Tetsuko_NA

Yes - and wouldn't it be a stupid decision if they could have both pleased a greater percentage of their playerbase and made more money by doing it a different way?

As it stands, nobody knows (I suspect) if that would have been the case. I don't blame Paragon for being willing to select income over player desires - that's fine, they're a corperation and have to make the rent. I just think that they might want to at least see if they can have their cake and eat it too.

Because the company might want to know what will happen the next time they introduce a Super Pack. The distinction is important to the Devs, because they would be well-served by knowing if they must include a much-sought-after exclsuive costume set in every Super Pack offering to get them to sell. Right now, they don't know that.
Paragon doesn't know if people are buying them with a smile or a scowl... which wouldn't make any difference if they weren't planning on doing it again. If you don't know the reason behind your success, it's hard to replicate.

I'm not questioning if they will make more money off of Super Packs versus direct sales. I'm questioning if they will make more money off of Super Packs versus Super Packs and direct sales. I don't know the answer to that question, and I don't honestly think you do either. I suspect Paragon doesn't, either.

If we drop the 'quaint' assumption that Paragon cares about pleasing their customers, this is still a matter of income efficency. The question is: are the Super Packs competitive with our currently-in-place method of delivering content? In the interest of maximizing future profits, how much content should we release this way? All of it? Half? None?
Without an apples-to-apples comparison, I'm not sure they can intelligently answer these questions.

My only concern is that people are buying the Super Packs not because they like the Super Pack mechanic, but because that is the only way to get the exclusive costume set. That's one good reason to release both at once - it would give the Devs actual feedback on the Super Pack mechanic.

As it is, sales figures will be hard to parse between "I like the way Super Packs are set up" and "I don't like Super Packs, but I love the EO pieces". If the majority (or even substantial minority) opinion is the latter, the Devs have set up a system by which the only hard data they will receive is positive... that might be good salesmanship, but it's lousy marketing.

Let me put it to you this way: if you were in Marketing, and you saw the Super Packs selling well, what would you assume? That the playerbase likes the random mechanic of the Packs? Or that they are willing to deal with it to get things they can't get in any other way?
And, given that you have limited resources for working up the way content is to be released to the game, do you think that's an important distinction?

For myself, the only part of this I might find substantial issue with is the statement that's it's a large section of the playerbase that's upset with this. I have no idea if it's large or small, or going to change in either direction over the coming days and weeks.

The only thing that I do know is that, whatever section of the playerbase it is, the Devs have decided it's the unimportant section, as far as this issue goes. Which is, of course, their option.
Given some of their marketing missteps in the past, I wonder if they've gotten this one right. We'll see.

I agree, to a certain extent.
In my mind, an announcement in a week or two that there would be alternate methods available, due to player requests, is 'up front' enough for me.

I don't want to misrepresent your position here, so let me see if I understand:

You're arguing that the Super Packs would not be popular if there was some way - even a (generally) more expensive but certain - way of getting the EO pieces?
Am I getting the thrust of your argument?

But both of these make the assumption that the Super Packs are only worthwhile for the EO costume pieces, in essence. Let me see if I can break down my thinking here:

If we make the assumption that the seperate EO pieces would be substantially more expensive than their breakpoint in getting them through Super Packs, then either:
1) Many people still buy the Super Packs, while a few spend more money on the EO pieces (presumably good)
2) Many people spend more on the EO pieces while abandoning the Super Packs (still good)

If we make the assumption that the EO pieces would be offered at or below their Super Pack likely cost, then either:
1) Many people still buy the Super Packs because they like the other things offered, and/or the mechanics of the system (still good)
2) The Super Packs are abandoned because all people were really buying them for was the EO pieces. If this is the case, then it has been demonstrated that people didn't really like the Super Packs, but were 'holding their noses' and using an unpopular system anyway. Knowing this is good.

I personally suspect that Super Packs would be, and would remain, popular, even without having numerous exclusive pieces. If not, than it's not the Super Packs themselves that are a success, just the costume pieces.

And my point is that making the EO pieces available to purchase seperately results in even fewer angered players. I've not yet been convinced that more angered players is a better plan than fewer ones.

My answer to the first question is: yes. I am more than willing to pay more and be certain than gamble on a method that might cost me less.

As to the second part, I would prefer to give every player the option of doing one or the other, and thus not force anyone in either direction.

My contention is that they could make even more money by offering a sure buy at a (probably) higher cost. This would also result in fewer angered players, which I would have to assume is better for the bottom line.
I don't object to the Packs existing, I just don't care to buy them myself.

It certainly isn't a straightforward decision - that's one reason I'm dismayed they've already made it (We have no plans to release the EO pieces in any other manner) so early in the process.

Ah, I had been under the impression that the Super Pack ATO's were non-tradable. In reviewing, it's just the Enhanced (Purple) versions that are not marketable. Thank you for correcting me on this.

Well, then, given that they've already breached that wall, I would suggest they they make the cards themselves tradable. Perhaps reset the flag operations for the costume set so that a player would have to actively claim the costume pieces to stop getting them in subsequent packs. Or allow Null to flip the switch on that... that way, players interested in marketing the costume pieces could continue to receive them after getting them. This would also have the effect of breaking the exclusivity of the EO pieces and thus remove my primary objection to the Packs.

Win-win! (All except for those people who don't like to watch other people get nice things...)

Note: No, I don't think this is likely to happen.

This seems like a good idea - it would increase the 'completionist' aspect of the cards, which would (I suspect) tend to further the interest in buying them.

This, on the other hand, dives right into the problem of purchasable INF. If a player can purchase something with real-world money, and then turn immediately around and sell it on the Market for a gain in INF, that's essentially just laundering one currency into another. There are pros and cons to this, of course, but as far as I know, the Devs have always come out dead-set against this sort of thing. Being able to sell cards to another player is not complex, obscure or at a great remove... it's tatamount to paying real world currency for INF in a very direct way.
It has, of course, been suggested that an official source for purchasable INF would essentially destroy RTM operations, and this system would allow the players to set the price point (by determining what the cards were worth in the open Market). I don't know enough economic theory to know if that's a good idea or a bad one, though, so I'm not offering an opinion on that. I'm just saying that the Dev team have always seemed very resistant any cash-for-INF system.
(I'm assuming that you're suggesting the cards be allowed as tradable items in the Market - a direct card-for-card seperate system would mitigate these concerns, but would be a lot of work.)

With, of course, the major difference being that in this case, what we are risking is actual money - or something with equivalent (if not recoverable) value.
If the game charged me $1 for every character defeat, I imagine I wouldn't play.
Would you?

No, I like knowing what I buy before I buy it. I'm not interested in purchasing consumables in this game, especially consumables that I can't select. In this system, about the only guarantee is that you will purchase an uncertain number of unselectable consumables.

How much money does getting a character defeated in the ITF or the Shard cost again?

And I wish them the very best of fun and fortune in doing so.
Yet, when I ask for the same dispensation from you - the ability to get things that I want in the game in a perfectly reasonable and much-done manner (buying them directly or earning them through in-game content), you tell me I am being unreasonable.

Again - how much does the ITF cost to run? $1? $5?
I'm strange (apparently) in that I enjoy playing the game. Getting stuff for doing so is a nice bonus. I like the ITF - the Roman armor set is a nice perk, but I like playing my characters.
I don't enjoy watching my bank account balance drop. If I can get something directly and predictably for that, I can decide easily if that's a good use of the unpleasant act of handing my money over to another person. If it's a crap shoot... sorry, my money comes too hard for that.

If your preference is to get the EO pieces through random means, please, be my guest, knock yourself out - I sincerely hope you enjoy the experience.
Now please extend the same courtesy - to acquire these costume pieces though the means I prefer - to me.

Which is why I was quoting, and responding to Techbot Alpha rather than yourself.

In any case, thank you for not doing so. Unfortunately, if the ratio of 'buying to not buying' gamewise is anything like what we're seeing in this thread, the Devs will believe - apparently correctly - that this is what the playerbase desires for future add-on sales.

I'm indifferent to the Packs themselves - personally, I prefer to know what I'm buying before I buy it, but I don't begrudge anyone else feeling differently. I do hate and loathe, however, that a beautiful costume set has been gated behind a lottery system, however lenient. So long as it is, I will not make any effort to obtain the set.

I'd be happy to buy it, if it were available. Apparently the Devs either did not forsee anyone desiring this option (hard to imagine, as often as it was expressed), or prefer to deny that option conciously.

Thus have the Devs decided to have less of my money than they could. I don't like that choice, but it's their call.

I'm sorry to put this this way, but you did and you do approve of these packs being offered the way they are, and you voted with your currency to prove it. You sent a message to the Devs that you support the system as it stands... because you supported the system as it stands.

Words are cheap, and I'm afraid you put your money behind the system on this one. You've voted. You might regret your vote - I have no idea - but you've voted for the packs as they are.

I love those pieces, and want them for more than a few of my characters. Several of my characters are steampunk-based, and almost all of them have a variant along those lines. The helmet, the mask, the jacket... I have literally dozens of costume ideas for those pieces.
But I do not and will not support these being a random-pick-only offering. Therefore, I will not support this by spending a thing on it. If enough people do what I'm doing, the Devs will know doing this was a mistake. If enough people do what you did, the Devs will know it wasn't.

Of course, the other option is to stop playing the 'Destroy The WHOLE WORLD! AH HA HA HA HA!' card.

Allowing me to take over the world... well, let's say I defeat Recluse and thus really impress pretty much the entirety of Arachnos with my sheer bad-self-ness. So much so that no matter their factions, they would only ever fight me in self-defense.
We, of course, have the technology to code enemies yellow.
Having Arachnos in Grandville ping yellow to me would really grant a feeling of rulership, control and accomplishment.

Likewise, having (possibly invisibly) tracked stats regarding your status with various baddie groups, so that working with - or intimidating - them sufficiently would make them reluctant to engage you would be a fun thing to have as badges: "Invader Ally", "Master/Mistress of the Carnival", "More Trouble than He's/She's Worth" (Malta), "Arbiter Emeritus", "Honorary Freak", "Enemy of the State" (Council), "Gear not Turned but Turning" (Nemesis), that kind of thing.

That's just my opinion, of course.

I do not disagree with any of this at all.

Ok, I'll correct you.
I was objecting to MOO's apparent statement about what happens in the real world, not the costume creator. Yes, the overall discussion is about the costume creator, but some statements have been made about the real world.
Comments about what sort of clothes (not virtual costumes) women (not female characters) need strike me as sexist, and I'll tend to say so.

Let me clarify: Most people are a little bit sexist. I know I am.
I try not to be, and I suspect MOO does not want to be, either.
When I say something unconciously sexist, I would want people to call me on it so I can examine it and see what I was thinking. That's the thing about unconcious sexism: you don't see it yourself.
Neither you nor MOO have to accept my definition of what's sexist (heck, you don't have to accept my belief that MOO is a good guy, either), but if I see something that strikes me that way, I'm likely to mention it. If I do that with too much snark, that's a fault of mine.

And in this, you're quite right. This is one of the most welcoming and friendly forums around and we should keep it that way. I need reminding of that, and I thank you for doing so.

Let me point out that you seem - to me - to straying kinda close to "I know what you meant, but what you asid was..." which is exactly what you are unhappy with me doing. I was trying to bring MOO's attention to something he said that I thought wasn't good. it looks like I failed at doing this well.

I understand where you're coming from there.
I just think you and I differ on what we think MOO said.
For what it's worth, I'm not trying to yank your chain - or anyone else's. I might be mistaken, but I'm being honest in what I think.

I don't think that MOO meant to say anything sexist - that's the reason I pointed it out when it looked to me like he did.

Right - we disagree here. You think I'm being too sensitive, and I think you're being too accepting.

I'm torn here, actually.
I think that there is a balance point between making a public case about specific statements you find are objectionable, and just dealing with it privately - and, heck, picking your battles and not dealing with it at all.
I'm willing to accept that I'm on the wrong side of that point in this case.

I have a different perspective on this than you seem to be presenting here. When I post something on a public forum, I realize that it's going to be both widely read and largely unalterable. It's hard to unsay things. (In fact, the forum I usually post on doesn't even allow post editing to keep people from altering things after the fact.)
I see it as a matter of being willing to accept being called out on sexist, racist, or stupid things if you say sexist, racist, or stupid things. I've done all of those things (mostly just stupid, thank goodness), and I expect to be called out on it.
That's how I get better.

This I can get behind.
Thanks for keeping things in perspective.

Heh, you and I have gotten into it before (on griefing in PvP? It was a long time ago, and I forget), and the fact that you were willing to go toe-to-toe with me is one major reason I value your opinion. I don't know if that's healthy for the forums, though, which appears to be your point.

Lesson learned - I'll take it to PM's next time.

This is just "Is not!" "Is too!" and isn't getting us anywhere.

The problem with calling it a metaphor is that, in using a metaphor, the writer knows they're making a counterfactual for the purpose of being evocative. "The river was a huge snake twisting through the jungle." is a metaphor. The author doesn't actually believe the river is a snake. Likewise for a simile, or use of irony. I see no indication of this.

My problem with the statement is not that he might be trying to extract truths from the game to apply to real life, but just the opposite - that because women should dress to please men in real life, there's no problem with them doing so in the game.

I don't consider responding to what appears to me to be a clearly sexist statement as picking nits.

I haven't attempted character assassination on anyone. I have said that MOO is a good guy - twice now. I have said I don't think he was trying to be sexist - merely that he did so involuntarily. That's why I pointed it out.

Hmm, "...just as a matter of principle." Personally, I revere principle above politeness. The forum culture I typically post in is substantially more rough-and-tumble than the boards here, and you might be right about doing this in PM's.

For what it's worth, when MOO himself responded to my post, he didn't claim to be hurt or upset, and he didn't ask me to apologize for being rude, assassinating his character, or setting up a witch hunt. Let me say that if I have hurt anyone, I apologize.

If you think I'm a liar - that I'm deliberately misreading things - you probably should stop discussing things with me.

What he said wasn't between the lines.
It was the lines.

MOO's point appeared to be that the in-game costume creator should be weighted more heavily towards female models, as players typically dress their female characters in a wider variety of clothing than their male characters. His point appeared to be that 'sexy' costumes are likely to be popular among the playerbase, and are likely to be something that players will be willing to pay for.

He appeared to be supporting the general notion that there was no good reason to restrict the vast majority of pieces to male-only, or to make any substantial distinction between the base pieces all three figures have access to - unlike the Magic, Steampunk and Gunslinger packs, which pretty much set this whole issue in motion.

If those weren't his points, than, yes, I missed them.
If they were, I didn't.

In the midst of making his largely tongue-in-cheek and lighthearted post touching on these very valid points, he used a couple of phrases I found objectionable, and I objected to them.
I didn't feel the need at the time to state that I agreed with his overall post, as I have said so previously. I have since clarified this in this thread as well, for those that might have missed it. I just clarified it again, for those that haven't picked up on it yet.

I was quite suprised that he brought up RL issues in the thread as well. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

His statements weren't ambiguous - they were quite straight forward. They only become cryptic if we assume they aren't sexist.

He make a remark about his wife, their closet, and who pays for what, and who should wear what. You appear to be saying that in talking about his wife, he didn't mean his wife. In talking about his closet, he didn't mean his closet. And that in talking about women, he didn't mean women.
I'm not the one trying to make words jump through hoops here.

He said he supported more options, in specific sexy ones, for his female game avatars. I support this fully, and so didn't comment on it.

He also told us what he thinks women need in terms of clothes. I object to this sentiment, and I have said so. I have explained why. I have not insulted his intelligence, nor have I intimated MOO is a bad person. I believe just the opposite, and have said so in so many words, in this thread.

As to the argument that nobody else was bothered by it:
- first of all, that's not accurate, as another poster directly after my first post chimed in in apparent agreement. Perhaps I misinterpreted.
- secondly, I don't really care. It doesn't matter to me if other people aren't bothered by what appears to be clear sexist language to me - it bothers me, and I'm going to mention it.

May I also question the consistency of the position of chastising someone on a forum for chastising someone on a forum?

If you think I'm being overly sensitive, say so. If you think this issue is unimportant, that's fine. If you believe that MOO can't evidence unconcious sexism because he's an intelligent, basically good guy, we'll have to agree to disagree.
But this business of telling me that MOO didn't say what he clearly did say - to the point that I have quoted it repeatedly - is not going to get much traction with me personally.

Here are both the paragraph I am quoting, and the preceeding paragraph:

Please highlight the sections discussing the costume creator.
Unfortunately, I see references to a (presumably real) closet, a (presumably real) spouse, and (presumably real) clothing.

There are other paragraphs in which MOO is discussing the costume creator. You'll notice I'm neither quoting, nor objecting to, those paragraphs.

Here's the paragraph.

Please highlight the 'if' you see here.
Thanks.

Here's the quote:

Not 'it would be good if...'
Not 'I'd like to see more...'

He's saying what women need.
Need.
If they're going to keep him happy, that is.

And the two paragraphs, by the way, were discussing the real world, not the game world.

And if you can't tell the difference between saying 'I'd like it if men wore shirts less around me' and 'Men need to wear shirts less around me', I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

As shown above, the quote I'm unhappy with wasn't about his own character - it was about what women should have in their closets. I haven't objected to posts saying "I want to dress my character like <insert description> - it makes me happy." And I'm not objecting to that here, either.

For the record, if you don't think someone's forum post can be sexist, you might want to think about it for a bit. I could compose a sexist forum post. Could you?

If so, please don't tell me forum posts can't be sexist.

Unless, of course, you're telling me that pointing out what appears to me to be sexism isn't a good thing, that there is no moral high ground when it comes to sexism. (I suspect that's not what you're saying.)

Alternately, you might be admonishing me that this isn't important enough to warrant my attention. I'm capable of making that decision for myself, thanks.

You might even be telling me it's not important enough to warrant your attention. If so, that's fine, thread exits to the right.

So, when he said that women dressing in certain ways pleases him, and that women should to that more, he wasn't informing women how to dress to please him?

Sorry, but my explanation seems much simpler to me.

For the record, I don't believe he was being malicious - just unconsciously sexist. I don't think he's a bad person, or trying to act like one. On the contrary, if I thought he meant to be sexist, I wouldn't bother.
I think MOO's a good guy. And when good guys - or good gals - say something that makes them look bad, they should be called out on it.
That's the way things change.