(edited by NewTrain.7549)
(edited by NewTrain.7549)
(edited by NewTrain.7549)
You self-contradict in your first two paragraphs.
My apologies. My post should have said, “I was making no such argument,” rather than, “I am making no such argument,” as I made no such argument in the post where you claimed I did. I did not entertain the notion until after you made the claim.
On your second point, it is not logical to purchase an MMO because it someday might contain a feature you find important, especially when competing products do contain said feature. If the presence or lack of that feature is not a deciding factor in your purchase, it follows that it’s not that important.
I disagree. If GW2 has 9 out of the ten features that I find important to my enjoyment of an MMO but other games that do include the one missing from GW2 have only 8 of those ten features it is completely logical to choose GW2 over the other options, perhaps with the hop of encouraging the developer to add the tenth.
You next section is another non-sequitur. Clearly long hairstyles are not that important to you as it failed to make or break your purchase.
I provided an example of how something that is important to me in the game was not sufficient to override other elements, multiple such, without changing the fact that it is important. Keep in mind that there is a rather large difference between your previous assertions of, “not important,” and the current assertions of, “not as important,” or, “not that important.”
Would you buy a car without brakes? No. Why? Brakes are an important feature. Would you buy a car that in a color you didn’t particularly like? Perhaps, if everything else met your standards. Why? Because color isn’t nearly as important as brakes are.
I am not sure of the applicability of this example. It is illegal (at least in my state) to sell a car without brakes. I am not sure that comparing illegal activity to car color is particularly valid. Still, of course brakes are more important than color, doesn’t mean that color is unimportant. Really the entire discussion is altered by the change from your previous stance of, “not important,” to one of, “not as important as X.” I do not disagree at all that multiple elements, each of importance to the consumer, might even so be of varying degree of importance. Again, for me, choosing to buy a game that has 9/10 of the elements I desire does not mean that the tenth element is not important, merely that no one element overrides all of the others.
It follows that if a feature is important enough to your enjoyment of a product you will either: A) purchase a product with contains that feature as a basic one or
pay an additional fee to add it to an already owned product. This is not opinion, this is fact.
No, it is an opinion. People settle all of the time. They then complain because they are not satisfied with the product. Neither you, nor I, get to decide what another person finds important.
It’s one of the basic tenants of economics. It’s called demand.
Not really. People demand things that are not important to them all of the time. Demand means that people are willing to buy something, not that they consider it important.
Your entire response is based upon the flawed premise that everything in the world can be divided into two categories; important and not important. Every entity’s importance exists in relation to another entity’s importance. Importance does not exist in a vacuum. Therefore the use of “not as important” or “not that important” is perfectly valid because ALL importance exists in degrees and not absolutes. This simple fact negates your entire argument.
I understand what you’re saying, but you’re trying to argue that it’s logical to purchase a product based on what it could potentially become and not what it actually is.
First, I am making no such argument. People make illogical purchases all of the time. Its commonplace. In my experience people make purchase decision illogically more often than they do logically. Look at our food choices, soda, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.
Second, the MMO genre is, to some degree, based on what the game may become rather than what it is. They launch with bugs and we are supposed to expect fixes. They launch with less content than their predecessors and we expect them to grow. They launch without features that we expect to be added in time. I would argue that it is illogical, or just plain poor consumerism to buy an MMO without the expectation that it will change, grow, etc. Aren’t there entire sections of the TOS/licensing agreement included for just that reason ?
If we were buying MMOs based solely on what they are rather than what they are and what they might become we would be fools to buy them at all in my opinion.
To me, that’s a completely illogical position. Why would any purchase anything when there’s only a possibility that it might satisfy your demand ESPECIALLY when there are competing products that do satisfy your demand.
Probably because the player’s desire encompasses more than just dueling. Perhaps those other games do not meet the player’s desires in the other ten or twenty ways he measures his satisfaction with an MMO of choice. I would like some additional (long) hairstyles for male humans. I have requested such since before launch. I will continue to make the request (or support others making the same request). By your logic I should not have bought GW2, which has many aesthetic and game play elements that I very much appreciate, because one particular hairstyle option is not available. That seems very illogical to me.
refusing to pay extra for it as an added feature after launch proves it’s of little importance to the poster
It proves nothing of the sort. Your statement does imply that you believe that paying for something is the only way to demonstrate its importance to oneself. I can assure you that not everyone shares that view (right or wrong).
You self-contradict in your first two paragraphs. You state you are not arguing in support of purchasing a product for what it could potentially become and then you go ahead and justify why it’s logical to purchase an MMO for what it could potentially become. On your second point, it is not logical to purchase an MMO because it someday might contain a feature you find important, especially when competing products do contain said feature. If the presence or lack of that feature is not a deciding factor in your purchase, it follows that it’s not that important.
You next section is another non-sequitur. Clearly long hairstyles are not that important to you as it failed to make or break your purchase. Would you buy a car without brakes? No. Why? Brakes are an important feature. Would you buy a car that in a color you didn’t particularly like? Perhaps, if everything else met your standards. Why? Because color isn’t nearly as important as brakes are.
It follows that if a feature is important enough to your enjoyment of a product you will either: A) purchase a product with contains that feature as a basic one or pay an additional fee to add it to an already owned product. This is not opinion, this is fact. It’s one of the basic tenants of economics. It’s called demand.