enter open beta with our ships, every noob is going to want to buy one. It's a good ship and the noobs are going to see that. It's free advertisement of the good kind instead of the bad advertisement they are now recieving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
297 posts
222 battles

 

Funny, all I'm reading from this is your defense of bad business practices. 

Or another option is I find all of the rage mildly entertaining...

 

 

You must not've been very good at it if you don't understand the basic mechanics of a sale. It's only entitled "gimme gimme gimme" if you're not paying for it, which... they did.

 

I was actually quite good at it and fully understand the mechanics of a sale.  But thanks for trying to insult me.  Try harder next time?

 

Is this upsetting people?  Yes.  Does it need 50 ****ing threads popping up every 20 minutes?  No.  Hence:  "me me me, mine mine mine, gimme gimme gimme"

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,708 posts
189 battles

 

Funny, all I'm reading from this is your defense of bad business practices. 

 

Actually not. We're all against bad business practices. Most of us would like to see in-game compensation. That's all it will take to rectify this current crises.

 

What we're against is, say, sinking the entire ship to save some bullion. Perception is key. The perception is that the victims are, overall, too callous to empathize with overall. We see the "victims" and see a red flag screaming "RIOT."

Perception wise, frankly, it's not worth being associated with it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1 post
422 battles

For a Closed beta, this is the worst time to be making these kinds of mistakes, its digital ships, what damage can letting people keep the ship do?

 

I for one have lost alot of respect and motivation in continuing to play this game, and wish more gamers would put their respective foot down on developers being "Indian givers" and demanding that we are given what was "sold" to us on humblebundle as wargaming had to give them the CODES to hand out.

 

 

if I play this game from here on, its going to be 100% free 2 play, i will not give this company one cent until they make their mistake only effect themselves, and not their loyal customers and players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
51 posts
561 battles

One of two things happened here...

 

Either Wargaming is massively incompetent and utterly screwed up the wording of the Humble Bundle AND the explanations to Gunlion on what to tell us.

 

Or Wargaming meant to give out the Murmansk, looked at the numbers, realized there'd be a Type 59 fiasco of Murmansk everywhere, and INTENTIONALLY changed their mind and INTENTIONALLY screwed up the game launch on NA.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11 posts
67 battles

If this is not corrected, then the costs to Wargaming may become significant.

 

I'm not rich, but I have more money than time, so I'm the type of gamer that tends to invest in things like premium accounts and premium vehicles.  I don't want to think about how much I've spent on World of Tanks over the last three years.

 

I purchased the Murmansk.  I was looking forward to sinking additional money into the Atlanta, Warspite and certainly additional ships in the  near future.

 

Those purchases are now on hold, perhaps indefinitely, until Wargaming honors their original terms.  These are virtual objects.  It costs them little to nothing (other than coder salary) to make this right.  Until they do, my ordinarily open wallet is going to stay clamped shut.  I can live with grinding the old fashioned way in this game.

 

Now, the funds they are losing from me are hardly significant on their own, but I have the feeling I'm not the only one reaching these same conclusions today.  This could end up being a "death by 1,000 cuts" for World of Warships.  I'm betting those Return on Investment calculations they prepared for launch are going to take a serious downturn when expected ARPU begins tanking.

 

All they had to do was say  :"Our bad.  Sorry for the confusion.  You'll get everything you paid for in the bundle".  These threads would not exist.  The articles starting to hit the gaming sites would not exist.  And most of all, their coffers would have a lot more of mine and other gamers money this evening.

 

It's not too late, Wargaming.  Do the right thing.  If not for your customers, then for your bottom line.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
35 posts
9,811 battles

I am considering forcing a charge back on my CC. I haven't logged in to this beta yet so its not like i would be committing fraud like WG have....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[ERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,322 posts

The costs? Utterly confirming to those of us who have long played WoT (been there since OBT, March 2011)...that WG has no ethics or integrity. As simple as that. While I have a great deal invested in WoT...and will continue to play that game, I'm done spending money on it. I'll play it until they pull the plug.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[ERN]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,322 posts

If this is not corrected, then the costs to Wargaming may become significant.

 

I'm not rich, but I have more money than time, so I'm the type of gamer that tends to invest in things like premium accounts and premium vehicles.  I don't want to think about how much I've spent on World of Tanks over the last three years.

 

I purchased the Murmansk.  I was looking forward to sinking additional money into the Atlanta, Warspite and certainly additional ships in the  near future.

 

Those purchases are now on hold, perhaps indefinitely, until Wargaming honors their original terms.  These are virtual objects.  It costs them little to nothing (other than coder salary) to make this right.  Until they do, my ordinarily open wallet is going to stay clamped shut.  I can live with grinding the old fashioned way in this game.

 

Now, the funds they are losing from me are hardly significant on their own, but I have the feeling I'm not the only one reaching these same conclusions today.  This could end up being a "death by 1,000 cuts" for World of Warships.  I'm betting those Return on Investment calculations they prepared for launch are going to take a serious downturn when expected ARPU begins tanking.

 

All they had to do was say  :"Our bad.  Sorry for the confusion.  You'll get everything you paid for in the bundle".  These threads would not exist.  The articles starting to hit the gaming sites would not exist.  And most of all, their coffers would have a lot more of mine and other gamers money this evening.

 

It's not too late, Wargaming.  Do the right thing.  If not for your customers, then for your bottom line.

 

...there are hundreds more just like you. The NA server has long been the highest earner per player of WG's servers. We pay more than 5x the amount the RU server does. I suspect that because we're generally the smallest, or 2nd smallest that WG will just shrug the loss of income off as the cost of doing business. The silence since yesterday is astounding...
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,298 posts
6,911 battles

Personally, I believe that the community is definitely overreacting to something that I think is overall trivial.  However, I can nevertheless understand the anger due to omission of facts from WG.  I just hope people become sane again and discuss this issue with some level of decorum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×