Check out the patch notes for the v17 Precursor Update here: http://maplestory2.nexon.net/en/news/article/53778/precursor-update-v17
- Last Active
- March 5, 1987
To be entirely honest. I am very surprised. I actually thought this was going to be the area where they wouldn't budge and would continue to do what they always have. To see them actually change this impresses me and really makes me believe Nexon is trying to turn over a new leaf here.
I don't mind spending more if it means getting the item I want guaranteed. Far more likely to buy stuff in this manner than through loot boxes.
Why did you even type this? Serious question.
"The game is open in other regions, that you need a VPN, a foreign SSN/phone number and a willingness to commit identity fraud to play, so I think everyone that didn't buy a Founder's Pack was just fence sitting".
You can literally look at the forums you are on right and see people who are angry at how the game changed between overseas versions and even between beta to headstart.
Are you telling me you went into this game assuming the best?
The people that bought founder's packs got something different to what they were expecting. The people that played the other versions of the game got something different to what they were expecting.
And you're going to try and argue this?
This is why I don't take any of your posts seriously.
Not to mention, this is a free game. The risk is all on the consumer in spending money and some people don't want to put their money on the line for something they haven't played. When you buy a founder's pack you are literally betting against yourself that you'll like something enough to have paid money for it even though it will be free.
If you could get all the stuff from the founder's pack in game for free would you have even bought one? If you hadn't played the game before and there were no exclusive incentives, would you jump at the opportunite to spend $25~$100 to play it nine days early?
Most people do not want to take that bet.
For those people, who don't have ingrained impulse spending habits or didn't win a lottery, they now miss out on a decent value for money deal that wouldn't even lose it's "exclusivity" if it was stretched after release indefinitely.
Now everyone may not think it's a minor risk, and that is why they have the option to not buy it. If they felt they lost out, then honestly tough. Grow up. It honestly comes off as incredibly silly to complain at that point.
Because you'd still have to pay the same amount of money on a free game to get it and most people aren't really willing to do that. It just doesn't even make any sense to argue against it unless you just want to shrink the potential profits of the game for the sake of protecting your own 'investment' in time limited paid items that have no actual value.
The same thing goes for pre-order bonuses.
Anyone who has been here had ample time to decide. All information had already been given. Even Style crates have been announced before the founders pack sale ended. There is literally no excuse to argue that people didn't know whether or not they would like the game.
I can't even be bothered continuing on with everything wrong with what you're saying.
The fact is, without exclusive incentives, you wouldn't hand over your money sight unseen of a product. Especially if you could get it for free.
And if the industry can't sustain itself without taking money from people sight unseen of a product, it shouldn't exist.
It should be funded solely by the quality of it's products, not by misdirection and problem spending habits. You know, like every other industry.
Supporting anything otherwise is just plain foolish.
OK, you want to argue semantics. Let's go back to square 1 when "entitlement" was used.
2 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
Privileges in this context is referring to owning something they do not have, but want. If you are still confused beyond this, I don't know what else I can do to clarify, but I'm almost positive you're trying to argue semantics for the sake of reducing credibility/derailing the original point. Hoping otherwise as that is pretty tasteless. Regardless of your response, I don't think I'm going to respond back on this particular point (being literal semantics).
I think the issue is you are using a word that doesn't really describe the situation very well (or rather sticking up for a word someone else used that doesn't describe the situation very well).
A couple things.
1. The post from ParadiseXO called the entire thread as being entitlement. I created the thread, and the thread is not about me feeling like I am entitled to any sort of item or privilege. In fact, most of the thread isn't. That means the word doesn't even work here if you are following any known definition of the word.
2. Not wanting to be ripped off isn't the same thing as feeling you already had been ripped off and then feeling you are now entitled to something that was never promised. You responded to Knowledge's post as if he said he felt ripped off, but that isn't what he actually said. He is in fact 100% correct. Not wanting to be ripped off isn't called entitlement. Now whether or not you want to consider loot boxes a rip off or not is up to you. Most people do see it as a rip off by the way, even to those who are typically OK with it because it's usually not them getting ripped off.
Now, if this thread was about us buying into loot boxes and then thinking by buying them we now deserve the item we wanted from the loot boxes, that would be called entitlement. That isn't what this thread is about though, and that makes your argument here completely pointless. You shouldn't be sticking up for what was essentially a troll post.
And if you wanted to argue that those who are doing that after buying loot boxes, are being entitled, fine. But you responded to someone who didn't say that. In other words, you are coming off as someone who is entirely misunderstanding things, which would explain why Knowledge seems confused by what you even mean.
Oh seems my thread blew up. I have to say, I told you so. But of course there will always be people who stick up for terrible business practices because as long as those practices exist, they know for certain they will not be needing to spend $100s, and they will feel more confident that pay to win will not exist. It's pretty much players having other players foot the bill for them so they can continue to play.
Then there are the people who show their lack of knowledge on how gambling works and why it works so well. It's usually the people who try and suggest that you just shouldn't buy the loot boxes, or you knew what you were buying. Scientifically speaking, it's no where near that simple. The way gambling is done is specifically meant to take advantage of the chemical that increases throughout a person's brain called dopamine when a reward is being anticipated. Addictive drugs work in a similar fashion.
The only reason loot boxes work regardless of how much money some people spend is due to this chemical. It's the same reason gambling works, and why some people are willing to spend thousands, to just end up with nothing at all but still coming out of it feeling like they gained something out of it.
So yes, it does work. It's a great way to earn money. But that doesn't mean it's a moral way to do it. It's a very predatory practice. This is why gambling has some fairly strict laws and guidelines. It's already been recognized by the government that gambling needs to be controlled. The issue is, laws have not really kept up, and many game companies have dipped their toe in the water testing it out and seeing how much they can get away with. They began realizing there are ways to put gambling in their game without it breaking the law. And worse. is they aimed it at kids and young adults.
Games are already addicting enough as it is. I remember back in the day there was a ton of controversy of the amount of time people spent playing WoW.
Anyway, I find it interesting that some people are claiming this thread is full of entitled people. I am actually going to argue that those who are for this practice are the ones who are entitled. They are the ones who are willing to allow other players to pay for the game for them, and when those paying players complain, they in return complain acting like these paying players should be happy, when they are the ones coming out on top and advantaging from it without spending a dime. While the paying players are spending $100s.
How much you wanna bet most of these players who are calling us entitled would never spend the amount they claim is reasonable for cosmetics. It's only reasonable to them because they are not the ones spending the money.
Don't underestimate Bunny. She's argued a full book's worth in paragraphs about a hat. You think a transparent hat is any different?
Well, this comment made me laugh cause it's so true. I suppose I had pretty high expectations for this game and probably shouldn't have, considering it's Nexon. It sucks to be none stop disappointed in a game you have been looking forward to.
But to be honest, I think I am done arguing here. The more problems I see being brought up, and the more I see other players dismissing said problems, the more I realize I expected too much. People don't care when others see something as a problem that they don't, and if it's not one of the ones they care about then they will pretty much argue with the people who do care even if it doesn't actually disadvantage them in any way if it was changed.
It's just petty. But meh, I give up.