Guild Wars 2

Sirendor.1394:

Not really, but lets be honest, it’s free to play, no sub. Maybe we should be glad they added anything at all, even if it was living story crap and a gear grind.

It’s buy to play, not free to play. If it were free to play, all of the mini’s and cool looking armour and weapons would only be bought through the item shop…

..oh wait.

Lord Kuru.3685:

• When you promise stuff and usually deliver, but can’t once in a while, it’s ok.
• When you promise stuff and usually can’t deliver, but do once in a while, it’s not ok.

Anet is definitely in the “can’t deliver” department.

Personally i see it more as “Wont deliver”, can’t means they are unable to do something, won’t means they don’t want too.

Supremelo.8437:

Professions and balance
-There will be new unlockable skills and traits.

No new traits. Two new skills… or one if you count the necromancer. Yes I’m not going to count a sloppy new healing skill that is completely useless. That’s the equivalent of no new skill at all.

Supremelo.8437:

Precursors, and legendaries
-New legendary weapons.
-New types of legendary equipment (possibly a trinket).
-New precursor acquisition methods (I am aware that Arenanet later announced that this would be postponed)

I’m less interested in legendary weapons, so I’ll give them a pass on this. But I really do wish we would have gotten new acquisition methods this year. That is a pity.

Supremelo.8437:

sPvP
-New map types.
-It will be possible to gain legendary weapon skins in sPvP.
-Additional rewards and growth will be added to the major competitive sPvP tournaments.

Well we got a new map I suppose.

I find that Anet is actually a very transparent game company that announces their plans very early on – way before they even work out any details themselves. This is transparency and imo it’s a great thing, but these statements aren’t the same as patch notes or something that they’ll ever add to the game. When developing anything, it’s quite likely (even more so early on in earlier phases) that you run into problems that may never see a specific subject released. Take into account that they are continuously looking at player opinions and try to adjust to this as well.

Did they release all these things? Nope. Do we know if they’re still being worked on? Yup.
There were multiple pvp maps introduced and we know there were plenty of other maps that were looked at that didn’t got finalized. Due to the CDI on game modes I suspect they shifted their focus of new conquest maps to new game modes which are accompanied by new maps.
PvP rewards are currently being revamped, legendaries aren’t in place yet because they decided to rework the entire rank/reward/leaderboard system. Why? Probably due to a lot of player feedback on this subject, which we also saw a CDI on.
There were new unlockable skills… perhaps a bit lackluster, but I also recall a lot of player feedback asking to first fix existing skills, they did have a large amount of fixes and changes to current skills. There are also new traits which have replaced old ones, it’s probably not as shiny as you had pictured it, but there were some (very minor) changes here.
New (types of) legendaries? Nope. Arguably delayed by introduction of a diversity of ascended items which I feel was a controversial addition that (i feel) in the end was really something that many players (indirectly) asked for in the first few months.

I’m not really interested in defending Anet here, but a company that says it will try to be transparent and listen to the community whenever they can and at the same time says: ‘hey we’re going to work on this and that stuff this year." Don’t blindly expect those things to be there. Delays aside, they may just get new data (from us) that makes them go back on their opinion.

Pvp’ers asked if instead of just new maps they could get new game modes as well = delays. Pvp’ers asked if instead of legendaries getting dumped in there could be a new more meaningful reward system = delays.
Anet could’ve easily given us these things, adding new legendaries, maps and skills is really really easy for them. Improving the current system is the hard way, and I really appreciate them doing this.

jheryn.8390:

advertising (which is a guarantee or promise)

advertising. you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.

and neither does websters dictionary, either. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertising

I wouldn’t say promises as I cannot recall that word being used. That aside, the track record of crying wolf is not a positive thing, thus I simply do not trust anything said any more.

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

advertising (which is a guarantee or promise)

advertising. you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.

and neither does websters dictionary, either. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertising

I did not use the word ‘advertising’. I was quoting someone who did.

And your dictionary definition proves what I was saying. There were no paid ads or publications announcing the coming of some of the things ANet said they wanted to do 2013 and did not. Advertising is played out in the media. Many dev statements were not. Advertising is a publication of intent or release. In other words, a guarantee of the release of something.

There were plenty of commissioned artworks and ads for things they did do. Scarlet, The Queens Jubilee, The Bazaar of the Four Winds. All had ads for their content. Some of the things that people are complaining about here are merely things the devs SAID they would like to do in 2013.

Here is an expanded definition of ‘advertising’:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advertising

When a grocery store releases an ad that says they will have bananas on sale for X dollars per pound on certain dates, they must honor that. When a store employee says, “I would like to see bananas go for X dollars per pound on certain dates.” The store is not bound by the employees musings. Same rule applies here.

Elthurien.8356:

Sirendor.1394:

Not really, but lets be honest, it’s free to play, no sub. Maybe we should be glad they added anything at all, even if it was living story crap and a gear grind.

It’s buy to play, not free to play. If it were free to play, all of the mini’s and cool looking armour and weapons would only be bought through the item shop…

..oh wait.

I see what you did there.

BTW, this isn’t the list of item they promise. This is the list of stuff they promise but that they didn’t add to the game or only partially. This is the list of promise from Looking Ahead : GW2 in 2013 by Colin Johanson (its not complete, but better that the first list of this thread)

- Living World : Improving World Boss, Update and refine Dungeon and Fractals, creating world event with more permanent impact, expending the number of dynamic events.
(World Boss Check, Refine Dungeon partially check, Fractal check, new world event with impact fail, dynamic events check but weak)
- New Skills and Trait (Half check, they begin to give use some skill like they said, but not trait. If can say that the number of skill is low, but they are gave us a good balance update which is a good think to do before you begin to all more skills and trait)
- Champion rewards (Check)
- Dungeon completion bonus (check)
- New Ascended Crafting Material (check)
- Account MF (Check)
- All crafting to 500 (partially check, Cooking and Jeweler are still at 400, but the big part of the job is done)
- New Legendary Weapons, Items and Precusors crafting (not check, but they announce that this would be postpone to 2014)
- Change of the WvW orb mechanic in Borderland (check)
- New reward systems for sPvP (check? they began to implement it, but its long from finish. But still its there you can now have gold in sPvP)
- Legendary in sPvP (not check, but seriously this most certainly will come with the rest of the Legendary/precursor update so)
- New type of maps in sPvP (not check, really few new maps and no new TYPE of maps)

In here i didn’t put stuff they promise at the beginning of the year and were done in the first half of the year. But on this list of 12 elements, 5 are fully implemented in the game, 4 are partially done and still in progress, while 3 elements not yet visible in the game (2 of them about legendary where officially postpone to 2014). In the end you can like or dislike what they done but they did or are working on everything they said they will give us during the year, except maybe this new type of sPvP maps. But i’m sure what they mean by new type of map (it’s a map for new type of game mode or just different maps for the same game more?)

Sub or not customers should hold companies accountable for their promises.

tigirius.9014:

Sub or not customers should hold companies accountable for their promises.

This.

Not trying to White Knight the topic, but they were not promises. They were goals.

A more productive discussion would be why Anet has problems realizing goals they set for themselves as a company. We as players can be let down just as easily by companies we feel invested in when they don’t meet self imposed goals, but the sense of betrayal found in this discussion is a little over the top.

killcannon.2576:

Not trying to White Knight the topic, but they were not promises. They were goals.

A more productive discussion would be why Anet has problems realizing goals they set for themselves as a company. We as players can be let down just as easily by companies we feel invested in when they don’t meet self imposed goals, but the sense of betrayal found in this discussion is a little over the top.

This discussion is plenty productive. Anet needs people to tell them it’s not ok to repeatedly talk big but fail nearly every single time. It doesn’t help that they’ve started stealth deleting posts from the forum without even a PM to notify you.

Lord Kuru.3685:

killcannon.2576:

Not trying to White Knight the topic, but they were not promises. They were goals.

A more productive discussion would be why Anet has problems realizing goals they set for themselves as a company. We as players can be let down just as easily by companies we feel invested in when they don’t meet self imposed goals, but the sense of betrayal found in this discussion is a little over the top.

This discussion is plenty productive. Anet needs people to tell them it’s not ok to repeatedly talk big but fail nearly every single time. It doesn’t help that they’ve started stealth deleting posts from the forum without even a PM to notify you.

There’s a difference between being productive and just venting frustrations.

Perhaps instead of just repeating over and over again how people feel so betrayed, or what have you, the discussion should be more of one where players say that the developers should be more focused on one thing or goal at a time instead of broad, long term goals. Most long term goals should be kept in house to avoid this kind of reaction, much like the Manifesto should never have been released.

Imagine instead a discussion where people discussed what was most missed from the goals that Anet set in 2013, and ways the players could help the developers meet their goals. This would actually be constructive.

I’m all for constructive discussions about real issues that we as players can help with, but all this blind angst doesn’t help anyone.

Edit: Not saying that we as players shouldn’t feel some type of loss from a game we feel invested in not meeting self imposed goals, just that there is a better way to express ourselves.

They kept to their promises more than in 2012, that’s for sure.

Does this thread actually achieve anything? What is the point of it? Anet wanted to bring these things into the game by 2013. Some of them didn’t make it. So what. The things that didn’t make it will probably make it in this year. The world will not come to an end before you get chance to experience them and it if did it wouldn’t matter anyway cos we’d all be dead.

Either find a different game that will never live up to your over demanding expectations or be patient and let the devs refine the game in a more realistic and capable timeframe. And if you have to post your feelings, try to be understanding and constructive. Request stuff by all means, but if they cannot deliver it in your timeframe then assume it was because of the level of difficulty involved. Don’t automatically assume the devs were lazy or incompetent, which is what these kinds of threads and posts always imply, even if that’s not the intention message.

Making GW2 a great game is in everyone’s interests, not just yours.

killcannon.2576:

Lord Kuru.3685:

killcannon.2576:

Not trying to White Knight the topic, but they were not promises. They were goals.

A more productive discussion would be why Anet has problems realizing goals they set for themselves as a company. We as players can be let down just as easily by companies we feel invested in when they don’t meet self imposed goals, but the sense of betrayal found in this discussion is a little over the top.

This discussion is plenty productive. Anet needs people to tell them it’s not ok to repeatedly talk big but fail nearly every single time. It doesn’t help that they’ve started stealth deleting posts from the forum without even a PM to notify you.

There’s a difference between being productive and just venting frustrations.

Perhaps instead of just repeating over and over again how people feel so betrayed, or what have you, the discussion should be more of one where players say that the developers should be more focused on one thing or goal at a time instead of broad, long term goals. Most long term goals should be kept in house to avoid this kind of reaction, much like the Manifesto should never have been released.

Imagine instead a discussion where people discussed what was most missed from the goals that Anet set in 2013, and ways the players could help the developers meet their goals. This would actually be constructive.

I’m all for constructive discussions about real issues that we as players can help with, but all this blind angst doesn’t help anyone.

Edit: Not saying that we as players shouldn’t feel some type of loss from a game we feel invested in not meeting self imposed goals, just that there is a better way to express ourselves.

Feedback is extremely useful. Anet should know how customers feel about their product and how customers feel about their company (e.g. “always talks big but never delivers”). These are thing that customers can speak about with 100% accuracy.

On the other hand, Anet’s not going to listen to ideas from players about how to run their company because they’ll always have the excuse “they don’t know/understand what’s going on behind the curtain.”

My bottom line: Arenanet advertised/promised/implied/said (insert whatever word you want to argue about) that certain things were going to happen in 2013, and they did not. I also don’t think just because you put one statement at the bottom or in the middle that says things are subject to change, makes it okay.

Edit: Also, the defintion you linked “The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media.” Is advertising. They paid to have the blog written and posted on a website they are paying for, which is in electronic media, aka the internet.

killcannon.2576:

Not trying to White Knight the topic, but they were not promises. They were goals.

A more productive discussion would be why Anet has problems realizing goals they set for themselves as a company. We as players can be let down just as easily by companies we feel invested in when they don’t meet self imposed goals, but the sense of betrayal found in this discussion is a little over the top.

Other companies give out goals all the time, they don’t bait and switch, they fulfill what they promise, they don’t try to do too much and get overloaded, they don’t make grandiose claims which aren’t true even with the craziest of marketing campaigns. This pretty much has been my experience with this title. And that’s on top of the lack of PTR testing (there’s a reason why it’s an industry standard folks) the ADHD priority list, the lack of rewards, the grind/dungeon focus in a title that wasn’t supposed to be a grind or all about instances. Need I go on?

Again my experience. I’ve experienced some problems in my time with games ever since starting mmo’s in the first place but no other game has ever put me off like this one has after giving me so much hype not once but multiple times, and I know I’m not alone in this.

I’m watching to see what happens. Other titles that I had similar issues in have since made good with their communities that’s why I’m here reading weekly to see what actually happens next.

As this thread has shown, there are going to be multiple views on anything. I read the blog post that was quote in the OP, and I see a statement of intent. I also see that most of what was posted in there has been implemented or we have been given official responses regarding some of it being pushed back. Whether you like it or not, ANET did a decent job of following through.

It is like movies. I have seen movies I want to see have a release date posted. I mark my calendar to go see this movie. Then the studio has to push the date back for whatever reason. Now they Advertised, Said, Promised, or whatever word you choose to believe here, but I never see the backlash I as see on game forums when a Game developer says something but it doesn’t come through as planned. For the life I me I don’t understand the thinking here.

Maybe I am just more patient or have a different mindset then some of the other here. There are many things in this game that I don’t like, would like to see implemented and so forth. This thread talks about what ANET would like to get implemented in game in 2013. For the most part they did. For this I don’t understand the blow back by a lot of you.

As for this discussion, I think it has run its course for me, I have stated my opinion on the topic and all that is left is for us to argue back and forth of our different logics for interpreting ANET blogs post the way we did and why we each feel differently about it. But thank you for a good discussion.

jheryn.8390:

Ethics.4519:

My bottom line: Arenanet advertised/promised/implied/said (insert whatever word you want to argue about) that certain things were going to happen in 2013, and they did not. I also don’t think just because you put one statement at the bottom or in the middle that says things are subject to change, makes it okay.

Fair enough. However, taking you literally, ANet did not do that. Employees of the company did. Ltterally, everything the company released through advertisement did happen.

I’m not going to bother responding to the others, because I disagree and bickering back and forth will obviously get us nowhere.

The employees represent the company. Look at many of the scandals in the news where an employee is fired for some personal wrong doing they did that went public.

Just because you don’t have an issue with the company not doing the things that they said they are working on to have done in 2013, doesn’t mean you should tell the people that do care that they are wrong.

“Happy 2013 everyone! I wanted to take the time to provide insight on some of the exciting features, events, and stories we intend to bring to Guild Wars 2 in the first half of the New Year.”

I copied this from one of the links at the bottom of the wiki that was linked in the first post. I’m assuming that this is what we’re all discussing right now.

I highlighted the word “intend.” To me, this wasn’t ANet saying “This IS what will be coming out in 2013.” Instead, I read it as “This is what we’re striving to accomplish in 2013.”

There is a big difference between the two. I see no promises being broken, since none were made.

By the way, I’m using the word “promise” here because it’s actually in the topic title.

TChalla.7146:

“Happy 2013 everyone! I wanted to take the time to provide insight on some of the exciting features, events, and stories we intend to bring to Guild Wars 2 in the first half of the New Year.”

I copied this from one of the links at the bottom of the wiki that was linked in the first post. I’m assuming that this is what we’re all discussing right now.

I highlighted the word “intend.” To me, this wasn’t ANet saying “This IS what will be coming out in 2013.” Instead, I read it as “This is what we’re striving to accomplish in 2013.”

There is a big difference between the two. I see no promises being broken, since none were made.

By the way, I’m using the word “promise” here because it’s actually in the topic title.

If a CEO told the board he intended to increase profit by 5% in 2013, however they ended up losing profit, he would be gone. He wouldn’t have people saying “well he just said intended, so it’s actually okay they lost money, because he didn’t promise anything”

@Ethics, LOL, that is very true.

If a CEO was losing money, he’d be fired regardless of what his intent was, especially if it happened over a long period of time. It’s not really the best analogy though. I’m sure you can see that.

Here’s the thing. If one feels that promises weren’t kept, one could always “fire” ANet and stop playing the game. It’s pretty simple when you get right down to it. I personally don’t think anything was promised. The word “intend” is not a promise. There’s no way I can read the two as equal. They had goals. They couldn’t meet those goals for whatever reason. There is nothing I’ve seen to make me think these things aren’t still in the works. I’m a patient person and can wait. It costs me nothing in the long run anyway.

TChalla.7146:

If a CEO was losing money, he’d be fired regardless of what his intent was, especially if it happened over a long period of time. It’s not really the best analogy though. I’m sure you can see that.

Here’s the thing. If one feels that promises weren’t kept, one could always “fire” ANet and stop playing the game. It’s pretty simple when you get right down to it. I personally don’t think anything was promised. The word “intend” is not a promise. There’s no way I can read the two as equal. They had goals. They couldn’t meet those goals for whatever reason. There is nothing I’ve seen to make me think these things aren’t still in the works. I’m a patient person and can wait. It costs me nothing in the long run anyway.

Okay, so they intended to do something. That means they failed, since it wasn’t done. They can makes excuses, but that doesn’t really count for much. The true response should lie within the actions. They said they intended to do certain things by 2014, some of that was not done, which means they failed in doing what they intended (which is the point I was trying to make, instead of you focusing on one aspect instead of the big picture).

Somebody in the dungeon forums, much wiser than myself, said something along the lines of how they should be glad there are people voicing their concerns, such as this thread. It means that they still care about the game and want it to do well. If there weren’t threads like this, it means that everything is 100% fine, or those that did care left (like you said, ‘fired’ the company, and just left the game).

I’m just waiting on a certain game to come out, then you won’t hear any more complaining from me.

It’s still a loss of money even if I stay around. I’m paying customer and had no issues supporting anet when I thought they were doing well. They are going downhill, along with the game, and so I refuse to support them now, and will most likely soon just stop playing altogether.

Ethics.4519:

TChalla.7146:

If a CEO was losing money, he’d be fired regardless of what his intent was, especially if it happened over a long period of time. It’s not really the best analogy though. I’m sure you can see that.

Here’s the thing. If one feels that promises weren’t kept, one could always “fire” ANet and stop playing the game. It’s pretty simple when you get right down to it. I personally don’t think anything was promised. The word “intend” is not a promise. There’s no way I can read the two as equal. They had goals. They couldn’t meet those goals for whatever reason. There is nothing I’ve seen to make me think these things aren’t still in the works. I’m a patient person and can wait. It costs me nothing in the long run anyway.

Okay, so they intended to do something. That means they failed, since it wasn’t done. They can makes excuses, but that doesn’t really count for much. The true response should lie within the actions. They said they intended to do certain things by 2014, some of that was not done, which means they failed in doing what they intended (which is the point I was trying to make, instead of you focusing on one aspect instead of the big picture).

Somebody in the dungeon forums, much wiser than myself, said something along the lines of how they should be glad there are people voicing their concerns, such as this thread. It means that they still care about the game and want it to do well. If there weren’t threads like this, it means that everything is 100% fine, or those that did care left (like you said, ‘fired’ the company, and just left the game).

I’m just waiting on a certain game to come out, then you won’t hear any more complaining from me.

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t voice their complaints. That’s not what I said at all. I’m merely arguing the point that focusing on promises (again… see the title of this topic) that never existed is bad form.

Ethics quote

With your logic, Arenanet could completely stop all production and work on updates and that would be fine, because they don’t owe you anything.

They could completely shut down servers so you can’t play anymore, and that’s fine because they don’t owe you anything.

This is completely true. Every game company has the right to terminate services at any time with no prior notice for any or no reason. Without this games like city of heroes would be sued because they took down their servers. All employment contracts have this as well and just about every other service provider in the world. This is just a legal formality that everyone does so that they cannot be sued later when they need to change something. Subject to change is also a formality to protect themselves. Every company in the world uses this type of language. My suggestions are looking at what they did include that was in the blogpost as well and not reading the next one because everything in there will be subject to change as well.

Supremelo.8437:

According to the wiki, these were the features that Arenanet intended to add in the second half of 2013:

Professions and balance
-There will be new unlockable skills and traits.
Precursors, and legendaries
-New legendary weapons.
-New types of legendary equipment (possibly a trinket).
-New precursor acquisition methods (I am aware that Arenanet later announced that this would be postponed)
sPvP
-New map types.
-It will be possible to gain legendary weapon skins in sPvP.
-Additional rewards and growth will be added to the major competitive sPvP tournaments.

Do you guys think that Arenanet adequately implemented these features?

EDIT: Here is a link to the primary source of these announcements.

Your list doesn’t really summarize the announcements page you linked… (legendary weapon skins in spvp? what?) They met quite a bit of what they aimed for very adequately. I’d encourage anyone to read the url in the OP.

Regarding new abilities for professions, aside from new healing abilities we got we also had major adjustments to our traits, including completely new traits. Many moves were met with controversy. I’m happy with just the new healing abilities. They’ve still got a lot of work to do with the utilities and traits we already have.

New ascended gear meets the standards of legendary gear, so even if we don’t have new “legendary” gear per say, they have made a step… yet this is one of the most controversial issues on the forums, with many people rallying against vertical progression to ascended and legendary in the first place. They could announce a setting for characters to no longer have underwear and the forums would go mad about it. Then when they don’t deliver there’s still going to be people complaining they can’t run around completely nude like a bunch of newborn kittens.

Ethics.4519:

The employees represent the company. Look at many of the scandals in the news where an employee is fired for some personal wrong doing they did that went public.

Just because you don’t have an issue with the company not doing the things that they said they are working on to have done in 2013, doesn’t mean you should tell the people that do care that they are wrong.

I have 40+ employees. The do represent me and my company. If they misrepresented either of us or did us harm, I would fire them too.

That being said, I don’t believe any employee misrepresented the ANet or did anything that could construed as a “personal wrong.” Maybe you do, and that is your right. However, this is a game we are talking about, not embezzlement or any other thing that will ever mar the company’s image should it go public.

You are absolutely correct that employees represent the company, but any company is very, very rarely bound by the words an employee. As I have stated before, there are many artistic endeavors involved as well as programming and implementation issues. Only estimates of completion for such things can ever be given. That is why most of the time, we are not guaranteed anything until things are ready to roll out. That the company would allow the devs to even talk about future plans is a treat. I feel sorry for the people who try to share future plans because they are treated with such disrespect when their words are thrown back at them with such vitriol. In my opinion that is shameful.

I don’t have an issue with the things not implemented because those things were never guaranteed. Had it been, I would feel otherwise. I don’t think you are wrong for caring about something you thought you would see implemented. I think you are wrong by thinking that it was owed to any of us by any time frame. We were not promised or guaranteed anything no matter what they said.

Completely on topic. I do believe that all actual promises made by the company happened. That was the question posed by the OP. Any other statements made by devs were just that. Statements. Not promises. Not guarantees. Not sworn oaths. Just hopes and desires for the future of the game. Nothing more.

jheryn.8390:

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

advertising (which is a guarantee or promise)

advertising. you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.

and neither does websters dictionary, either. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertising

I did not use the word ‘advertising’. I was quoting someone who did.

And your dictionary definition proves what I was saying. There were no paid ads or publications announcing the coming of some of the things ANet said they wanted to do 2013 and did not. Advertising is played out in the media. Many dev statements were not. Advertising is a publication of intent or release. In other words, a guarantee of the release of something.

There were plenty of commissioned artworks and ads for things they did do. Scarlet, The Queens Jubilee, The Bazaar of the Four Winds. All had ads for their content. Some of the things that people are complaining about here are merely things the devs SAID they would like to do in 2013.

Here is an expanded definition of ‘advertising’:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advertising

When a grocery store releases an ad that says they will have bananas on sale for X dollars per pound on certain dates, they must honor that. When a store employee says, “I would like to see bananas go for X dollars per pound on certain dates.” The store is not bound by the employees musings. Same rule applies here.

let’s….. take a looks here, shall we?

you said, multiple times, that advertising is, and i quote, “a guarantee or promise” the dictionary defines it as “the act of calling attention to something, especially through the media” not a guarantee or promise, just calling attention to something. the two are nowhere even in the same neighborhood as each other.

now, let’s take it one step further. things like blogs, facebook and twitter are referred to as social media sites. the internet as a whole is a form of the media. meaning, anything an arenanet employee writes on one of those, somewhere they know for a fact that many people will be reading, is indeed calling attention to something through the media. writing things into their own wiki page would also be considered advertising, because they’re posting it there as a representative of their company.

let’s apply this to to the topic. did they promise anything? no. did they call attention to something, especially through the media? yes. did they deliver on what they called attention to? not even remotely. is this a reoccurring pattern with them? yes. are there always people who try to redefine the english language and twist logic to make excuse after excuse for why Anet consistently fails to deliver on what they advertise? yes.

Phantom.8130:

did they deliver on what they called attention to? not even remotely.

Actually… they delivered on a lot of it and addressed most of it in some relatable form.

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

advertising (which is a guarantee or promise)

advertising. you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means.

and neither does websters dictionary, either. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertising

I did not use the word ‘advertising’. I was quoting someone who did.

And your dictionary definition proves what I was saying. There were no paid ads or publications announcing the coming of some of the things ANet said they wanted to do 2013 and did not. Advertising is played out in the media. Many dev statements were not. Advertising is a publication of intent or release. In other words, a guarantee of the release of something.

There were plenty of commissioned artworks and ads for things they did do. Scarlet, The Queens Jubilee, The Bazaar of the Four Winds. All had ads for their content. Some of the things that people are complaining about here are merely things the devs SAID they would like to do in 2013.

Here is an expanded definition of ‘advertising’:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advertising

When a grocery store releases an ad that says they will have bananas on sale for X dollars per pound on certain dates, they must honor that. When a store employee says, “I would like to see bananas go for X dollars per pound on certain dates.” The store is not bound by the employees musings. Same rule applies here.

let’s….. take a looks here, shall we?

you said, multiple times, that advertising is, and i quote, “a guarantee or promise” the dictionary defines it as “the act of calling attention to something, especially through the media” not a guarantee or promise, just calling attention to something. the two are nowhere even in the same neighborhood as each other.

now, let’s take it one step further. things like blogs, facebook and twitter are referred to as social media sites. the internet as a whole is a form of the media. meaning, anything an arenanet employee writes on one of those, somewhere they know for a fact that many people will be reading, is indeed calling attention to something through the media. writing things into their own wiki page would also be considered advertising, because they’re posting it there as a representative of their company.

let’s apply this to to the topic. did they promise anything? no. did they call attention to something, especially through the media? yes. did they deliver on what they called attention to? not even remotely. is this a reoccurring pattern with them? yes. are there always people who try to redefine the english language and twist logic to make excuse after excuse for why Anet consistently fails to deliver on what they advertise? yes.

You are looking at what Jheryn has been saying from the wrong direction. Yes using the internet to state something could be a form of advertising. But from and development stand point, ANET was making a statement of intent about what they was working on. Which in my view is not advertising the features, but letting the community know this is what we are working on and hoping to have it in game by the end of the year.

If you look at the blog post that the OP referenced, they actually implemented most of the items they listed, we got official responses to some they would be postponed until 2014. Jheryn has been arguing in this thread that advistising was not the proper word to be used to describe what ANET posted, which it isn’t, but as you stated in your post it could be assumed it was because they was using a type of media to do it. But the word advertising on this thread wasn’t start by Jheryn, he was responding to another poster that was using the word. So I don’t see how anyone was trying to redefine the English language here, just like how I view what they wrote as a statement of intent from a development stand point. But I see things this way since I am a developer also (not games). I see advertising as what stores to do sell products or tell us about sells. The blog post in question was made for the GW2 community to give us an idea of what is coming.

Oniyui.8279:

Phantom.8130:

did they deliver on what they called attention to? not even remotely.

Actually… they delivered on a lot of it and addressed most of it in some relatable form.

let’s look at the list from the OP.

Supremelo.8437:

Professions and balance
-There will be new unlockable skills and traits.
Precursors, and legendaries
-New legendary weapons.
-New types of legendary equipment (possibly a trinket).
-New precursor acquisition methods (I am aware that Arenanet later announced that this would be postponed)
sPvP
-New map types.
-It will be possible to gain legendary weapon skins in sPvP.
-Additional rewards and growth will be added to the major competitive sPvP tournaments.

they really didn’t deliver on very much of that list at all. by and large, the bulk of what they’ve done is cement their reputation of all bark and no bite. and reputation does play a large part in the well being of any company. as they continue overhyping, and failing to live up to that hype, the public perception of their company takes a downward turn. as public perception dips, so do sales.

while they are able to come up with some great ideas, their execution of everything is just flat out sloppy, at best. i don’t mean bugs, i mean poor design and poor PR. it’s quite unprofessional. however, it doesn’t fall onto the shoulders of every single employee. it falls onto the shoulders of those who are in charge of those two particular jobs, who are failing to do their jobs. truth be told, what anet really needs is an enema, because there are a few people causing tremendous problems for the company as a whole. if they clear out the crap, they can work on regaining their positive image without monumental hindrances. there are thousands of people lining up for those jobs, who can and will do them much better than they’re currently being done. at the end of the day, it is indeed a business. they need to either all be doing their jobs, or get people in there who will. having some do their jobs while others shoot the entire company in the foot isn’t a good business plan.

they’ve been lucky so far, because they haven’t had any decent competition, but that’s not going to always be the case. when actual competition presents itself, the customer base is presented with a choice of two. go with a company that continuously fails to deliver on their hype, or go with anyone else. many many people will go with anyone else, regardless of who they are, simply because they’re sick of having their hopes built up to always end up disappointed with the results. that’s not to say that people will be any happier with the other company, only that they’ll no longer be giving their money to arenanet.

Hjorje.9453:

You are looking at what Jheryn has been saying from the wrong direction. Yes using the internet to state something could be a form of advertising. But from and development stand point, ANET was making a statement of intent about what they was working on. Which in my view is not advertising the features, but letting the community know this is what we are working on and hoping to have it in game by the end of the year.

If you look at the blog post that the OP referenced, they actually implemented most of the items they listed, we got official responses to some they would be postponed until 2014. Jheryn has been arguing in this thread that advistising was not the proper word to be used to describe what ANET posted, which it isn’t, but as you stated in your post it could be assumed it was because they was using a type of media to do it. But the word advertising on this thread wasn’t start by Jheryn, he was responding to another poster that was using the word. So I don’t see how anyone was trying to redefine the English language here, just like how I view what they wrote as a statement of intent from a development stand point. But I see things this way since I am a developer also (not games). I see advertising as what stores to do sell products or tell us about sells. The blog post in question was made for the GW2 community to give us an idea of what is coming.

here’s the thing. what anyone’s opinions are doesn’t matter. we’re dealing in the realm of facts here. the fact is, advertising is defined as calling attention to something. which they did. it’s like math. if a, then b. did they call attention to something? yes. they they advertised. how they worded it, and even really what they stated in it is completely inconsequential. all that matters is that they called attention to something, which they did.

now, with jheryn, all i said that his definition of advertising (which he states as “a guarantee or promise”) was incorrect. according to both dictionary links, it was indeed incorrect. because the definitions in both were “the act of calling attention to something, especially though the media”. who originally used the word advertising in the thread is completely inconsequential because his argument was based around his own imaginary definition of a word. he was the one stating the incorrect definition, meaning he was defining it as something else. or, redefining the english language.

Phantom.8130:

you said, multiple times, that advertising is, and i quote, “a guarantee or promise” the dictionary defines it as “the act of calling attention to something, especially through the media” not a guarantee or promise, just calling attention to something. the two are nowhere even in the same neighborhood as each other.

now, let’s take it one step further. things like blogs, facebook and twitter are referred to as social media sites. the internet as a whole is a form of the media. meaning, anything an arenanet employee writes on one of those, somewhere they know for a fact that many people will be reading, is indeed calling attention to something through the media. writing things into their own wiki page would also be considered advertising, because they’re posting it there as a representative of their company.

let’s apply this to to the topic. did they promise anything? no. did they call attention to something, especially through the media? yes. did they deliver on what they called attention to? not even remotely. is this a reoccurring pattern with them? yes. are there always people who try to redefine the english language and twist logic to make excuse after excuse for why Anet consistently fails to deliver on what they advertise? yes.

Well, I believe that you are stretching things more than a little. Maybe it isn’t, but I believe that most people can extrapolate that the definition of advertising in the media does not include statements or discussions on social media outlets. If it is an actual commissioned ad to the side with artwork and was paid for with the intent to promote a determined product or service, then yes, that something on a social media site would be advertising as set by the definition.

Just because something uses the same name as something else, does not mean they are the same thing. “Fruits of our labors” most generally doesn’t not refer to produce you would find in a grocery store. I think that I am and that others should be able to tell the difference between traditional media and social media. They are not the same thing just because the have the word ‘media’ as part of their name.

I also think that people should be able to differentiate when they see ads with artwork of Scarlet with a release date for content and when someone is discussing intentions of things they would like to see happen.

As someone who advertises for my company, if I put an ad in the paper saying we will be offering X product for 50% off in February 2014 then that is advertisement. If I say I would really like to offer Y product for 25% this sometime this year on my facebook page, it doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. It just means I want it to happen. It isn’t advertising, it is statement of intent. Nothing more.

I find that taking things too literally and so rigid by definition only leads to frustration for some people causing them to mislead themselves as to intent.

I often wonder what happened to taking things in context, deductive reasoning, and reasonable extrapolation.

Again, I believe that everything that ANet advertised by conventional means was indeed implemented. Everything actually promised as the OP set forth, also was indeed done. Everything else was statement of intent that many I believe are trying to twist into some sort of guarantee. Which it was not.

Hjorje.9453:

You are looking at what Jheryn has been saying from the wrong direction. Yes using the internet to state something could be a form of advertising. But from and development stand point, ANET was making a statement of intent about what they was working on. Which in my view is not advertising the features, but letting the community know this is what we are working on and hoping to have it in game by the end of the year.

If you look at the blog post that the OP referenced, they actually implemented most of the items they listed, we got official responses to some they would be postponed until 2014. Jheryn has been arguing in this thread that advistising was not the proper word to be used to describe what ANET posted, which it isn’t, but as you stated in your post it could be assumed it was because they was using a type of media to do it. But the word advertising on this thread wasn’t start by Jheryn, he was responding to another poster that was using the word. So I don’t see how anyone was trying to redefine the English language here, just like how I view what they wrote as a statement of intent from a development stand point. But I see things this way since I am a developer also (not games). I see advertising as what stores to do sell products or tell us about sells. The blog post in question was made for the GW2 community to give us an idea of what is coming.

Hjorje, many here are trying to be so strictly literal about the definition of the word “advertising” so that it supports their arguments. They are ignoring all traditional and real life accepted conventions about advertising. I doubt that many (if any) people making these arguments could hold up if their own words and statements were held to such scrutiny.

jheryn.8390:

Phantom.8130:

you said, multiple times, that advertising is, and i quote, “a guarantee or promise” the dictionary defines it as “the act of calling attention to something, especially through the media” not a guarantee or promise, just calling attention to something. the two are nowhere even in the same neighborhood as each other.

now, let’s take it one step further. things like blogs, facebook and twitter are referred to as social media sites. the internet as a whole is a form of the media. meaning, anything an arenanet employee writes on one of those, somewhere they know for a fact that many people will be reading, is indeed calling attention to something through the media. writing things into their own wiki page would also be considered advertising, because they’re posting it there as a representative of their company.

let’s apply this to to the topic. did they promise anything? no. did they call attention to something, especially through the media? yes. did they deliver on what they called attention to? not even remotely. is this a reoccurring pattern with them? yes. are there always people who try to redefine the english language and twist logic to make excuse after excuse for why Anet consistently fails to deliver on what they advertise? yes.

Well, I believe that you are stretching things more than a little. Maybe it isn’t, but I believe that most people can extrapolate that the definition of advertising in the media does not include statements or discussions on social media outlets. If it is an actual commissioned ad to the side with artwork and was paid for with the intent to promote a determined product or service, then yes, that something on a social media site would be advertising as set by the definition.

Just because something uses the same name as something else, does not mean they are the same thing. “Fruits of our labors” most generally doesn’t not refer to produce you would find in a grocery store. I think that I am and that others should be able to tell the difference between traditional media and social media. They are not the same thing just because the have the word ‘media’ as part of their name.

I also think that people should be able to differentiate when they see ads with artwork of Scarlet with a release date for content and when someone is discussing intentions of things they would like to see happen.

As someone who advertises for my company, if I put an ad in the paper saying we will be offering X product for 50% off in February 2014 then that is advertisement. If I say I would really like to offer Y product for 25% this sometime this year on my facebook page, it doesn’t mean that it is going to happen. It just means I want it to happen. It isn’t advertising, it is statement of intent. Nothing more.

I find that taking things too literally and so rigid by definition only leads to frustration for some people causing them to mislead themselves as to intent.

I often wonder what happened to taking things in context, deductive reasoning, and reasonable extrapolation.

Again, I believe that everything that ANet advertised by conventional means was indeed implemented. Everything actually promised as the OP set forth, also was indeed done. Everything else was statement of intent that many I believe are trying to twist into some sort of guarantee. Which it was not.

i’m sorry, but using the dictionary definition of words is in no way shape or form “stretching things”. in fact, quite the opposite. making up the definition of a word to suit your whim is stretching things.

look, all that matters is whether or not they called public attention to something. that’s all. everything else is semantics. your own personal definition of words doesn’t change that. they called public attention to something, they advertised. end of story. no amount of verbal tapdancing will change that. if x, then y. they x’d, so it’s y. i’m sorry you don’t understand that, but that doesn’t change anything. they advertised. they drew attention to their game by something they stated publicly. whether what they stated was true or not doesn’t matter. it ONLY matters whether they stated it. which they did.

Phantom.8130:

i’m sorry, but using the dictionary definition of words is in no way shape or form “stretching things”. in fact, quite the opposite. making up the definition of a word to suit your whim is stretching things.

look, all that matters is whether or not they called public attention to something. that’s all. everything else is semantics. your own personal definition of words doesn’t change that. they called public attention to something, they advertised. end of story. no amount of verbal tapdancing will change that. if x, then y. they x’d, so it’s y. i’m sorry you don’t understand that, but that doesn’t change anything. they advertised. they drew attention to their game by something they stated publicly. whether what they stated was true or not doesn’t matter. it ONLY matters whether they stated it. which they did.

Again, I am not making anything up. I live in the real world where everything is not dictionary defined. I don’t have to use a dictionary to make sure I understand a concept or use it to support thin arguments.

As for stretching things, I didn’t mean the dictionary definition of advertising. I made it clear that I meant your use of the word media was stretching things. Real life applies here to and I and understand that social media and traditional media are not the same thing. I also understand that the dictionary definition of the word media was never meant to include twitter and facebook and pintrest. The definition you so love to refer to is older than any internet social media. We have a dictionary from 1973 here at the office that says what the online definition does. Twitter and its ilk did not exist back then. Again, context.

You say “all that matters” is X. No. That is all that matters to you and probably others like you. There are those of us that believe you are wrong. We believe you do not understand the difference between advertising and desire or intent. All that matters is that we do not believe they were advertising what would be happen, but rather expressing their desire for what they would like have happen. It isn’t verbal tap dancing, it is perspective. I understand completely what you are saying. I just don’t agree with it.

jheryn.8390:

Phantom.8130:

i’m sorry, but using the dictionary definition of words is in no way shape or form “stretching things”. in fact, quite the opposite. making up the definition of a word to suit your whim is stretching things.

look, all that matters is whether or not they called public attention to something. that’s all. everything else is semantics. your own personal definition of words doesn’t change that. they called public attention to something, they advertised. end of story. no amount of verbal tapdancing will change that. if x, then y. they x’d, so it’s y. i’m sorry you don’t understand that, but that doesn’t change anything. they advertised. they drew attention to their game by something they stated publicly. whether what they stated was true or not doesn’t matter. it ONLY matters whether they stated it. which they did.

Again, I am not making anything up. I live in the real world where everything is not dictionary defined. I don’t have to use a dictionary to make sure I understand a concept or use it to support thin arguments.

As for stretching things, I didn’t mean the dictionary definition of advertising. I made it clear that I meant your use of the word media was stretching things. Real life applies here to and I and understand that social media and traditional media are not the same thing. I also understand that the dictionary definition of the word media was never meant to include twitter and facebook and pintrest. The definition you so love to refer to is older than any internet social media. We have a dictionary from 1973 here at the office that says what the online definition does. Twitter and its ilk did not exist back then. Again, context.

You say “all that matters” is X. No. That is all that matters to you and probably others like you. There are those of us that believe you are wrong. We believe you do not understand the difference between advertising and desire or intent. All that matters is that we do not believe they were advertising what would be happen, but rather expressing their desire for what they would like have happen. It isn’t verbal tap dancing, it is perspective. I understand completely what you are saying. I just don’t agree with it.

i live in the real world too, and in the real world an advertiser that tries to make up their own definitions for the words they use in advertisements needs to shell out a lot of money in lawyer fees.

dictionaries update their definitions each year to keep them relevant. and you are arguing against those very definitions and yes you are verbally tapdancing to avoid admitting that you’re flat out wrong. you have your view, and empirical evidence is counter to that view. so instead of accepting that you might be wrong about something, you’re trying to shoot holes in the credibility of the dictionary?

also, when i said “that’s all that matters” it’s all that matters in this particular conversation. this one currently. between you and i. that’s all. and yes, for this particular conversation, that is indeed all that matters. you can argue anything you want with everyone else. the conversation here and now, between you and i, is “was it advertising?” the evidence says yes. your own imaginary definition says no. evidence always beats imagination and verbal tapdancing. just ask clinton. he tried countering evidence with imagination and verbal tapdancing, and ended up getting impeached.

@Jheryn,

Time to give up, they have a different mindset to how these things are and nothing you say will change that.

It is like at my job. I get a request to have a database or application developed. I get the request, I research, and then I give a statement of intent to the *stakeholders of the project, which is my boss’s and the group requesting the project. This statement of intent is going to be my list of steps I will be going through and I timeline that I can try to shoot for. Now some of the steps will get done faster then I thought and some of the steps take a little longer, but the *stakeholders in the project understand this aspect of development, as long as the deadline is met then the other steps are ok.

Currently, we the players are the *stakeholders of this game. Since the game will have a life span that none of us can predict, the deadline is when the game dies. So the blog post that ANET uses to inform the players of their intent, should be looked at as such, a statement of intent, with a proposed timeline. But just like any other development project some things go quick some don’t. By looking at them producing a document for their *stakeholders, us the gamers, it is not advertising what they are doing it is stating what they are trying to do. Now does it bother me that they don’t get things done. Yes. Do I think they need to get better at researching their statement of intent to better reflect this. Yes. But I also understand what they are doing and look at though that perspective. In my eyes it has nothing to do with everyone definition of advertising since I don’t believe they were advertising anything.

Edit: I got ahead of myself and used the wrong term. Changed Shareholder to Stakeholder.

Hjorje.9453:

Currently, we the players are the shareholders of this game. Since the game will have a life span that none of us can predict, the deadline is when the game dies. So the blog post that ANET uses to inform the players of their intent, should be looked at as such, a statement of intent, with a proposed timeline. But just like any other development project some things go quick some don’t. By looking at them producing a document for their shareholders, us the gamers, it is not advertising what they are doing it is stating what they are trying to do. Now does it bother me that they don’t get things done. Yes. Do I think they need to get better at researching their statement of intent to better reflect this. Yes. But I also understand what they are doing and look at though that perspective.

no. we’re not. the shareholders are the people that own the stock in NCSoft. they hold shares of the stock. hence the word shareholders. we’re the customers. if we were the shareholders, we would be seeing a portion of their profits.

and yes, we do have different mindsets on how these things are. i actually understand the language i’m using. i don’t jam my own imaginary definitions into them, and then argue against universally accepted sources.

Phantom.8130:

Oniyui.8279:

Phantom.8130:

did they deliver on what they called attention to? not even remotely.

Actually… they delivered on a lot of it and addressed most of it in some relatable form.

let’s look at the list from the OP.

Supremelo.8437:

Professions and balance
-There will be new unlockable skills and traits.
Precursors, and legendaries
-New legendary weapons.
-New types of legendary equipment (possibly a trinket).
-New precursor acquisition methods (I am aware that Arenanet later announced that this would be postponed)
sPvP
-New map types.
-It will be possible to gain legendary weapon skins in sPvP.
-Additional rewards and growth will be added to the major competitive sPvP tournaments.

they really didn’t deliver on very much of that list at all. by and large, the bulk of what they’ve done is cement their reputation of all bark and no bite. and reputation does play a large part in the well being of any company. as they continue overhyping, and failing to live up to that hype, the public perception of their company takes a downward turn. as public perception dips, so do sales.

while they are able to come up with some great ideas, their execution of everything is just flat out sloppy, at best. i don’t mean bugs, i mean poor design and poor PR. it’s quite unprofessional. however, it doesn’t fall onto the shoulders of every single employee. it falls onto the shoulders of those who are in charge of those two particular jobs, who are failing to do their jobs. truth be told, what anet really needs is an enema, because there are a few people causing tremendous problems for the company as a whole. if they clear out the crap, they can work on regaining their positive image without monumental hindrances. there are thousands of people lining up for those jobs, who can and will do them much better than they’re currently being done. at the end of the day, it is indeed a business. they need to either all be doing their jobs, or get people in there who will. having some do their jobs while others shoot the entire company in the foot isn’t a good business plan.

they’ve been lucky so far, because they haven’t had any decent competition, but that’s not going to always be the case. when actual competition presents itself, the customer base is presented with a choice of two. go with a company that continuously fails to deliver on their hype, or go with anyone else. many many people will go with anyone else, regardless of who they are, simply because they’re sick of having their hopes built up to always end up disappointed with the results. that’s not to say that people will be any happier with the other company, only that they’ll no longer be giving their money to arenanet.

The OP’s list doesn’t reflect the article put out by Anet. Read the actual linked article, not what someone else says is on it.

Are we still going on about this?

Look, no where did anet use the word ‘promise’ nor did the use the word ‘guarantee.’ All they did was give a blog post that said they were working on ‘x’ with the initial forecast-ed deadline to be by the end of the year. They did state that it was not set in stone, which is very typical of development. Especially for any project with a large scope.

Further it has been, since asked, stated that certain components of the original plans were behind in their development. Stating that it was likely that they would not meet their end of the year goal; however, they were not being scrapped. That it would simple take a little longer to get them into the game.

I applaud them for letting us know what they are working on, what their initial goals for release are, but I also understand (as a programmer myself) that not everything works out exactly as we plan. You people kitten and complain that they don’t talk to us, but when they do, you turn around and pull this crap. “Oh they lied” “Oh they promised” No, they did not. Get over yourselves.

Hjorje.9453:

@Jheryn,

Time to give up, they have a different mindset to how these things are and nothing you say will change that.

It is like at my job. I get a request to have a database or application developed. I get the request, I research, and then I give a statement of intent to the shareholders of the project, which is my boss’s and the group requesting the project. This statement of intent is going to be my list of steps I will be going through and I timeline that I can try to shoot for. Now some of the steps will get done faster then I thought and some of the steps take a little longer, but the shareholders in the project understand this aspect of development, as long as the deadline is met then the other steps are ok.

Currently, we the players are the shareholders of this game. Since the game will have a life span that none of us can predict, the deadline is when the game dies. So the blog post that ANET uses to inform the players of their intent, should be looked at as such, a statement of intent, with a proposed timeline. But just like any other development project some things go quick some don’t. By looking at them producing a document for their shareholders, us the gamers, it is not advertising what they are doing it is stating what they are trying to do. Now does it bother me that they don’t get things done. Yes. Do I think they need to get better at researching their statement of intent to better reflect this. Yes. But I also understand what they are doing and look at though that perspective. In my eyes it has nothing to do with everyone definition of advertising since I don’t believe they were advertising anything.

I agree. Some people have the inherent need to be right whether they are or not and also can’t accept when someone does not bow to things as they see them. No room for disagreement with them in their mindset. In this case, he cannot accept that we see what the devs said as intent and not advertising (by any definition).

I’m done arguing with this guy. He is just devolving into insults and minutia because I won’t accept what he says.

I see that he questioned your use of “shareholders” as well. I understood your meaning because I understand metaphor. I am sure you will be seeing a “shareholder” definition link soon.

jheryn.8390:

I agree. Some people have the inherent need to be right whether they are or not and also can’t accept when someone does not bow to things as they see them. No room for disagreement with them in their mindset. In this case, he cannot accept that we see what the devs said as intent and not advertising (by any definition).

I’m done arguing with this guy. He is just devolving into insults and minutia because I won’t accept what he says.

I see that he questioned your use of “shareholders” as well. I understood your meaning because I understand metaphor. I am sure you will be seeing a “shareholder” definition link soon.

this has nothing to do with anyone’s opinion of the game, or the company, at all. it has to do with YOUR understanding of the words you’re using. such as metaphor. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor) it wasn’t a metaphor. if english isn’t your native language, it’s understandable. if it is, however, you really should learn what words mean before using them. if you don’t know the definition, don’t use the words. and certainly don’t base an entire argument around them. there’s no shame in that.

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

I agree. Some people have the inherent need to be right whether they are or not and also can’t accept when someone does not bow to things as they see them. No room for disagreement with them in their mindset. In this case, he cannot accept that we see what the devs said as intent and not advertising (by any definition).

I’m done arguing with this guy. He is just devolving into insults and minutia because I won’t accept what he says.

I see that he questioned your use of “shareholders” as well. I understood your meaning because I understand metaphor. I am sure you will be seeing a “shareholder” definition link soon.

this has nothing to do with anyone’s opinion of the game, or the company, at all. it has to do with YOUR understanding of the words you’re using. such as metaphor. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor) it wasn’t a metaphor. if english isn’t your native language, it’s understandable. if it is, however, you really should learn what words mean before using them. if you don’t know the definition, don’t use the words. and certainly don’t base an entire argument around them. there’s no shame in that.

LOL Thank you for confirming what I said to Hjorje.

jheryn.8390:

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

I agree. Some people have the inherent need to be right whether they are or not and also can’t accept when someone does not bow to things as they see them. No room for disagreement with them in their mindset. In this case, he cannot accept that we see what the devs said as intent and not advertising (by any definition).

I’m done arguing with this guy. He is just devolving into insults and minutia because I won’t accept what he says.

I see that he questioned your use of “shareholders” as well. I understood your meaning because I understand metaphor. I am sure you will be seeing a “shareholder” definition link soon.

this has nothing to do with anyone’s opinion of the game, or the company, at all. it has to do with YOUR understanding of the words you’re using. such as metaphor. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor) it wasn’t a metaphor. if english isn’t your native language, it’s understandable. if it is, however, you really should learn what words mean before using them. if you don’t know the definition, don’t use the words. and certainly don’t base an entire argument around them. there’s no shame in that.

LOL Thank you for confirming what I said to Hjorje.

my pleasure. you confirmed everything i was saying, i figured i’d throw you a bone.

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

I agree. Some people have the inherent need to be right whether they are or not and also can’t accept when someone does not bow to things as they see them. No room for disagreement with them in their mindset. In this case, he cannot accept that we see what the devs said as intent and not advertising (by any definition).

I’m done arguing with this guy. He is just devolving into insults and minutia because I won’t accept what he says.

I see that he questioned your use of “shareholders” as well. I understood your meaning because I understand metaphor. I am sure you will be seeing a “shareholder” definition link soon.

this has nothing to do with anyone’s opinion of the game, or the company, at all. it has to do with YOUR understanding of the words you’re using. such as metaphor. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor) it wasn’t a metaphor. if english isn’t your native language, it’s understandable. if it is, however, you really should learn what words mean before using them. if you don’t know the definition, don’t use the words. and certainly don’t base an entire argument around them. there’s no shame in that.

LOL Thank you for confirming what I said to Hjorje.

my pleasure. you confirmed everything i was saying, i figured i’d throw you a bone.

Actually you did not throw me a bone or anything else. It is impossible to throw physical objects through written electronic communication. Are there any particular dictionaries you would like me to use to link the definitions of “throw” and “bone” for you?

jheryn.8390:

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

Phantom.8130:

jheryn.8390:

I agree. Some people have the inherent need to be right whether they are or not and also can’t accept when someone does not bow to things as they see them. No room for disagreement with them in their mindset. In this case, he cannot accept that we see what the devs said as intent and not advertising (by any definition).

I’m done arguing with this guy. He is just devolving into insults and minutia because I won’t accept what he says.

I see that he questioned your use of “shareholders” as well. I understood your meaning because I understand metaphor. I am sure you will be seeing a “shareholder” definition link soon.

this has nothing to do with anyone’s opinion of the game, or the company, at all. it has to do with YOUR understanding of the words you’re using. such as metaphor. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor) it wasn’t a metaphor. if english isn’t your native language, it’s understandable. if it is, however, you really should learn what words mean before using them. if you don’t know the definition, don’t use the words. and certainly don’t base an entire argument around them. there’s no shame in that.

LOL Thank you for confirming what I said to Hjorje.

my pleasure. you confirmed everything i was saying, i figured i’d throw you a bone.

Actually you did not throw me a bone or anything else. It is impossible to throw physical objects through written electronic communication. Are there any particular dictionaries you would like me to use to link the definitions of “throw” and “bone” for you?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor