Gray_Lensman

Yes, and I covered that already. I'm going to quote myself here:

That was only a few posts back, man.

Remember what I was saying a couple of posts back? The part about how tying unlocks to in-game accomplishments helps make those unlocks mean something? How the costume pieces you've unlocked in that fashion become a mark of achievement because they show that you accomplished something that someone else hasn't, for whatever reason?

Exactly.

The problem isn't that these tasks are too hard, it's that you're having a hard time with them. Just because you feel it's too much trouble for you to go through to get access to the pieces in question doesn't mean that everyone feels that way, either. I don't think lowering the bar every time someone gets frustrated because they can't have x right now is the answer, especially when the tasks involved require a bit of work, but aren't something the majority of players seem to struggle with.

I... think could get behind that, actually.

Enough people grind TF's/do ship raids/etc. to ensure a steady supply on the market for the people who can't be bothered to actually do those things. Making them recipe drops like that would devalue their significance a bit, since you would no longer be able to look at somebody wearing Roman armor and say, 'Hey, that guy did the ITF', but people would still have to earn the influence/infamy to buy them from the market - they wouldn't just be a 'gimme'. And then it opens the door for somebody to raid/run ITF's/whatever to get costume bits for a friend, that kind of thing.

So yeah, I think that might actually be a good way of handling the unlockable costume parts. (Of course, now that I've said that, I expect a half-dozen people to storm in and tell me the idea absolutely sucks. )

Substitute 'a prize for something that requires effort', if that makes you feel better. You clearly knew what I meant, and you knew that I wasn't suggesting the two required the same amount of effort to achieve.

Badges are the equivalent of achievements or trophies in console games. Little bits of text to commemorate some in-game accomplishment. Some of them have some sort of tangible in-game reward associated with them (like accolades), but the vast majority don't. Outside of the borderline-OCD types who feel tormented if they're missing a badge in their 'collection', there's not a lot of reason to go after those 'non-essential' badges. Most of the people I know will chase down the ones that get them something, and a handful of others that they either stumble across or wanted for the particular badge title. That doesn't surprise me. People feel motivated to go after the things they desire. And that's another reason why it's not a bad idea to have some desirable content gated behind in-game accomplishments - it gives people something concrete to work towards, and motivates them to try new things that they might otherwise not bother with (like mothership raids and the ITF).

I also think you're exaggerating how much work unlocking these things requires. You make it sound like completing an ITF or doing a couple of ship raids are horribly onerous, involved tasks that demand a huge chunk of your life to complete. This isn't the 'entirely wrong type of game' to have content gated behind in-game accomplishments like that. The 'wrong type of game' for it would be those ultra-casual games on Facebook or the iPhone, and thankfully CoX isn't one of those.

I'll address your second point first.

I don't like the idea of people being unable to create certain types of character because the necessary costume pieces aren't available at creation. A new player really should be able to create a hero who looks like a samurai or a Roman centurion or an ancient Greek god without having to do anything special beforehand. That's why I suggested that basic sets in these themes be added to the game for everyone, with more elaborate/ornate/(arguably) cooler versions being unlockable later. Account-wide unlocks for pieces might work, too. I don't like that idea quite as much as basic and unlockable 'advanced' pieces, but I wouldn't be up in arms if they implemented it. As things are now, you may well end up unlocking those Roman pieces on someone who will never wear them, and want them for someone else who really needs them at level 1 but can't wear them. I can see how that could be frustrating.

As far as your first point goes, though, I don't think I fail here. I think we can both agree that most players want to make their characters look better to them. What 'better' means varies from person to person, which is why some people aren't compelled to unlock some costume pieces. Still, it's hard to argue that expanding a character's possible wardrobe choices isn't an overall improvement, all subjective criteria aside. And costume pieces obviously have value to people, or no one would be complaining that they can't automatically have access to everything they want.

The main point of an MMO is to improve your character. That 'improvement' can take many forms - levelling up, questing for more powerful equipment, and hunting for cosmetic items that change your character's look are some of the more common ones.

There are cosmetic offerings in this game which are tied to particular accomplishments. You have to do something specific to unlock them. They then serve as a visual indicator to others that you've done that thing.

Whipping out your wallet isn't the answer to everything in life. That's as it should be, though some people seem to have lost sight of this. If everything was for sale, anyone could just whip out a credit card and buy themselves a championship cup or gold medal - items that not only look cool, but show others that the bearer achieved a particular thing - if they really wanted one, but didn't want to bother with the 'grind' involved with, you know, actually earning it legitimately. That really trivializes those sorts of items. And as I said before, not all costume pieces in CoX are tied to in-game accomplishments like that, but the fact that some of them are doesn't bother me in the slightest. I wouldn't mind if more of them were, in fact.

That's because you're looking at it backwards.

I'm not saying that the costume pieces in the booster packs affect how well you do in the game. I'm saying that pieces that are gated behind specific in-game requirements (like completing the ITF) reflect how well you're doing in the game, just like rare weapons or prestige gear might in another game.


That's completely irrelevant to anything I was talking about in the post you replied to, but thank you for sharing.

The fact that one reflects something you actually accomplished within the game, while the other doesn't.

One of the reasons I prefer pay-to-play MMO's over the increasingly popular 'P2P + cash shop' model is because with a P2P game, you're more or less guaranteed a level playing field. How well you do in-game is a function of how dedicated you are and how smart you play, not how much cash you have to throw around in the real world. You can't just go to the cash shop to get that awesome sword or cool-looking outfit you want - you actually have to play the game in order to earn it. When you do finally get it, it's a reflection of the effort you put in as a player. As far as I'm concerned, that's the way things should be. So I have no problem with the idea of some of the costume parts being unlockable, or tying that to specific accomplishments within the game.

That said, I do wish certain types of pieces (capes and auras, to be specific) were available for all characters at creation. The same goes for certain themed costume pieces that are restricted to veterans or otherwise inaccessible, like the Roman and samurai pieces. A possible compromise would be to create more basic-looking sets for these themes and make them available to everyone at creation, with the more ornate versions being tied to the unlock conditions we have now. Then anyone can start the game looking more or less like the type of character they wanted, but they'll still have something to strive for in the form of more elaborate pieces in the same vein further down the line.

EDIT: Looks like Forbin Project beat me to it while I was typing this, so I'll just say that I second the idea.

I'm inclined to agree with you with respect to the Science booster. As to the question of capes and auras, I personally feel that all of the available auras and capes should be available at creation. At most, you should have to unlock them on a single character, at which time they'd become available to all characters on your account. I think it's ridiculous that you can't create, say, a character whose body is composed of living flame from day 1 because you can't access auras yet. Instead, you're forced to wait until level 30, unlock auras, then come up with some sort of ridiculous rationale for why the character didn't look like this from the beginning. The same goes for capes. IIRC, making them unlockable at 20 was originally a measure to prevent everyone from potentially starting out with one and bringing PC's circa 2004-5 to their knees in the starting areas. Nowadays, most people's PC's can handle the added load of a bunch of animated capes without breaking a sweat, and we've got boosters that grant access to capes at level 1 anyway. So why not let people start out with a cape if they feel it's thematically appropriate for the character? It's really overdue.

Which 'ever more unbalancing powers' would these be, exactly? I'd say that the best of the bunch is Ninja Run, and that's hardly something that's segregated the playerbase into haves and have-nots.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the principle of the thing. It's just that none of the powers included as part of the boosters really offers a significant bonus of any kind. Even all of them taken together would hardly qualify as a 'must-have', except possibly in the minds of the most number-conscious min-maxers - the sort of people willing to pay any price for a percentage point or two of effectiveness. It certainly doesn't strike me as something to be 'beyond pissed off' about.

You know, when people say things like this, odds are it's because there's something that's making them feel this way. When it starts happening more frequently, there's probably a reason for it. Rather than popping in to shout, 'Oh yeah? Prove it!' when someone says they've begun to feel like we're being offered less for more, how about acknowledging that they may have valid concerns?

I felt the Party Pack was distinctly disappointing. This pack, while something of an improvement, is still not on par with the earlier boosters content-wise, IMO.

I don't think anyone here's arguing for an end to booster packs. I do think people want them to be on par with what are commonly considered 'the better boosters' (Magic Pack, Cyborg Pack, etc.) in terms of type and amount of content and pricing. I don't see why this is a crime. Yet some of you here react like someone just slapped your mother if they hear so much as suggest they're not satisfied. 'We should take whatever they give us and be grateful!' seems to be the gist of most of the responses. That, and 'You think NCSoft shouldn't make money?! *gasp!* How dare you!' That (deliberately) mischaracterizes and trivializes what people are saying. Namely: If NCSoft intends to keep selling us booster packs, then they need to make them something we feel are worth buying.

Speaking personally, if they were to release a new booster along the lines of the Magic or Cyborg Pack tomorrow - something containing a couple of full costume sets, a cool-and-marginally-useful temp power, maybe a couple of auras, etc. - I'd buy it without hesitation. I feel packs like those are a good value for the price. The Emote Pack definitely wasn't. The Cape and Aura Pack is borderline at best. I may end up picking it up on the off chance that I'll think of a concept that could use one of the pieces after the fact, like I ended up doing with the Mutant pack. Still, I'm with the OP on this one. I want to see a return to boosters with some substance to them.

That's debatable, and we've gone around and around on the point.

It's also not relevant to the greater issue. Specifically: Are the people who expect content updates and customer support over the life of the MMO's they subscribe to being unreasonable? Are their expectations unfounded and indefensible? Are they exhibiting a sense of false entitlement by expecting these things?

You've been arguing that they are.

According to you, the fact that these things are widely acknowledged as a given for services of this type means nothing. As long as something's not expressly spelled out in the EULA, subscribers have no right to expect it. For them to do so is incredibly presumptuous in your eyes. Even something as fundamental as product support is only provided as a goodwill gesture, and we ought to be grateful that we're given those crumbs. How dare people expect companies to provide support for the services they're charging for! The nerve!

I can't agree with you on that.

Yes, I feel our money - the playerbase's collective money - has a longer reach than that.

Does the fact that we pay $15 a month to play give us the right to sit in on staff meetings and make decisions about who gets hired and who gets fired?

Of course not.

Does it entitle us to say, 'Hey, I expect this from a service I'm paying for, and if you don't provide it, then I'm going to take my money to someone who will?'

Absolutely.

The revenue generated by our subscription fees are what keeps companies like NCSoft in business. As long as they can offer a service we feel is worth the price, we'll keep on paying for it, month after month. If they can't do this, people will cancel their accounts. If enough people move on, the company won't be able to stay afloat. So they have a vested interest in fulfilling the needs and expectations of their subscribers.

Since we are paying to play this game, it's perfectly understandable that we have certain minimum expectations when it comes to support, features and updates. Those expectations are based on other similar products and what's historically been the norm for this particular game. They're not rooted in some false sense of entitlement.

I feel customers have an obligation to voice concerns they may have about the services they pay for. Their feedback should matter. Speaking up when their expectations aren't met doesn't make them 'entitled twits', as you put it.

If you can't concede these points, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. You taking umbrage over my use of 'our money is paying for x, y and z' synonymously with 'we're giving them our money, and as such, we have a reasonable right to expect x, y and z from this service' is nitpicky nonsense that sidesteps the actual issue.

You're not right about this. Repeating it over and over doesn't make that any more true.

Yes, City of Heroes is described as a 'massively multiplayer subscription-based comic book hero and villain role-playing game'. It seems that even you can manage to be right about something occasionally. But for the purposes of this discussion, it's a pretty meaningless definition.


You're (conveniently) not accounting for reasonable expectations (see, there are those words again!) end-users may have with regard to your product.

The reason you won't find a proviso in the EULA about a free puppy with every subscription is because the customer has no reasonable cause to expect one. Therefore, there's no need for them to indemnify themselves against a hypothetical failure to hand out puppies. That's an unreasonable expectation - puppies are not associated with this type of product. On the other hand, things like expecting a company to provide a certain level of support for the MMO they run at no additional charge are perfectly understandable, given both the precedents established by other companies' offerings and NCSoft's products themselves. If they foresaw a scenario where they did not intend to provide such support, in light of the reasonable expectations of their customers - as it is arguably a given for this class of product - they would have explicitly accounted for such in the EULA.

That they didn't do so is telling.

You're conflating the two. I'm arguing the second.

There's a difference between 'dictating how our money is used' and having reasonable expectations with respect to the service you're paying for. Though it seems your frothing fury over common people daring to 'dictate' the actions of large corporations, or even thinking that they matter in the grand scheme of things, seems to have blinded you to the distinction.

However, it's perfectly fair for you to expect certain things from a service you're paying for access to, like customer support and continued updates over the life of the service. These are normal features for products of this type, and would only be noteworthy if they weren't provided.

Wrong.

The fact that we're paying for a service rather than a discrete product does not define what we should expect from said service. Why should it? Other MMO's provide periodic content updates at no additional charge in addition to any paid expansions they may sell. NCSoft's own games do this. CoX has a longstanding history of doing it. Yet you're going to sit there and argue that despite the weight of precedent, it is unreasonable of a person to expect this from the service at this point in time? That we ought to all be thankful that NCSoft doesn't just pocket our monthly fees and restrict all content updates to paid expansions, and praise them as such stand-up guys because they don't? Really? Come on.

What our payments were supposedly 'made to' do has no bearing on what the money's used for internally, and shouldn't be held up as the yardstick by which player expectations are judged.

I said that what 'the Service' actually consists of wasn't explicitly defined in the EULA. That thoroughly undermines your contention that no subscriber should feel entitled to receive additional content as a subscriber to said Service. And now you come back at me with this? Really? All you've established is that the EULA defines 'the service' as 'City of Heroes', 'City of Heroes: Going Rogue', and/or 'City of Villains'. Good job. Now show me where the EULA defines what any of those terms actually mean. You can't, because it's not there! Where is the 'certain content' they mentioned ever described? How about content that doesn't fall into the 'fee-based features' category? Where is that defined? It's not.

No, the EULA doesn't agree with your point. It never specifies whether the content updates that aren't offered as separate products should be considered part and parcel of 'the Service'. In fact, it doesn't appear to address the question of updates at all. My previous point stands - namely, the EULA never explicitly defines what 'the Service' (that is, 'City of Heroes', 'City of Heroes: Going Rogue', and/or 'City of Villains') actually consists of. We don't know if content pushed to clients in Issue updates is considered part of the games themselves (thus making it part of 'the Service'), or something else entirely.

To put this to you as simply as possible:

MMO subscribers have the reasonable expectation that the service they're subscribing to will receive periodic content updates at no additional cost, over and above any paid expansion content.

This expectation on the part of the consumer is a reasonable one because a) there are well-established precedents for it when it comes to MMO's in general, and b) there is also a longstanding precedent for it in this specific game.

The EULA does not state whether new content provided to users at no additional cost should be regarded as part of 'the Service'.

Nowhere in the EULA does it state that such content is not a part of the service, or that the end user is not entitled to upgrades.

If NCSoft had no intention of providing content updates outside of the boosters they sell, it's safe to assume the EULA would have said so in no uncertain terms. (They were quite emphatic about declaring that users don't own their character data, for instance.)

The EULA did not explicitly rule out such updates.

So what does all of this mean?

It means that it's reasonable for customers to expect the Service they're paying for to be updated periodically, because this is standard practice for both MMO's in general and for this one in particular. NCSoft is presumably aware of this, and the EULA makes no statement to suggest otherwise.

I read it the first time. Maybe you ought to go back over it. Try understanding what it actually means this time, rather than cherry-picking and quibbling over semantics.

Periodic content updates for an MMO you're paying to play? Customer support for said MMO? Those are reasonable expectations based on well-established precedent. It's not presumptuous of people to expect these things from any P2P MMO, which is what you seem to be arguing against here. That's the bottom line. You keep trying to dance around the point with semantic nitpicking and attempts at obfuscation. If you're going to bother replying to anything in this post, either address that point, or just let the debate drop already.

And that's my point. Namely, your addendum about 'not purchasing new content'. The EULA does not stipulate this. It merely states that we're paying to access the service. Nowhere in that document does it detail the specifics of what the service is, or what we can (or cannot) reasonably expect from said service. You're arguing that the statement, 'You're paying for access to the game, as opposed to ownership rights for the character and inventory data stored on our servers' is the same as, 'You're paying for access to the game. Any money we receive from you as payment will be applied solely to maintaining the server infrastructure, and not used to develop additional content.'

As long as our subscription fees are being used to underwrite development costs, we are paying for continued development of this game.


So they're paying the CS department out of somebody's trust fund, then? Customer service is a standard operating expense for a business like this, and you'd be naive to think that our sub fees don't help underwrite that, along with everything else. You're exuding this attitude of, 'We should thank our lucky stars that NCSoft, in their infinite generosity, deigns to offer us any sort of customer support at all! They don't have to do it, you know!' Whether or not they have to, any reputable company will - that's a perfectly reasonable expectation, it doesn't reek of 'entitlement', and it's not something that anyone should be especially grateful for.

I think Activision would be a better example than EA these days.

I think the devs are trying to make a living just like the rest of us, though I also think that many of them are fortunate enough to be doing what they love. The problem is, I suspect the devs don't have the last word when it comes to things like what's going to be sold as a booster vs. what's sold separately. (The Party Emote Pack, for example, strikes me as a case where word was handed down from on high at NCSoft rather than the developers deciding that this was a good idea. I think they know the community better than that, personally.)

Oh, I agree. I'm just worried that since the parent company's an MMO outfit based in Korea, and microtransaction-based models for MMO's are the norm there (and are apparently quite profitable), the higher-ups there might think they could squeeze more revenue out of this game by pushing the microtransaction angle harder.

It would be unbalancing if only certain players had access to Inherent Fitness and not others. That's the same reason that the temp powers included in the booster packs aren't game-breakingly powerful. Selling something like that might be good for business in the short term, since people would feel forced to buy it in order for their characters to remain viable, but there would be a strong (and completely justified) backlash from the playerbase. I think the Powers That Be are aware of this.


To be honest, people like you scare me. Providing a product that your customers are willing to pay for is the cornerstone of any good business. You're treating that like some huge act of magnanimity that we should all be grateful for, because they don't have to do it. No, they don't have to; on the other hand, we don't have to buy their product! And I seriously doubt that the devs sit around saying things like, 'Wow, our subscribers are such great people. I'm so thankful they're doing us the favor of paying to play this game.' So it's a little silly to expect consumers to be any different.

That doesn't mean that I can't appreciate the amount of work the devs put into this game. It's a labor of love for them, I think, and it shows. I respect that. But as long as they're selling me a subscription to a service - as long as it's being offered as a product - I'm going to treat it like one.

Because you insist on twisting the intent of the portion of the EULA you quoted to fit your argument, and it doesn't.

Let me run this down again (twice in the same post, even - I hope it gets through this time):

The EULA states the monthly fee we pay entitles us to access the game servers and our account data (characters, inventory, etc.) on those servers ('the service'), but does not grant us ownership rights to that data.

However, at no point does the EULA define what 'the service' is. It says nothing about what the end user can or can't expect. That includes the question of whether or not the service will be periodically updated with new content. It doesn't say. This means that they're under no legal obligation to do so, since they make no claim that they will. It also means that there's no reason for subscribers to expect them not to, since a) they haven't explicitly stated that they won't, and b) in the years the business has been running, this has been their operating model, so there's substantial precedent for it. So it's not unreasonable to expect this, and someone who does so isn't suffering from an undue sense of entitlement. You're wrong about that.

The EULA also explicitly fails to state that the monthly subscriber fee will not be used to underwrite further development of the game. Given how businesses are known to operate, it's reasonable to assume that the subscription fees NCSoft collects from its customers are indeed being used to underwrite continued development of this game. So yes, when we pay the sub fee, we're paying for continued development.

The sad thing is, I think you know all this already. It seems like you're just hell-bent on quibbling over technicalities because the notion of consumers holding companies to a certain standard when paying for their services has your nose all out of joint. Why this is, I don't know, but the fact that you're bent out of shape over this supposed 'sense of entitlement' people have for expecting some of the new content to be provided to customers at no additional charge as part of their subscriptions - when they've already been doing this for years, and people are just expecting them to continue with a well-established policy - is pretty telling.

As I pointed out in my last post, the sentence you bolded fails to prove your point. All it establishes is that paying the monthly fee entitles a user to access the game, but does not grant them ownership of any character(s) or the contents of their inventories. That's why 'access' is emphasized the way it is in that paragraph. We get access to the service, and 'nothing more' - that is, we have no ownership rights to the character and inventory data on NCSoft's servers. The specifics of the service itself, and what people can and can't expect from it, aren't expressly spelled out in that paragraph - or anyplace else in the EULA, as far as I can see.

I get the distinct impression that you feel they're doing us a favor by providing users with any new content outside of paid expansions. Regardless of whether or not you agree, it is reasonable for users to expect periodic content updates as part of the core service. It's also reasonable to expect customer support, as with any service, and it strikes me as kind of pathetic that someone would argue that consumers aren't entitled to it when they subscribe to something.

My money's worth quite a bit to me. That's true of most people. Apparently our money's worth something to NCSoft, too, or they wouldn't be trying to get us to part with it.

The most successful businesses are the ones that offer us products we're most willing to buy. And if a product you happen to like starts off as a good value proposition, but looks like it may be becoming less so, then I see nothing wrong with speaking up in the hopes that those in charge will take notice. That fosters goodwill and increases account retention.

They're not 'giving us' anything 'for free' by adding new content. They're not doing us a favor, or giving us some sort of gift that we ought to be thankful for. They're selling subscriptions to a service. It's in their best interest to keep providing new content for said service so that customers will stay subscribed.


I don't think anyone here's saying that they should get everything at no additional charge. On the other hand, I don't think it's 'entitlement' if someone says they think NCSoft should continue to provide a certain amount of new content outside of paid booster packs, especially since that's one of the ways they've differentiated themselves from the competition over the years.

It's not entitlement to expect a certain level of service in exchange for payment, no. And the EULA still doesn't support your argument, and never did, so it's kind of pointless to keep bringing it up.

So I take it you read the EULA of every piece of software you buy in its entirety before installing? You must, or you wouldn't be snarking at someone else for skimming over one. That would be awfully hypocritical of you.

I do appreciate you finding the passage in question for me, though. Unfortunately, it doesn't really prove your point. Rather than cherry-picking things that look like they support your argument, you should probably take a closer look at the paragraph you're quoting from. It's legal boilerplate to establish that we don't actually own the accounts we pay for, or any items on them. They're not ours - we're merely paying NCSoft for access to them. Therefore, we can't legally resell them. It's a hedge against influence farmers and people auctioning off high level characters on eBay. It doesn't mean, 'The entirety of your subscription fee is spent on server maintenance and upkeep, and nothing else', which would be patently untrue. That's why I asked for a link in the first place - the suggestion that someone at NCSoft might have actually said that seemed pretty ridiculous, and I wanted to see it for myself.

If you actually read my other posts, you would already know that I haven't been saying that. Maybe you ought to try following your own advice.

The Complete Collection Item Pack wasn't a 'booster'. It was a bundle of content that was created as part of GR and bundled with the GR Complete Collection, and sold separately for those who bought the download version. (Though Damz is right about the temp power. )

The last couple of actual boosters I was referring to - packs created specifically as add-on content, and not just spun off from an existing product - were the Mutant Pack and the Party Pack. The Mutant Pack I felt was a little lacking compared to earlier boosters, and the Party Pack was distinctly underwhelming. So yeah.

Understood. That's pretty much my issue in a nutshell. Well, that, and I feel that the price vs. value equation has begun to slip on the last couple of boosters, which is something I'd like to see addressed before the balance tips any further. (For what it's worth, I've bought all the boosters except for the Party Pack, so I'm not fundamentally opposed to their existence.)

I'm hoping the next themed booster we get will contain the usual decent assortment of costume parts, a fun-and-marginally-useful click power, and a costume change or two that we've come to expect from the good boosters. I'm also hoping that we'll see an Issue add some nice 'generic'/'universal' costume pieces/patterns/emblems and such to the game in the near future, since it feels to me like we're overdue for an update in that vein. What I don't want is for things to progress to the point where virtually all new costume pieces and animations get relegated to boosters, and/or the boosters themselves become incredibly anemic (releasing a handful of costume change animations as the 'Incredible Transformation Pack' in the vein of the Party Pack, rather than just including them with the game, for example). I feel that now's the time to voice these things, rather than waiting until it's a done deal - there's no point in saying something after the fact, when it's too late to make a difference.

Just my take on things.

Link, please?

The best part is that the way the reeds discreetly cover the (nonexistent) naughty bits makes the costume look a lot more risque than it actually is.

Those of us who are long-time subscribers are seeing more and more of the new content that used to be covered by our monthly subscription fee being sold separately as booster packs instead. (As opposed to that content being sold on the side in addition to the stuff in Issue updates - the costume items included in those has dwindled markedly as we've gotten more boosters.) And now, the content in the boosters themselves seem to be getting thinner - the Mutant pack was a bit underwhelming (though I still bought it), and the Party Pack didn't contain any costume pieces - just a handful of animations, some originally intended for GR, sold at a premium price.

So let me ask you, just to clear up any possible misunderstanding: Are you implying that everyone who takes issue with this trend is either a child or being childish? That's a pretty facile dismissal, not to mention insulting, so I hope I'm just misreading you here.

Except that a featureless fleshtoned figure with zero anatomical detail doesn't even look like a nude person. It looks like a mannikin. I doubt anyone who's undressed their Barbie or GI Joe as a kid is going to be traumatized by the sight of a character who looks like a walking action figure.

No, I'm paying $15/month for server access and upkeep, customer support, and continued development. That means periodic content updates in the form of 'Issues'. That's the model this game has followed since it began. This has created certain reasonable expectations in the minds of subscribers. Reasonable expectations, whether or not you agree. And before you bring up other games that do things differently, we're not talking about other games. In fact, I'd say that the fact that this game does do things differently than other MMO's - in many ways - is a key reason the game's garnered such a loyal core following over the years.

People are objecting to what looks like an attempt to change that equation with the recent preponderance of paid booster packs and commensurate decrease in so-called 'free stuff' (namely costume pieces) in the last few Issues we've gotten. I'd hardly say that reeks of entitlement.

Knockback's a great tool and fun to play with. Kicking runners back towards the rest of the group or knocking an attacker away from a squishy who's in bad shape never gets old. See, I like that kind of thing. Moving around, corralling enemies... good stuff.

I don't mind it at all. It adds a lot to the immersion factor for me. I don't want to just whale on a sack of hitpoints that's going to stand there feebly smacking me until it keels over dead, which is what a lot of people here seem to crave. Apparently being forced to do more than stand in one spot and fire off your attack chains over and over is a game-breaking flaw to some people. (See also: People whining about knockback because it forces them to move around in a fight. )

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm not defending it just because I like the game. I'm defending it because I like that particular element of the game. I want to see enemies scatter when they're hurt, not just stand in place waiting for me to churn through them.