Streamer priority confirmed. PoE is free to play, so play it for free, but Boycott GGG.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

This is so needlessly infantalising. GGG is a business out to make money, of course, but they haven't done anything to make me think they see anyone as 'dumb little open wallets'.

How many threads have you seen there the OP goes on a long-winded rant about how they are dissatisfied with the game and how they want things to change, and then you get the the last sentence and it's "I still love PoE and GGG and I'll still support it."

If there's a better description than "dumb little open wallet" then I've not heard it.

do you think only que login etc ? GGG buffing steamer drops if u watch most of same guys drop mirror

fking playing this game since alpha not even drop worth something like that

"

kekoyaso wrote:

do you think only que login etc ? GGG buffing steamer drops if u watch most of same guys drop mirror

fking playing this game since alpha not even drop worth something like that

Yeah, just like Mathil getting all those mirrors. One 7 years ago

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

It still is, if they're fine with being treated like dumb little open wallets happy to take second place purely because they don't make GGG as much money.

This is so needlessly infantalising. GGG is a business out to make money, of course, but they haven't done anything to make me think they see anyone as 'dumb little open wallets'. They ran an advertising campaign and the people involved in it were, naturally, given access to the product. Same way the person you see driving the car in a car ad didn't have to go out and buy it themself.

How about 'treated like people who don't flip their shit because one day there are a million people further in the game than them instead of 999,999'?

GGG has always been out to make money. And the OP was happy to be a dumb little wallet as long as he was a big fish in a little pond. You need only read the posting history.

Now that the pond has turned into a dam and supporter packs and forum tags just don't go as far as they used to, Charan has woken up and smelt the coffee, and want's everyone else to smell it now because he does. Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

Everyone discovers the truth of business in their own time. Myself and many others saw the shit on the wall since the days of desync. Some took longer, some are still learning.

A company that will sell you a QOL feature as basic as cursor size and visibility and will knowingly design a game that can potentially give carpel tunnel just to sink you time collecting garbage, has zero ethics, and has not had for a long fucking time.

Whether it be inventory management, item drops or trading, GGG log ago outscaled these issues financially and could have done better. They chose not to because profits. The plucky young garage programming heroes died a long time ago. They were replaced with an entity that attracted TENECENT. Let that sink in.

"

Powertrip wrote:

Charan has woken up and smelt the coffee, and want's everyone else to smell it now because he does. Unfortunately, it does not work that way.

I'm fully cognisant of this fact -- you can't 'learn lessons' for anyone else, and I'd be a huge fucking liar if I said my nearest and dearest isn't still exasperated that I even give a shit about this forum, this community, or this company, and she's met Chris and his own nearest and dearest so it's not like they, at least, are faceless entities on the internet. We know they're real people, real feelings, etc., etc. So if SHE couldn't stop me from making this mistake over and again, fuck, pretty much no one could.

But that, too, is something of a lie -- I sometimes believe complete strangers over my nearest and dearest because my personality is such that I inherently mistrust those who care for me when it comes to certain matters. They're biased as hell; they know me too well. They...get in the way of my passionate but mostly harmless self-sabotaging. And I've been doing that so long I consider it a part of my identity. I can't be alone in this, or the internet would be a very quiet place indeed. Artists wouldn't get so upset by reviews when their friends and family tell them how good they are. And so on. But sometimes we can be that stranger in which others place almost undue faith too, and I think if it becomes clear that's your role, you have to be honest and true about it. Else you're just a shill or a shitheel.

Point being, I'm not really doing this to shove others' faces in the coffee and yell, 'SMELL THAT, BITCH? SMELL THAT? THAT'S NOT COFFEE! THAT'S SHIT!'...because coffee is and always will be an acquired taste, not just in terms of whether you like it or not but in terms of how you like it, which is why coffee snobs are almost universally reviled. Many things I am; a coffee snob, or any sort of snob, is not one of them. Especially not a PoE snob. My olfactory reaction to the coffee has changed, but that doesn't mean everyone else's has. Or will. And of COURSE I'm still envious of those who can still drink it. I remember what it tastes like; I relish the memory as only a recovering addict can.

So why do I do this? I do this because I feel, inevitably, alone with my gut feelings and initial reactions most of the time. That usually doesn't last: I'll pop on the internet and see what others think and feel about something that's provoked or vexed me. That action alone abates the twinge of isolation: a heck of a lot of people seek validation of their thoughts/reactions by looking 'here'. But with GGG and PoE, due to my likely unique experience, I want to provide that validation IF people are looking for it. To say to any Exile who isn't comfortable with this streamer priority situation, "yes, that awful feeling you got when you saw GGG do this? It's right. It's natural. You are not losing your mind. You are not overreacting. You are not being 'a special snowflake' or 'hysterical' when you see that and think, 'that was fucked'. This was an injustice done to you, all of you, and they're going to get away with it, but that doesn't mean you have to take it lying down."

I think in order to qualify for the 'wake up and smell the coffee' accusation (albeit a light one here), I'd need to be actively going at people who still happily support GGG and PoE. I am absolutely not doing that. I've said it repeatedly: if you like what you're buying, cool. You do you.

But a little more firmly, I add: you have nothing to contribute to this thread if you wholeheartedly feel that GGG still deserve your support. This is not YOUR validation thread; it's not the conversation YOU need to have. Go. Enjoy PoE. Support GGG. You're just wasting your time here.

And anyone who feels that way and still posts here is, well, probably just trolling at this point. What's the aim? Dissuade people from believing in their own feelings, convince them it wasn't that big a deal? To what end? So that they keep spending on something they've started to doubt? Misery does love company, I guess. I silently thank them for the bump but do not deign to respond to what are almost certainly pointless attempts at derailing and distracting. I do not need their help with that! :)

I see enough responses confirming what I've said above that I can and do just ignore anyone else here, especially those who've established themselves here as regularly antagonistic. And isn't that proof positive that I'm not alone in finding the scent of the coffee GGG are serving up at least a little malodorous?

PS the big fish little pond thing -- harsh as fuck but I can't and won't deny it. Naturally I saw it differently but who doesn't, when they're the fish? But I'll add this: it's not an absolute. Whaling/angel 'investing' is not about merely being a big fish in a little pond. It's about seeing how long you can remain a big fish as you help the pond grow. Whaling a non-p2w game is just another counterintuitive self-sabotage, really. At least, it is once your prime motivation for doing so is rendered null and void (i.e. feeling good for supporting an ethical game). There were far, far worse ponds out there in which to paddle one's blubber about.

"

innervation wrote:

I want to say this without comment on the specific line 'dumb little open wallets'...

You've done a very fallacious misdirection here by focusing on the 'natural' consequences of a decision. Imagine this phrasing: 'of course you scraped up your knees and elbows when I tripped you - that is, naturally, the outcome when you fall onto concrete'.

Saying that there are natural effects stemming from a cause doesn't address whether or not the cause is justified in the first place.

I mean before the one sentence about consequences I wrote two about the cause, so I don't really get the 'fallacious misdirection by focusing on the consequences' bit, but sure, if it helps, I'll be more explicit about my position:

Companies providing people involved in an advertising campaign access to the product they are advertising is not a problem. I believe "the cause" here to be justified. I don't expect the guy wearing a watch in a watch ad to have gone and stood in line at the store to buy it like everyone else before turning up to the shoot. The watch company ensures he has access to the watch. That's okay. It's not "unfair" that he gets to wear it before me, or even while I'm in line for it myself.

When I hear things like:

"

The cause of this thread isn't that streamers were paid to play the game, it's that they were given a gameplay advantage.

to me it comes across much like "the cause of this thread isn't that the man was paid to wear the watch, it's that he was given a watch-wearing advantage".

Which of course seems like a weird thing to worry about. He's not the audience, he's a business partner of the company. May as well complain that the employees making cosmetic item videos for the store are given free access to the cosmetics in the videos. I'm not in competition with this guy for watch-wearing-ness; I never was and never will be. And so I don't feel like the company is treating me like a 'dumb little open wallet' because he got to wear the watch before me.

When I hear:

"

No one should be denied access to servers at any time because they aren't on twitch/youtube.

...well, first we need to correct that statement. Because nobody was denied access to servers "for not being on Twitch/Youtube". POE access was not automatic for Twitch/Youtube members; surely we all know that. Specific access was created for people 'wearing the watch', so to speak.

But what I hear in that bolded statement is "None should be denied access to priority watch access just because they're not currently a member of a modeling agency contracted to advertise said watch". Which is just not reasonable. If gamers applied a tenth of the standards they expect from developers to any other situation it would sound absolutely absurd.

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

innervation wrote:

I want to say this without comment on the specific line 'dumb little open wallets'...

You've done a very fallacious misdirection here by focusing on the 'natural' consequences of a decision. Imagine this phrasing: 'of course you scraped up your knees and elbows when I tripped you - that is, naturally, the outcome when you fall onto concrete'.

Saying that there are natural effects stemming from a cause doesn't address whether or not the cause is justified in the first place.

I mean before the one sentence about consequences I wrote two about the cause, so I don't really get the 'fallacious misdirection by focusing on the consequences' bit, but sure, if it helps, I'll be more explicit about my position:

Companies providing people involved in an advertising campaign access to the product they are advertising is not a problem. I believe "the cause" here to be justified. I don't expect the guy wearing a watch in a watch ad to have gone and stood in line at the store to buy it like everyone else before turning up to the shoot. The watch company ensures he has access to the watch. That's okay. It's not "unfair" that he gets to wear it before me, or even while I'm in line for it myself.

When I hear things like:

"

The cause of this thread isn't that streamers were paid to play the game, it's that they were given a gameplay advantage.

to me it comes across much like "the cause of this thread isn't that the man was paid to wear the watch, it's that he was given a watch-wearing advantage".

Which of course seems like a weird thing to worry about. He's not the audience, he's a business partner of the company. May as well complain that the employees making cosmetic item videos for the store are given free access to the cosmetics in the videos. I'm not in competition with this guy for watch-wearing-ness; I never was and never will be. And so I don't feel like the company is treating me like a 'dumb little open wallet' because he got to wear the watch before me.

When I hear:

"

No one should be denied access to servers at any time because they aren't on twitch/youtube.

...well, first we need to correct that statement. Because nobody was denied access to servers "for not being on Twitch/Youtube". POE access was not automatic for Twitch/Youtube members; surely we all know that. Specific access was created for people 'wearing the watch', so to speak.

But what I hear in that bolded statement is "None should be denied access to priority watch access just because they're not currently a member of a modeling agency contracted to advertise said watch". Which is just not reasonable. If gamers applied a tenth of the standards they expect from developers to any other situation it would sound absolutely absurd.

Clearly you have no idea of the nature of the product GGG is selling.

"

innervation wrote:

Spoiler

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

"

Foreverhappychan wrote:

It still is, if they're fine with being treated like dumb little open wallets happy to take second place purely because they don't make GGG as much money.

This is so needlessly infantalising. GGG is a business out to make money, of course, but they haven't done anything to make me think they see anyone as 'dumb little open wallets'. They ran an advertising campaign and the people involved in it were, naturally, given access to the product. Same way the person you see driving the car in a car ad didn't have to go out and buy it themself.

How about 'treated like people who don't flip their shit because one day there are a million people further in the game than them instead of 999,999'?

Spoiler

I want to say this without comment on the specific line 'dumb little open wallets'...

You've done a very fallacious misdirection here by focusing on the 'natural' consequences of a decision. Imagine this phrasing: 'of course you scraped up your knees and elbows when I tripped you - that is, naturally, the outcome when you fall onto concrete'.

Saying that there are natural effects stemming from a cause doesn't address whether or not the cause is justified in the first place. The cause of this thread isn't that streamers were paid to play the game, it's that they were given a gameplay advantage. In a free to play game, access to servers should be fair and equal. Phrased differently and bolded,

No one should be denied access to servers at any time because they aren't on twitch/youtube. If that statement constitutes flipping my shit or asking too much then I would suggest your standards are too low. Is there anything they could give paid streamers that would upset you? How about a level boost to 70 with all quests completed?

The counter argument to this would be that some part of the player base don't cares as it does not affect it in their singlplayer(ish non competitive) experience or saying that you should not play on a patch day.

"

Jerle wrote:

Clearly you have no idea of the nature of the product GGG is selling.

And that is?

"

gandhar0 wrote:

The counter argument to this would be that some part of the player base don't cares as it does not affect it in their singlplayer(ish non competitive) experience or saying that you should not play on a patch day.

It doesn't matter if the player base cares or not cares. The only thing that matter is GGG *themselves* sold this game on the premise that you cannot obtain ingame advantages outside of the game and they turned back on their *own* vision.