Sooo your saying they are lying to us?
Well, you've made me into a liar, I do have another comment after from my previous post. (#402)
You talk a lot about throwing insult, but you keep doing it yourself in a passive-aggressive sort of way. Well, more just aggressive under the veil of "horrible company misstep that need to be pointed out so it never ever happens again or else."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abriael
***SNIP***of course, without mentioning the fact that making a rule and then not honoring it in the face of your paying customers is a *very* bad marketing move.
You keep coming back to it...
So if we take the reason they gave us here: http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/s...756#post906756 ... then your saying that even though they didn't get enough active applications with "specific types of machines, setups, connection types, ISPs, geographical locations and other configurations", they should have just gone ahead and tested under conditions they didn't believe were optimal? Or are you saying they should have delayed the alpha and asked our permission to change test participant pool so they could test they way they felt was best?
I mean it's either that, or you are saying they lied. In that case, why bother supporting them anymore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Abriael
***SNIP*** There's a large number of people that just signs for every alpha/beta they see (there even are sites that list them all for their convenience) in order to have something new to play for a couple hours.
They log in, provide a warm body, log out, and never come back again, without providing any feedback at all.
By opening the alpha to everyone, SE opened the doors to a large number of those, excluding many that simply were much more deserving of the spot. Not a good idea.
So again, "Not a good idea" to test under optimal configuraitons? or they lied? They have mentioned many times that they needed the "warm bodies" for the stress test. Over and over again they have mentioned limited participation in the alpha BECAUSE it's a stress test. Any feedback they get is a bonus, but it's the server preformance they are trying to gauge.
Your saying that they should have thrown that out, and made sure that less optimal "warm bodies" were there instead of what they needed. Why bother testing at all if they can't do it they way they think it needed to be done?
No, I'm not putting words in your mouth. That is the logical conclusion to the argument you are making. That... or again, they lied. You keep coming back to the "wrong" they did. So what wrong was it? Getting the testing they needed done at the inconvenience of some 1.0 customers? Or lying to all customers in an inept marketing ploy?
Personally, I think I have about as much reason to believe the "marketing ploy" argument as I do the "yanked alpha applications because of forum behavior" possibility.