Quote Originally Posted by Remedi View Post
Tinfoil hat conspiracies =/= raising hell, beign critical of something doesn't mean using arguments without sources. 1.x, housing and the subs were a fact not something that players had come up because they felt it was that way, true that most criticism of housing could be better focused like asking the dev that since their goal for housing is actually harmful to their clients MAYBE they should reconsider it OR work harder to fix it and in that case we should get an idea on how they want to fix it, but I guess that's not very important since ppl don't ask those kind of questions and just mope around how shitty the system is
So, two things.

(1) The only difference between raising hell and conspiracy theories is the accuracy of the complaint, really. Which again comes around to the problem of SE's lack of communication: we don't have any real idea of the facts surrounding any given response by the development team. Housing is a great example here; you bring up the notion that perhaps both sides were heard. Well, you're right - maybe they were. But nothing SE has done clarifies this for the players. Going off the evidence we have - which is correlative at best - there's at least a 50/50 chance they only paid attention because it became a PR nightmare away from the forums.

Don't you think it would have been nice for SE to shed some light on this decision? A simple statement - a short apology, thanks given for the feedback of players across venues (3rd-party media, the Official Forums, etc.), and a commitment to react more proactively in the future - would have done an immense amount of good. But no such statement exists, at least to my knowledge. There was simply a Live Letter response about new Wards being added. So the community was left in the dark, completely unable to determine whether or not there was a conspiracy afoot, or whether SE just decided to listen for once.

(2) Your posts have seemed to lament the negative nature of the community. May I ask why you believe this to be a productive discussion to have? It feels as if you think the community should make an effort to police itself and put on its 'nice' hat in order to coax SE to the table in terms of community outreach. I question whether this is a realistic goal, and whether you believe it's reasonable for a company to maintain a clearly problematic policy just because people are being critical.