genuine need or company spite? *spoilers*

Opening a revenue stream it did since prior to SSA's there was no SSA revenue stream, that is not made up mate. I did say that to what degree we will never know, so not really sure what exactly that I wrote you are taking such an exception too?

You see I think he was getting at me, rather than you. I don't think he gets that they are $5 a pop, and you only need one of them for your weekly reward.

While it opened up an extra $5 one off payment from peeps, I dread to think how much money it cost to devlop these six others that people don't buy.

To narrow. I pay a sub yet, and the SSA's are one of the carrots that get waved in front of me to continue that sub. While it seems more and more (on the forums anyway) that IO's and MAXIMUM POWAH are the goals of the game for the players, I am confident that there are countless players that play for the exploration, storytelling, and other fun things that the game was founded on.

That said, I agree the price tag is too high in the store. I am sure it is commensurate with production costs somehow- but I doubt it is directly tied to cost, but more of a market research thing where they decided long term that is the price point needed to make the amount of money they wanted on the venture. Especially considering it is bound to go on sale eventually(read, when the next SSA comes about). Also, as a "first time" type experiment, it is obviously better to overprice it, then reduce cost after evaluation then underprice it, and then raise the price later(read, piss off a lot of customers) or otherwise miss out on potential earnings by undershooting the initial price.

i am sure that the next SSA will benefit from the data collected from this SSA in both development and marketing.

I'm not particularly invested in this debate, but this is something I have an irresistable urge to comment on. Something I find quite interesting is how petty the comic book world can be. To reference to a funny albeit somewhat offensive website, Cracked has a list in which one of the examples is where the resignation letter of an individual is published in a comic book to the spite of Dave Cockrum, the individual who resigned.

That is the one I can link to. There were other things, such as when a bitter artist who left the comic book began drawing pornography of superman and Lois Lane for a fetish comic... in the 1950's when that was actually a big deal (having immense difficulty getting the citation). Just goes to show you shouldn't tick off Joe Shuster. Or Curt Swan.

Something I learned growing up is that people don't grow up. We're still the same kids who hold grudges when we don't get what we want. Somehow we've gotten quite a bit fatter and people expect things from us, but at least we've become a lot more cunning with out spite and our squabbles.



Though I'm not sure that this is done out of company spite. I just can't deny that it couldn't be the case.

I was thinking the exact same thing lol.

These bits prompted me to think a little. Scary, I know.

It boils down to this, for me: What is "Lore"?

Now, I'm sure someone will manage to pull out a dictionary definition that's easier to understand, but to me, Lore is a combination of established history and prior characterisation.

It's the second part that's tricky to writers. Weaving a story around established history (little things like when Statesman got his powers, when the Rikti invaded, when Nemesis became Emperor of America) is easy. All you need is a timeline, and to fit your story into the gaps. And for something like City of Heroes, there are some pretty EPIC gaps.

Importantly, this is very different to Canon. Canonical material is EVERYTHING that's written in or about the game by the devs. It includes Lore, but also includes the particulars of how characters are represented and their actions throughout the game. It is impossible for the developers to "go against canon", because canon is "whatever they put in the game". However, it is possible for canon to violate lore. Efforts should be made to ensure that it doesn't, but it can be done.

The hard bit though, as I said, is working with prior characterisation. Let me try to think of an example. Freakshow are a gang of cybernetically enhanced anarchists. That is my "one sentence snapshot" of their original characterisation, as I would have described them back when I first met them and started learning their story. Since then, they have evolved, as more and more writers have been involved in their stories, into becoming something of a joke group - 13375p34|<1|\|6 idiots is most common view of them. Which doesn't preclude them being a gang of cybernetically enhanced anarchists, I'll admit, but it actually makes them less intimidating. Because there's very little intimidating about someone who tells you that they're going to "pwn" you, when you and your 7 buddies with superpowers are pounding on them with great vengeance and furious anger.
Still, later writers are constrained by that prior characterisation, to the extent that we get Freakshow going to school and we find it amusing. Because leetspeaking idiots going to school actually is amusing. If you ask me, though, cybernetically enhanced anarchists going to school is something else entirely. But still potentially amusing, depending on how it's played.

If a new writer comes along and decides to go back to the roots of characterisation for Freakshow, they will behave very differently to how we've seen them evolve over recent issues. Neither is it wrong to do so. That's what I think Positron means when he says that writers aren't completely constrained by existing lore: Not that new writers have total control to re-write enemies as they wish (making Freakshow a peace-loving militant book club, for example), but that within the realms of their original characterisation a writer is free to explore the group however they want.

So, what I expect (hope?) is that each enemy group has a "one sentence snapshot" and that writers are told to obey that, but not to feel restricted by how other writers have decided to write that group.

Hellions: Demon-raising gangbangers.
Skulls: Death-worshipping gangbangers.
Trolls: Super-drug-addicted stupid gangbangers.
Council: Paramilitary megalomaniacs with a sideline in human enhancement.
Malta: Mysterious meta-human-hating paramilitary organisation with wealthy backing.
Knives of Artemis: Female Assassin group nominally under the control of Malta.

I'm sure the list goes on.

The same principle holds true for individual characters, really, but they tend to require a little more depth to their "snapshot".

What I'm saying is that the writing team don't (and shouldn't) need to slavishly adhere to every scrap of existing detail regarding groups and characters and only operate them within those restrictions. They can, if they choose to, of course, but there is not requirement for them to. Can you imagine how much it would ruin the game if Nemesis could only create variants of his prior plots? On the other hand, it would ruin things just as much if Nemesis were suddenly characterised as a straightforward-thinking simpleton whose idea of a "plot" is "rob the bank".

There is a happy medium, and that happy medium is actually Lore. If new Canon material added to the game adheres to the Lore, then there's very little anyone can complain about.

So, to put my own spin on things, Positron's statement should have been that he doesn't require new writers to strictly follow canon.

But, but... this is (a game about) comic books! And as any real fan can tell you, comics continuity is serious business!

here here!!