Trust and Doing the Right Thing (regarding Early Founder Pledge Gifts/Transfers)

Bound on account is a way to force players to grind. "You want this? It takes 140 hours of play time to get it.. So you have to play our game that much, even if it means playing an aspect of the game your not interested in".

Or for a store item it forces new sales "even though you bought it, were not going to let you resell something you own, use it on another account you own.. We want everyone to have to buy it!"

Its like when microsoft said for the Xbox one they where not going to allow used game sales and where so badly received at e3, they had to retract their plans on fear of loosing their customers.

The decision to not have bound items in this game is one of the reasons portalarium gets so much money from me.. And trust me, they have gotten a lot from me and continue to do so. Not only from myself but those in my life i convince to purchase or those that i purchase for.

That is the same for a lot of people who spend a lot. Binding items could ruin this game. The minute i start seeing it mentioned i start thinking. "Hmm wonder if thats going to be a deal breaker for me causing me to cut losses and sell stuff", where as currently i have zero intentions of ever selling anything for real money. It would create the opposite effect.


Bound items are the reasons i don't play other mmo's, and one of the reasons i back this.

Ultra rare , very special, for very good reasons? An in game royal warrant from lord british as an example? Completely understand.. Anything beyond that would make me disgusted.

 

You do make a compelling point Wagram. However, Portalarium asserts that, in the KS, they wrote that Founders would be able to gift Founder pledges after the KS (see here for quote). If you look at the direct quotes from the KS, there is no denying that this is true. What doesn't make sense is how they advertised their deadlines, considering that they had planned for the gifting of founder pledges after the KS.

"Only 2 Days Left to Get Your New BONUS [Founder] REWARDS"

"And remind all your friends that haven't already pledged to come on out and get in on these Kickstarter-Only pledges before our campaign ends on Sunday morning!"

Being that they had planned on founder pledges being generated after the KS, it seems that labeling them "Kickstarter-Only" is misleading. Likewise, claiming that there were only two days left to get bonus founder rewards is also misleading.

I post this because I strongly oppose the attempts of some to revoke wagram's liberty to voice his opinion in a manner consistent with the forum atmosphere. We have plenty of moderation here as is, and the last thing we need is vigilante moderation. If you believe that there is reason to silence someone, report them.

 

Truth in Advertsing Laws

• Americans depend on the FTC's Consumer Protection Bureau to enforce truth-in-advertising laws that protect consumers from deceptive campaigns. Federal law requires companies to have objective evidence to back up any claims made in advertising. It also bans deceptive ads that leave out critical information about a product that could influence a consumer's decision or could in some way threaten a consumer's safety.
  
  Kickstarter campaigns rules state once $1 as been pledged to any Reward Tier it is locked and cannot be changed. If this was not the truth its deceptive.
  Stating a Chat with a few people wanting extra accounts is not objective evidence.They should have told them to set up extra kickstarter accounts, not a separate fund set up through them.
  That Critical information was not on the Kickstarter Project Page during the Campaign but could have influenced a backers decision.

 

Your highlighted text says it all.

yes it does Quote it on kickstarter dated 9th April 2013 two days after the funding campaign ended. So do they put it right for the 22322 that pledged during the campaign or stand up for a few late comers wanting to abuse the campaign rules.

 

Oh I see now. So you're saying that at the beginning of the KS (which is when KS terms begin applying), there was no loophole that allowed people to generate Founder pledges after the deadline, and that they added that loophole after money had been pledged, which is a breach of KS rules?

Edit: this is a question btw.

 

You can highlight it all you want, that isn't what that means.

What you are quoting is used to punish these types of things:

http://www.businessinsider.com/false-advertising-scandals-2011-9?op=1


You intentionally didn't highlight ABOUT A PRODUCT the key component of that law. It's about the product, not about how they offer promotions.

btw.. i like to read court cases, case law, and laws in general... a bit of a hobby of mine... so we can argue legal all you want in here

 

I'm just eagerly awaiting April 7th, so this issue can finally end. Portalarium has made their position known, has apologized, and even went the step beyond toward re-recognizing and rewarding the Royal Founders with further shinies that will clearly identify and promote these early backers. It's clear there's no way to convince or appease everyone satisfactorily at this point.

 

Is this thread still being allowed to stay open?? This horse has been beaten to death and every one of the virtues continues to be desecrated here.
/end thread already

 

Unfortunately, I've just started to ignore folks.

 

@Lady Innessa, If you believe that the thread should be locked, just report the appropriate posts.

@Mishri, I agree that a serious legal argument isn't worth entertaining, but I'm still interested in the ethical questions. Considering that Portalarium had planned on allowing founder pledges to be generated after the KS (see OP), wasn't labeling them as "Kickstarter-Only" misleading?

I mean, originally, the impression was that this all was caused by an exploit that allowed founders to gift founder pledges. However, Dallas set things straight in the OP of this thread, and explained that this had been planned all along, and had been noted in the KS. So if it had been in the plans since pre-KS, then why were backers led to believe that Founder status was tied to a deadline?

 

Supposedly it is tied to a deadline (April 7th now.) They could always receive 'numerous requests" to allow all founders to gift founder status until launch.

 

After a long and I am willing to bet extremely draining kickstarter campaign, someone in a more than likely near comatose state, made a possible one word error on a description, while otherwise remaining consistent.

While now with plenty of hindsight, people can nit-pik every single word like lawyers.

People are fallible especially when exhausted! They've clarified their stance, while communication may not have been the best they made a GOOD FAITH EFFORT to address the issue. Part of being human is making mistakes, part of being human is forgiving and moving on.

It almost appears like this is more of an attention getting mechanism! I apologize for this post but it is also really frustrating to other people to see this over and over and over. We can continue moving in a negative direction or we can move on and forward helping to make this game the best that we can. I for one, am really enjoying the interaction and engagement of the developers. We have been actively included in shaping SoTA. I have loved games my whole life but have to pay the bills working in another field. I really appreciate that interaction as I get to help contribute to something that I have a passion for.

In the end the only person that makes the decision to move forward, or not, is each one of you.

 

Agreed, @Vladimyre. Instead of fixating on some honest mistakes of the past... let's move forward together and continue supporting this project that we all believe in.

 

I don't agree. I'd like to but too many things are getting overlooked in the interest of keeping this brisk pace that has been set. There doesn't seem to be a real culture of mindfulness corporately or in the community.
I would like to see a little more respect for the contributions that are being made. I am not just talking about founders. I am talking about benefactors and even the people who discover the project today or tomorrow. Old fans and new gamers are going on payment plans to help make this happen. That means they are contributing amounts that are by no means insignificant to them.
The negavity can be taken as a demoralizing factor. It is a reminder of how important Portalarium's actions are to us and the company should conduct itself accordingly. Good intentions really mean nothing if actions prove otherwise.
I hope that I'll be able to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and they have a great chance to turn all of this around come spring which is fast approaching.
Good luck, Portalarium. I'd really like to see you pull it off.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

The question is, why didn't they put effort into starting a completely new campaign to raise backing dollars, rather than extending one? If I had known I could simply wait until early this year to pledge, I may have done so rather than be lured by the previous sales tactic.

It's all about the message they are conveying. It's water under the bridge now, but look at the fallout that occurred because of the lack of effort put into raising funds on their part. We wouldn't even be having this discussion right now if it had been handled differently. So don't blame the messenger.

 

Question about the bound to account thing: If something is not bound to an account, does that mean it can be stolen or will there be safeguards ensuring voluntary transfer of items like deeds and what not?

 

You'd be behind on choosing lot locations (if you pledged that high) and will be missing out on an extra set of armors (if you pledged that high).

I disagree with it being a lack of effort put into raising funds on their part. This was implemented because people weren't able to come up with the money during kickstarter to pledge to make all the pledges they needed for their family (some people wanted 10 pledges). So they came out with the payment plans, the gifting, and extended to all founders ability to upgrade and purchase more pledges through April.

Now I knew about all of these, what I didn't realize was that if I made a gift with my founder pledge, that meant it was giving them founder pledge status, in retrospect and after reading dallas' explanation it makes sense because it fulfills those wants people had for getting the pledges in.

Later on they wanted to reward people for recruiting so they added in recruiting benefits, and they figured if you gifted a pledge that entitled you to a recruit benefit, because it's the same thing.

Then when these 2 systems collided and people realized you could gift founder pledges + get $25 credit for it, it caused this unforeseen issue...

I'm still glad I didn't wait.

 

Yes, it's called, no virtual items for cash, and it causes the developers to make the real money rather than players. You call it a grind. I call it ethics. Either you play the game because you like the game, or you play it to make money from other people. I think it's fine to have extra items and sell them in-game, as a merchant, for in-game gold. But that's not the impression I have from those buying extra.

And it's the reason I haven't upgraded my pledge, especially when they later announced they would allow more than one house per account. It is a two-edged sword. But the one that does not seek profit motives for playing a game has more desirable connotations to me.

Because the game has already attracted many that would agree with your outlook, it has ruined it for those who think the opposite. I guess it's a choice they must make, and have made.

I, and many others, already have decided to cut our losses. And because we think the opposite, we have not sought to make money by recouping our costs. But because I have invested, I will stick around to see what unfolds for the game. I may even change my mind. But right now, the jury is out.

 

I played LOTRO for a few years. I was not interested in raiding (the same raids, over, and over, and over). I was interested in my houses and my decorations (among other things). Yet I had to raid to be able to get the neatest items for my houses. I played the game about 40 hours a week. However this format was created to make me play aspects of the game i did not want to play, to play in the ways I DID want to play. This is a good example of why I do not like bound items. I should be able to craft 40 hours a week, and sell my items to the non crafters. The Raiders should be able to raid 40 hours a week and I should be able to buy items from them that only they can get from that style of play.

It makes each style of play usefull. It makes each player usefull. It creates economics between the players an community. Am I capable of raiding? Yeah, actually I was one of the best raid leaders on my server, and I pug'd as well as led kin raids. I took pride in knowing that there's not a raid in LOTOR i couldn't run. I especially enjoyed Saruman. The point is, I shouldnt have to do the same raid 200 times to see an item drop once, then that one version is rolled for by 12 people, to then be bound to them. There was a raid I ran every day for over a year without getting an item I was interested in, that Had NOTHING to do with raiding. Thats grind perpetuated by the game company, and might keep some people from playing the way they want. Hence like I dont like bound. When people ask me about LOTRO, I say "Im waiting for them to make gold bound because they dont want player to player interaction, they want you to play an online shooter with a LOTRO setting. Gold is about the only thing not left thats not bound.. there's not much you can buy with it. Im one of the richest players on the server with nothing to buy."

One thing you have to keep in mind, a large part of the base of backers are people that played UO, that didnt have bound items. some of the people that are leaders in this community became started in their own business by being able to sell in game items.

Only thing I ever sold for real cash, was my accounts when i quit. *shrugs*. I knew a mom with 3 kids that played, and sold for real money.It was a way for her to be at home with her children and make a living. I can support that.

There is no right answer, but many of us have a long history of why we don't want bound items. Saying it just has to do with "making money" is very inaccurate. Ive bought a lot of store stuff, I have no intention of selling any of it for real money!

It has to do with the fact Ill have so much play time per week, and the game offering a PLAYER-Player economy. I should be able to play the game the way I want to play it, using my "profession". Or as one Richard Garriott's often says (paraphrased), I should be able to be a fisherman and fish. If I fish, I should have a way to make a living at it, and use that income to buy things I cant get from how I choose to make my living from other people that choose a different path.

I should be able to be say, a computer programmer and buy a dresser from someone rather then being told "sorry, you have to become a carpenter if you want a dresser".Or If i can only play 5 hours a week, so i want to buy that dresser from my job's income that makes me work 80 hours a week, but know i can sell it if i quit.. well, thats a boon to that sort of player!

This is a sandbox MMO, and has always been meant to be. That means that you have as many ways to play it as your imagination allows. By going down the road of bound items, you begin taking away from that. Has nothing to do with making real money for many. Its a bad stero-type. Im not saying it doesn't offer opportunisty to make real money, sure it does!!! However that doesnt mean it servers its only purpose.

For the Sandbox, RPG style game, with a player driven based economy this game has promised to be since day 1, binding items would be detrimental and the dev's with their hundreds of years of combined experience understand this.

Selling items in the store and saying "they will be bound", begins the road down a slippery slope that once started only becomes easier later... "wow, no one likes that new skill.."... "hmm, lets make it so you get a bound item so people will use it". To avoid binding at all, helps to reassure the backers, that as a majority are people that would not want to see that happen, are reassured. Also it lets players know "if you buy this from the store, and don't like the game, you have a chance to get out and make your money-back... we wont control the market ourselves".. And selling bound items in the store would do just that "you can buy it, but only from us....". bad precedents.

not an attack at you *shrugs*, just my opinion on the topic and why i think making any items bound, including store items, for multiple reasons is a really bad idea. If I wanted that, id still be playing Lotro. Instead im trying to get rid of my Lotro accounts I don't have to settle anymore. I get a game made by people that understand why we don't need another theme-park to stand inline at rides for.

The important thing though is, that im glad while you may not agree that you still willing to stick out and see. That shows character and I salute you for it! I hope you like it and I can meet you in game some time.