Give up guys. He's smarter than us. It's so very apparent by the way he sees through CBs lies and their mistakes. Uprising was a cynical and exploitative ploy to get people excited about JSA with the intentional calculated sacrifice of the morale and satisfaction of their existing Yu Jing playerbase. After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs and committing genocide.
You said the game was yours first. Big fucking deal mate. Being an early adopter doesn’t make you better. Don’t be a dick.
@Section9 obviously I wouldn't surrender. I still believe in having such an overwhelming military that no one would dare aggress for the sake of never using it. I said it was ours first. I am not an early adopter. It was made for people who want what I want. Did you even read what you quoted?
No, it was a miscalculation of how it would affect morale and satisfaction. A miscalculation which they’ve doubled down on by refusing to engage with customers except to threaten bans. A miscalculation which in large part arises from clumsy handling of existing fluff (see all of @Section9’s posts and many other posts in this thread.)
Dude, *I* believe that the JSA split was driven by the fluff, not marketing. And I have a business degree. The better marketing decision would have been to keep the Japanese Sectorial Army part of Yu Jing while also having a Japanese Secessionist Army. Less blow-back from the customer base, more people buying (or still able to buy) JSA minis. You're not helping your case.
This... needs to be a bullet point on a "Danger signs you may be personally over invested in a gaming product" listicle.
You’re right, @Dude. Whatever were we thinking, believing CB’s public pronouncements... however, does that mean we have to be bitter cynics now and grind any and everything good into the dirt?
Even though I would have preferred that strategy and think it would have been a largely viable one in the short term and a better one long term... ...I'm not confident of the middle of the sentence with the "more people buying" claim, even if the other two ends a pretty undeniable, especially in retrospect. And I think it is very believable, especially in retrospect in the context of how they cocked up the execution and the blow back that the people behind this decision believed blow back would be "acceptable", new purchases would be higher, and that people who no longer could buy JSA for their Yu Jing either didn't have any and wouldn't buy or DID have some JSA already and would be motivated to buy more because of the split and their inability to use them with what they already had. And even now I'm not even sure they won't be right at least about short term sales. You can sit there and claim you think you have another angle for the why of some terrible decisions and execution of them, but when someone thinks it is irrational to attribute market motivations to a commercial company, when someone thinks that various motherhood statements are irrefutable proof of purist story before product dedication? No dice. This is clearly a company for whom marketing matters. And it is clearly a company capable of making bad decisions.
There are a few companies for whom marketing doesn't matter. Bentley automobiles, for example. Even Rolex watches cares about marketing, I've seen ads for Rolex. Can't say I've ever seen an ad for Bentleys. Extreme luxury products, basically. Otherwise, marketing matters for every company.
Yes it does, for every company. That's why it is always so disappointing to time and again see fans of various products believing that "their" company is a special exception and that this time for sure when a company rep, at a promotional event, says "what matters to us is [insert something other than money]", this time they mean it and it wasn't just something they said as part of their marketing.
Of course marketing matters to CB. I've already pointed out how elements of the release for the new Japanese Secessionist Army were marketing driven. But the actual choice to separate the Japanese from Yu Jing, and the choice to remove the Sectorial Army entirely (when the option of retaining a "loyalist" element was viable) both have better explanations from the perspective of setting development than marketing. And that orientation is only confirmed by what we have seen in terms of the background for the Uprising and what CB have actually said. Continuing to deny that basic fact only looks narrow minded.
Is anyone in this thread still expecting the others to suddenly give in and say: "You have convinced me with your latest post repeating your argument for the 100th time." ??? Back on topic. I don't have the book yet but from what I've heard Yu Jing gets stomped pretty hard and that's sad to me as a player who just started to really like the faction and accept it's shady flaws. I guess my squad was off-planet during Uprising. There's no better excuse for how the Imperial Service failed [emoji13] But also it's not the end of the world. It's just a book telling tales about an utopian future. There are bigger problems out there imo. So have a beer, paint a mini or sit there in anger. I know what I will chose. Cheers, Antares Gesendet von meinem SM-J500FN mit Tapatalk
Well, if we're going to go there, it's probably just as well that I wasn't playing ISS, since I'd bet that it would have been an even bigger fustercluck.
Well, company representatives, have said on numerous recent videos the reasons behind uprising, you can view them as lies if you want, it will not make them less honest or true, the split was a narrative progression that was hinted a lot in the background and was planned to happen someday, Wotan may have given the excuse, but it was there. From a marketing perspective the split could have been handled in many ways, many more profitable, but CB believes in internal consistency and fluff and gameplay going hand in hand, there simply is no way Yu Jing would allow Japanese under arms after the uprising even if they fought for Yu Jing during uprising, if uprising failed there would simply not be a JSA left. Many options were discussed, it ultimately boiled down to is, can suggestion A happen by the fluff? can B ectr ectr. Personally I see no value in companies that treat their IP as second rate, like a few examples pointed out I think in this tread, sorry too many treads to follow (oh this major character died great progression look the risks we take and how we progress out fluff, but not really use him as much as you like, we claim to be bold and do ground shaking stuff but are not bold enouph to actually do them), other see it in another way. the company "caring about them and not invalidating purchases", well don't progress the fluff and make a funfair about it then in my opinion.
I think it's pretty clear if this is the best standard of "progressing the story" even after supposedly considering many (hell, ANY, other options) and if this is what progressing the game because of story means then CB had better switch to stagnation fast because they can't do good story AND they don't know what acceptable "progress" for the game even looks like. Executing difficult and complex maneuvers like this is not something that people with the skills in evidence through the handling of this event should even attempt. Sometimes stagnation is the better option. Like this time. Definitely very specifically this time it's an excellent example.
Stagnation leads to evolutionary dead ends and death. I get you do not like the evolution, I got it the first time and I understand it, I disagree with it, but that is opinion, what I want you to understand is, it is not a decision made randomly, without thought for the customer and the IP and it was not a simple marketing trick. Same goes for the mercenary companies (rest of NA2) many people have several armies why not create lists that make them use their existing collections in a new and fun way? I do not see why people would be mad about it.
You can't just throw the word stagnation around as an excuse for any and all decisions. It wasn't the only alternative no matter what you pretend, and yet IF it was then it was a preferable alternative to this mess. Change isn't automatically good, you don't get to argue that this change was good by declaring lack of change in general to be bad. That is dishonest AND not applicable in this example.
@Eldritch , you need to get your story straight. Either this was a story driven decision and the change in the story being bad matters, or it was a purely marketing based decision and it's bad regardless of the story. Currently you're arguing both and it's becoming increasingly irrational.
