Rin,
You have missed the point I was making.
1) Lying to your customers is wrong.
2) Someone can sugarcoat or twist it any way they want, but lying is still wrong.
3) Until you can accept that misleading another person is wrong, I really have nothing else to add.
We will have to agree to disagree.
I wish you well. I'm out.
-
08-11-2016, 10:05 AMIstaru
-
08-11-2016, 11:24 AMLokier
This thread be like;
https://66.media.tumblr.com/73c11e49...s9sf7l_500.gif -
08-11-2016, 06:34 PMMasekase_HurricaneI don't think that is a good example, so lets try this one. You buy a coin from the royal mint it says only 250 will be made, then 6 months later they release the same coin at a fraction of the cost and say unlimited availability. Are you saying you would be ok with this ? I know I wouldn't I would be fuming and would never purchase anything that was exclusive again.Quote:
Do you complain about christmas drink being 1 dollar cheaper in summer when you thought it was only on sale during winter and about how the supermarket essentially stole from you?
How they coerced you into giving them money for something you thought was an equal trade?
Maybe it doesn't matter the first time, it's just 1 dollar, but how about 50 christmases in?
What if you bought 50 on the first christmas, would that make it worse, since you couldn't have known?
Would you demand you be refunded 50 dollars?
Your above example is rubbish as the product is always available. -
08-11-2016, 07:46 PMJim_Berry
I would say "No!"
Those items should stay exclusive to those who were dedicated to the game during it's unfortunate times. Giving 2.0 players access to those items will no longer have value to the players' hearts from 1.0, and will only be seen as a financial value rather than personal bonds. -
08-11-2016, 08:46 PMRin_SatoI did not say it was not wrong, I said it should not affect your decision to purchase an item, whether it is "rare" or not, but rather the item itself should be what makes you buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Istaru
I wouldn't be mad because I don't value items per rarity, if you regret a purchase later because other people are allowed to have what you have, maybe you should think about why you bought it in the first place, if you didn't buy it because you wanted the item itself, but rather the status of the item.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masekase_Hurricane
-
08-11-2016, 11:01 PMNiqoteYou are missing the point. Either way, it's never going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rin_Sato
They are pre-order or collectors edition exclusives, they are a symbol of gratitude.
We know that the only items SE has 're released' in 2.0 are items that were obtained via quest/ingame story (Chocobo head, star-spangled subligar) or are so favoured that people are constantly requesting them across multiple forums (Lightning returns), and they did not fit into the above categories; in comparison this one request thread is filled with so many people telling 1.0 players how they feel or should feel, there is no progress here. -
08-11-2016, 11:11 PMMasekase_HurricaneOh you don't value items by rarity? can you tell me when you sell stuff on the market board cause I assume it will all be 1 gil. We all value stuff by rarity every day on the game. Yes I buy things for the status of having it and why shouldn't I? Just the same as people do Ex, Savage etc on the game for the status of having the items.Quote:
I wouldn't be mad because I don't value items per rarity, if you regret a purchase later because other people are allowed to have what you have, maybe you should think about why you bought it in the first place, if you didn't buy it because you wanted the item itself, but rather the status of the item.
-
08-11-2016, 11:13 PMCakekizyy
Something can be exclusive without being exclusive inperpetuity.
-
08-12-2016, 01:03 AMNiwashiBut that would only apply to pre-order bonuses, the legacy tattoo, and the legacy chocobo. On those, I'd agree with you. They were promised as exclusive so they need to remain that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Istaru
Everything else that people keep arguing about is items that were never offered as an exclusive, but became temporarily unavailable due to other circumstances (in the case of 1.0 items, those "other circumstances" were the closing and then rebooting of the game). We're discussing whether those "coincidentally unavailable for a while" items should be made available again, not whether "exclusive" items should be made available again. Exclusive by coincidence is not guaranteed in the same way that a promise of exclusivity is. -
08-12-2016, 01:32 AMSkivvyI think the Hermes' shoes would be OK to add back in - this is the one that required an active sub in both XI and XIV to obtain during the days of 1.0. I really don't see anything special about subbing to two different games, so no biggie (IMO) here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niwashi
Dalamund horn I feel should stick with 1.0 players only. This was a reward for those that stuck around until the end and managed to complete one of the final (THE final?) fights in the game. I was not around during this time, but from everything I've read, this fight was actually quite challenging, and it definitely deserved a reward. And c'mon! The achievement that gave you the horn was called "Once in a Lifetime".
CE items from 1.0 I think should also stay with 1.0 characters/accounts only. This was a completely separate game, and those players are the ones who supported the game at that time, etc.
CE upgrades for ARR should be allowed though. There are a variety of reasons why someone may have opted for a standard edition when they first started - let them pay a bit extra and get some cute items.