Compromise: Just Charge $5 For Now. Once 2.0 is Out, Then Charge $12

[stoned]

Translation: my argument isn't working so I'll use personal attacks instead because that will make me seem more right.

baaaaaahhh baaahhhh.

translation for every1 else. you have no argument your just a bad troll. you argu over somthing that would not effect you in 1 way what so ever besides givving you more peeps to play the game with. you hurt yourself being so blind and ignorant. people like you need to stay off the forums or deserve to get trolled.

[stoned]

I really have to assume that this animosity towards a discount is due to a select group taking the request personally.

It's as though, because they are willing to pay full price, they take requests for a discounts as an attack against their self-esteem. It's as though we were questioning their intended purchase as being a bad deal. And as a result, they lash out against the perceived threat with insults and derision.

So, it doesn't matter how much we've sanitized the argument down to being about the benefits and how it could be more profitable. We're not even dealing with people who are interested in the argument at all. We're up against those who perceive an insult against their beloved brand, and they're taking it way too personally.

nice nice you basicly sayed it right there. nothing the op sayed would change their gameplay or realy has anything to do with them. they just here to troll and get peeps arguing. the game is so much fun to them they cant stay out of the forums.

[JackDaniels]

I really have to assume that this animosity towards a discount is due to a select group taking the request personally.

It's as though, because they are willing to pay full price, they take requests for a discounts as an attack against their self-esteem. It's as though we were questioning their intended purchase as being a bad deal. And as a result, they lash out against the perceived threat with insults and derision.

So, it doesn't matter how much we've sanitized the argument down to being about the benefits and how it could be more profitable. We're not even dealing with people who are interested in the argument at all. We're up against those who perceive an insult against their beloved brand, and they're taking it way too personally.

Yep, thanks for this.

[Atoli]

I'm one of the people who are willing to pay the full price, but it certainly feels more RIGHT to charge us only 50%.
6,50€ instead of 13€ is making sense, after all the game is just at 50% regular MMORPG standard.
They could also make it like..optional to pay the full price? So to play the game, you have to pay 50%, but if you think the game is worth it, you have the option to pay the full price.

But since my LS will be staying anyways, I don't really care which amount we have to pay in the end.

[ninesunz]

This just in, business are trying to make a profit, more at 11.

[ninesunz]

they see me trollin', they hatin'

here you go bud

[whoopeeragon]

I wonder just how many people are sitting here laughing so hard at the pure absurdity of certain branches of coversation going on in this thread. And I see JackDaniels to be exposing his 'more words no action' motto over this thread as well.

Ignoring the economic side of things, it really is a matter of personal mentality. Some are of the opinion that version 2.0 is 50% complete, whereas the current version is near to acceptable launch level, as I also believe. We believe that, short of a few things which hinder our enjoyment which won't be fixed until 2.0, that the current game is playable for the full cost, as we mentally envision this game to not have any correlation with the next version in playable immersion. We enjoy what is being offered as a wholely game in itself, without thinking of the effect with the next version. Put into exaggeration, we believe the version 2.0 to be a completely new game to start off with, while the current game is whole to itself.

We then have the other group, which believe that we should pay only half or a compromised price for a game they feel is unfinished or not to the standard they expect. Different opinions are everywhere; what may seem better may be unpolished in another's eyes. (I believe Belial and Sierra made a point about this.) They also believe that with the advancement of the next version, what we do now is -kind of- obsolete and thus should not deserve the full price. In exaggeration, they believe the current game and the new vesion to be the same, with the latter being the true beginning of the game.

These are just the extremes; there exist many of you who will sit in the gray area between the two. I'm partially like that, though as I said, I swing more to the former group.

So which group is correct? Both of them, and none of them. It depends on how well you justify your mentality. Renta's done a pretty good job; some others also have. Others, however, have yet form their own cohesive ideal; others have chosen to express pure negativity or positivity, others yet again join in bandwagons without proof of why and how they came to that particular aspect. I would advice those of you to do so and just think and justify why you came to your conclusion. Inappropriate responses will be, for example, nearly all of JackDaniels' posts for the past twenty pages, as well as stoned's purely negative, insulting, harsh and cutting mutterings which provide no substantial feedback and information whatsoever. Think on what it is you try to say, envision your mentality, justify it, accept that others will have differing opinions, and learn to compromise.

From a thought process perspective, that's my opinion in a nutshell.

For the economic side of things, I leave it to you adults who have more experience regarding businesses and finance than a teenager like me.

[AmyRae]

Ignoring the economic side of things, it really is a matter of personal mentality. Some are of the opinion that version 2.0 is 50% complete, whereas the current version is near to acceptable launch level, as I also believe. We believe that, short of a few things which hinder our enjoyment which won't be fixed until 2.0, that the current game is playable for the full cost, as we mentally envision this game to not have any correlation with the next version in playable immersion. We enjoy what is being offered as a wholely game in itself, without thinking of the effect with the next version. Put into exaggeration, we believe the version 2.0 to be a completely new game to start off with, while the current game is whole to itself.

We then have the other group, which believe that we should pay only half or a compromised price for a game they feel is unfinished or not to the standard they expect. Different opinions are everywhere; what may seem better may be unpolished in another's eyes. (I believe Belial and Sierra made a point about this.) They also believe that with the advancement of the next version, what we do now is -kind of- obsolete and thus should not deserve the full price. In exaggeration, they believe the current game and the new vesion to be the same, with the latter being the true beginning of the game.

What I'm trying to get through here, is that the first group is well-served no matter the price of the game. It's not as though they would choose not to play if they had to pay less for the service.

The second group may represent a substantial number of players who won't pay full price, but who would pay a lower price. The reasons for this may vary greatly, but they generally revolve around the current state of the game, and the feeling it's not ready for prime time. If a lower price can generate more income by retaining a lot more people than what you would get by charging full price, the first group suffers no ill effects. On the contrary, they will benefit in the savings and participate in more active servers as a result.

It therefore seems illogical that the first group would want to fight the notion of the second group since they are not harmed in any way, no matter the results of the inquiry.

[Zanfire]

What I'm trying to get through here, is that the first group is well-served no matter the price of the game. It's not as though they would choose not to play if they had to play less for the service.

The second group may represent a substantial number of players who won't pay full price, but who would pay a lower price. The reasons for this may vary greatly, but they generally revolve around the current state of the game, and the feeling it's not ready for prime time. If a lower price can generate more income by retaining a lot more people than what you would get by charging full price, the first group suffers no ill effects. On the contrary, they will benefit in the savings and participate in more active servers as a result.

It therefore seems illogical that the first group would want to fight the notion of the second group since they are not harmed in any way, no matter the results of the inquiry.

its confusing as hell right? why would you be against it at all, unless your some pride stricken fan boy?