Originally posted by fallenlords

I find it interesting that some people almost perceive Funcom as being blameless, like it's 'Buyer Beware'.  It's the customers fault for believing in what they were being sold.    No, its the morality of a company that would sell lifetime subscriptions in this current climate that should be brought into question.

But customers want livetime offers. Every game i know that doesn't offers them has threads on forums constantly asking for them. Why is Fucom at a fault if they fill a demand thats already there? 

Funcom built free to play functionality into the game from the start they admitted that,  they always had an eye on the business model for the game changing.  So they must of always planned to screw over those that bought lifetime subscriptions.   I asked Joel specifically about the game going free to play, and he said 'not anytime soon' ... well it was quite soon after he said that the business model changed for the game.  Joel blamed the suits for making a business decision, almost exonerating himself and the developers from the changes.    But the functionality was there in the game for multiple business models and has been since day one... that was planned.  

 They are still selling LTAs, LTAs are still being bought. How did they screw up past LTA customers? I wouldn't mind having a LTA with the current terms ...

As a business they knew if TSW tanked they were in trouble. The Funcom financial reports put them in a negative cash flow situation until the TSW release.  The ex-CEO showed his faith in the company on the eve of the TSW launch, still giving Funcom time to change things yet they carried on as if nothing was wrong.  Selling their lifetime subs for a game they knew was already in trouble from the pre-order numbers.   They could have gone buy to play at launch, they decided not to because they wanted to hang on to the money they had already made from mis-selling Lifetime subs and other packages.

 Making money is the job of a company, you talk as if they have closed down the game already ... The game is still running a LTAs still have the same value in that they are a one time payment equivalent to a monthly 15$ sub. The only way LTAs will be worse off than subbers will be if they close the game down soonish.

Timing of this buy to play model is also very interesting as rumors of a takeover have already been floated.    Buy to play will probably give them a nice surge in revenue to make the books look good and value the company higher.   So I would question have they gone buy to play for the good of the game, as all the fans think, or for the good of the executives trying to sell or broker a takeover of the company?

 

Can't it be both? Also "making the books look good" by increasing sales and revenue ... that sure is a evil trick, bit transparent though as you can clearly see the increased revenue. 

 

I would look at this company as a stone cold business.  They know exactly what they are doing and when they are doing it.  They have plans for all sorts of eventualities.  But one thing is for sure the customer will always be the last one to find out and will always be the one out of pocket.

So essentially they are a company that knows their buisness? That description you gave could just aswell describe the Coca-Cola company, Intel, Apple or Exxon mobile. Its not exactly rocket science to guess that a private company is in it for the money.

The question you should ask yourself is wether the game is fun to you, and wether your prepared to pay for that fun. If the latter is affirmitive Funcom has provided several different way to approach it, each clearly lining out its costs, what you get and for how long.

I fail to see how what they are doing is shady or bad for customers. Looks like buisness as usual for me, and alot less shady than most at that(used car dealers, tabacco comapnies, rifle association etc).

Generally speaking consumer protection laws trump any 3rd party agreements every time. If a company sells you something then doesn't deliver what you paid for they have broken the law regardless of any agreements they force down your throat.

The OP has a valid point. He paid a subscription to get premium access to a service (the game) and now that premium access is no longer required despite his subscription fee covering outstanding time. Some fraction of his monthly subscription HAS been mis-sold. Yes, the new benefits of being a subscriber are quite nice but that doesn't change the fact that they are not what the OP paid for.

Think of it like this; you pay a subscription fee for your internet access on a monthly basis, suddenly in the middle of a month just after your most recent fee was paid your ISP decided to give the internet free to everyone. That means you paid for at least a week or so that everyone else got for free... So what if your ISP offers you a concilatory anti-virus subscription for your fee instead... that isn't what you paid for!

I don't think it's worth taking anyone to court over, but I do see the OP's point.

Originally posted by Alberel

Generally speaking consumer protection laws trump any 3rd party agreements every time. If a company sells you something then doesn't deliver what you paid for they have broken the law regardless of any agreements they force down your throat.

Very true, law > contracs/agreement.

The OP has a valid point. He paid a subscription to get premium access to a service (the game) and now that premium access is no longer required despite his subscription fee covering outstanding time. Some fraction of his monthly subscription HAS been mis-sold. Yes, the new benefits of being a subscriber are quite nice but that doesn't change the fact that they are not what the OP paid for.

I disagree. You still need a subscription to get the kind of access the op has under his sub plan. And im not sure what you mean with "some fraction ... mis-sold." What exactly is a mis-sold? And while the new benefits may not be why the OP bought the sub, they havn't taken away any of the old benefits. The fact that some part of whats covered by a sub before is now free is not a argument. Reducing a price on a service or part of a service is a prerogative of a company, even reducing the price down to zero. There are countless examples of companies reducing the price on part of their service. 

Think of it like this; you pay a subscription fee for your internet access on a monthly basis, suddenly in the middle of a month just after your most recent fee was paid your ISP decided to give the internet free to everyone. That means you paid for at least a week or so that everyone else got for free... So what if your ISP offers you a concilatory anti-virus subscription for your fee instead... that isn't what you paid for!

Good example. I recently changed my interent plan from a 3mbit line for 45 bucks to a 16mbit plan for 35 bucks, i was in an old legacy plan that has been running for years and wasn't even being sold anymore. So in your example your ISP isn't offering you a concilatory anti-virus, he is fulfulling the contract exactly as you both agreed upon. If you commit yourself to a contract, wether it be 30 days or 24months, you are not entitled to any pricecuts during that time, on the other hand your provider also cannot raise your price during that time. This is the very same for anything be electrical bills, water supply, mobile plan or internet.

I don't think it's worth taking anyone to court over, but I do see the OP's point.

No offense intended, but sometimes i wonder how many of the people commenting in threads like this actually pay their own bills or have their own contracts running. Some notions are rather ... out there. I mean just take a look at mobile contracts. You have never seen during your 24 month lockout a newer plan coming out that included things you paid for? Like free SMS or minutes?

Or how about the christmas giveaway in the app store of apple every year. You buy a app today, tomorrow everyone gets it free. Or Steam sales and promotional items(reviewers get electronic gadgets for free for example), all of that is illegal? Really? Because someone gets something for free you had to pay for? You think thats against the law? Which law?

Originally posted by Rocketeer

Originally posted by fallenlords

But customers want livetime offers. Every game i know that doesn't offers them has threads on forums constantly asking for them. Why is Fucom at a fault if they fill a demand thats already there?

You pick a business model and go with it fair enough, it doesn't work out and you have to change... again fair enough. But you hedge your bets right from the start, that shows you as a company have no faith in the initial model you have chosen.    Getting it wrong is fair enough, covering all bases in readiness I think  shows pre-planned preparation that brings into question the selling of lifetime subscriptions or subscriptions at all.  People may want lifetime subs but they want them for subscription based games, not necessarily buy to play, free to play. If the contract/agreement changes the customers should be given more than one option. Funcom should offer any dissatisfied customer more than one option, to my mind a refund in they are not happy with the new arrangement.  But they won't because they need the money.

Even on the eve of launch with pre-order figures staring them in their face and their CEO doing a bunk trying to sell off his shares they carried on as normal. As a business that is beholding to customers surely that would of been a time to re-evaluate things. Well no I suppose not, if you don't give a fig about your customers.

 They are still selling LTAs, LTAs are still being bought. How did they screw up past LTA customers? I wouldn't mind having a LTA with the current terms ...

And you would have to be a fool to buy one, in my opinion, a fool to give this rather unstable company any money at all.  THQ have just gone chapter 11 I don't know if there is a Norway equivalent but if I was a customer I would find out.  The overall climate for game companies that are struggling is not good.

 

 

The current buy to play has had a little bit of an impact on the Funcom share price, ordinarily I would say great.  But with Funcom I am not sure of their motives.  Joel has already stated the suits make the business decisions... passing the buck to my mind.  But what is their plan?  Are they fighting to keep the game going or looking to improve share price prior to takeover/sale.  This could all be a cash grab and they close shop.  Are they offering any guarantees, are they engaging the users as to the state of things.  No, Funcom have always been very secretive.  They only released the sale numbers on TSW because shareholders 'forced' them to do so.

 Making money is the job of a company, you talk as if they have closed down the game already ... The game is still running a LTAs still have the same value in that they are a one time payment equivalent to a monthly 15$ sub. The only way LTAs will be worse off than subbers will be if they close the game down soonish.

Yes making money is the job of any company but not at the expense of your customers...well not if there is anything about them.   Key to any good business is keeping your customers happy, repeat business. They went to no effort at all really with existing lifetime subs when they changed things, they just dictated terms.   Not good business practice. Indicates that as a company you are dealing with the same old Funcom, regardless of the change in personnel.

 

 

Can't it be both? Also "making the books look good" by increasing sales and revenue ... that sure is a evil trick, bit transparent though as you can clearly see the increased revenue.

 

All depends according to one post they have engaged the services of people who deal with takeovers, mergers and valuations of companies.  Funcom as a company have never and will never give you any insight into their long term plans.  Company could be sold in the New Year and TSW might cease to exist.  New company has no responsibility to the old customers.  Forget the image of a struggling developer trying to keep the game going for the good of the players. I think that's a false image they like to portray.

 

So essentially they are a company that knows their buisness? That description you gave could just aswell describe the Coca-Cola company, Intel, Apple or Exxon mobile. Its not exactly rocket science to guess that a private company is in it for the money.

Yes they know their business to an extent, but they are treading water and have been for a considerable number of years.  All I am warning people about is forget this image people have in their heads of hard done independent developer Funcom trying to limp along with the game they love at all costs.  Look at what has been happening around the company, the morals of the people who have been in charge.  Their past history towards customers.  This is not a customer focussed business in any sense.

I fail to see how what they are doing is shady or bad for customers. Looks like buisness as usual for me, and alot less shady than most at that(used car dealers, tabacco comapnies, rifle association etc).

Well it depends on their plans.  If they are just looking to keep the game going fair enough. But is that their motive?  Only time will tell.  Us naysayers and anti Funcom lot have always got it wrong so as a customer I wouldn't worry too much.

Consider this a lesson for life:
Never ever pay for things that you wont use immediately, if at all possible...
When it comes to online games: Never pay anything period.

@Fallenlords

I get what your trying to say, but i don't really think they had a choice. They are clearly driven by forces and factors largely outside of their control. Also the points you stated are teh exact reason WHY i didn't buy a LTA from them when the game launched(and im generally in favour of LTAs holding 2). 

The way i see it noone should act surpised when a MMO goes into somekind of F2P these days, regardless of wether they sell LTAs or not. Also the recompensation for LTA customers is pretty standard these days, store point stipend + perks + free content if suboption persists.

Also if your game is failing anyway ... any option keeping it afloat is good for the players, especially if they paid upfront. Preparing prelaunch for atleast the possibility of that is just common sense if you look at the long list of MMOs who didn't and had to suffer in the transition process because they where unprepared.

The way i see it alot of complaints are basicly buyers remorse. People got tired of the game and see this change as a chance to get atleast some of their money back. Though the product you access with your LTA today isn't any less than the product you accessed with your LTA a year ago, infact its a improved product. The way i see it people are grasping at straws to morally justify getting their money back, one has to wonder how many of them are just burned out of the game anyway.

Lesson is to not buy a LTA to a game unless you plan on playing it the next couple years. Like i said, i hold two and do not regret either even though both are to F2P titles. At the very least they allow me to play the games without artificial barriers and getting nickle and dimed for every little thing.

Also 200-300$ are not that much if consider that you get to play that game for potentially years. And lets be honest, most P2P games gone F2P are downright horrible if you don't spent real cash. And even those awesome F2P games with no restrictions ... well somehow they have to be (planning to)making money. I rather pay upfront than getting into some bait and switch P2W scam with patch xy sometime in the future.

I always find these arguments a bit facile.

I've purchased x2 lifetime subs in MMOs over the years, one for STO and one for TSW.

I did so with the full knowledge that they were likely to end up F2P or B2P... I did this because I wanted the games to succeed in the face of a fickle general gamer public, who are only interested in the most 'popular' title with the highest review scores. I always value the games I play at a flat value of £1 per hour of gameplay. To that end the 300 hours I put into STO more than paid for itself. I am certain I will put that many hours into TSW as well so much so that I expect to end up paying no more than 50p per hour. (as a comparison, a movie will last on average of 2 hours, and cost apoprox £10 that £5 per hour).

Yes, yes I here all the noises that suggest a bad ratio between my brain cells and wallet. But you know, I see games development in the MMO arena as less a business and more a creation of Art, its a genre I love and wish to be a patron of - these games are made by passionate people, not by lawyers and faceless company jocks with no heart.

Funcom, for all their failings have two huge things in their favour when I look to 'invest' my money with them.

a) they are a european company and the profits go back to europe - I'm a Uk citizen and want my money to help people in my own continent (sorry US guys).

b) they are passionate about the games they make, and support them long after their shelf life has passed (AO is 11 years old and still going)

c) they are a small and largely independant company, that doesn't have to doff its cap to the 'man' in NYC.

I am even sorely tempted to invest in Funcom in a more direct way, and buy their shares, which took a hammering this year and as a consquence and available to buy at a HUGE cost reduction, with the advent of Legend of Conan it is very likely indeed that their profitablity will increase substantially.

Incidenteally Funcom are NOT in financial trouble, Ragnar T0rnquist is not a Korean grind fest maker and he was not 'fired' from Funcom.

To that end, I am not in the least bit concerned about the change of business model, I welcome it, since it will hopefully bring the company some much needed additional revenue and bring more players into the game universe that I have come to love.

Originally posted by Ozimandeus

Funcom, for all their failings have two huge things in their favour when I look to 'invest' my money with them.

a) they are a european company and the profits go back to europe - I'm a Uk citizen and want my money to help people in my own continent (sorry US guys).

 

Not so sure about that, they are spread all over the place and that is probably due to tax break reasons. I would applaud you at your stance ordinarily but as a UK consumer and being part of Europe I would expect a consumer to have more protection than they do have.    I would have had Trading Standards on their back before now if they had been UK resident company.  They also sort of need to make a profit for the profits to go back into Europe.  Don't know if you have read any of their financial reports but they are not donating massive amounts to the European coffers.

 

b) they are passionate about the games they make, and support them long after their shelf life has passed (AO is 11 years old and still going)

 

Debatable.  When you only have a limited number of products, you are going to support them for as long as they make money.   Never found Funcom to be passionate about their games. Always thought they neglected their users and due to the number of in-your-face bugs, didn't even play their own games was the feeling I got.  Certainly didn't listen to what the users would like to happen with regards to the future direction of said games.

 

c) they are a small and largely independant company, that doesn't have to doff its cap to the 'man' in NYC.

 

Which is why I find it strange that they treat their customers with such utter contempt.   The lifeblood of their company is the customers yet they never listen to them.  

 

I am even sorely tempted to invest in Funcom in a more direct way, and buy their shares, which took a hammering this year and as a consquence and available to buy at a HUGE cost reduction, with the advent of Legend of Conan it is very likely indeed that their profitablity will increase substantially.

 

Go for it, buy some shares... great time to buy. Legend of Conan, which I hope is a success, will make no difference to Funcom.   I hope they don't get involved at all to be honest, considering they supposedly had a hand in the Conan the Barbarian remake which was just total garbage.  Funcom stay away please, don't advise, don't do any artwork...basically don't have any connection at all with the new film.   If anything lets have a single player Conan game from Bethesda along the lines of Skyrim. In fact Skyrim feels more like a Conan game than Age of Conan ever did (just ignore all the Dragons).

 

Incidenteally Funcom are NOT in financial trouble, Ragnar T0rnquist is not a Korean grind fest maker and he was not 'fired' from Funcom.

 

Unless you are part of the company looking at the books on a regular basis you don't know what sort of state they are in overall.   Their next financial report, if they get that far, should make for interesting reading.  As for Ragnar, man has vision I respect that. But it's obvious he is distancing himself from Funcom... should the inevitable happen. If you can't see that then I wouldn't buy/sell shares as a pastime.

 

To that end, I am not in the least bit concerned about the change of business model, I welcome it, since it will hopefully bring the company some much needed additional revenue and bring more players into the game universe that I have come to love.

 

Fair play I just think as an independent developer in these sort of times, you need to focus on the customer.  You don't want to add to the anti-funcom brigade by dictating terms to people.  You have an agreement/contract so if you want to change it then you at least need to engage your existing customers.   That's one of the major problems with Funcom they dictate to their customers, there is really no open dialogue.  The Funcom forums are a prime example complaining posts are deleted, complaining users banned.  We don't see the true Funcom we see this image they want to portray and for the most part it's fake.
 

@Rocketeer

Originally posted by fallenlords

@Rocketeer

It's all about perceived value.  The initial offering people judged it and made a call, fine no problem.  But Funcom are not now allowing people to reassess the perceived value and decide on their course of action.  They are dictating things to them, for a product that is less than a year old.  The majority perceive the value of the new offering to be fair and value for money.  Some don't, if customer satisfaction is key component of your business then you put things right.  

 

They are not dictating anything to you, nothing changed for you if you have a LTA. The only ones affected are NEW players coming to the game now(like me). It isn't any different than buying a new gamerelease now for 60$ and see it in a sale 80% reduced in a year. Only difference is that you actually will get alot more as a LTA account holder(future content is included for you, its not for people who got the B2P deal).

 

I also don't buy this idea that any option to keep the game going at any cost is justified.  You won't have much of a game if you are alienating people that had faith in you, enough to buy a lifetime subscription, and now feel cheated.  That sort of thing just creates more people like me and that isn't good for business.

 

Tell that to the people who played Hellgate:London, APB, SWG, E&B or CoX. Its better to alienate some people than to alienate EVERYONE by saying "thats it, bye". If TSW had been a huge success things may have been different, but it wasn't and they are not.

Originally posted by Ozimandeus

I always find these arguments a bit facile.

I've purchased x2 lifetime subs in MMOs over the years, one for STO and one for TSW.

I did so with the full knowledge that they were likely to end up F2P or B2P... I did this because I wanted the games to succeed in the face of a fickle general gamer public, who are only interested in the most 'popular' title with the highest review scores. I always value the games I play at a flat value of £1 per hour of gameplay. To that end the 300 hours I put into STO more than paid for itself. I am certain I will put that many hours into TSW as well so much so that I expect to end up paying no more than 50p per hour. (as a comparison, a movie will last on average of 2 hours, and cost apoprox £10 that £5 per hour).

Yes, yes I here all the noises that suggest a bad ratio between my brain cells and wallet. But you know, I see games development in the MMO arena as less a business and more a creation of Art, its a genre I love and wish to be a patron of - these games are made by passionate people, not by lawyers and faceless company jocks with no heart.

Funcom, for all their failings have two huge things in their favour when I look to 'invest' my money with them.

a) they are a european company and the profits go back to europe - I'm a Uk citizen and want my money to help people in my own continent (sorry US guys).

b) they are passionate about the games they make, and support them long after their shelf life has passed (AO is 11 years old and still going)

c) they are a small and largely independant company, that doesn't have to doff its cap to the 'man' in NYC.

I am even sorely tempted to invest in Funcom in a more direct way, and buy their shares, which took a hammering this year and as a consquence and available to buy at a HUGE cost reduction, with the advent of Legend of Conan it is very likely indeed that their profitablity will increase substantially.

Incidenteally Funcom are NOT in financial trouble, Ragnar T0rnquist is not a Korean grind fest maker and he was not 'fired' from Funcom.

To that end, I am not in the least bit concerned about the change of business model, I welcome it, since it will hopefully bring the company some much needed additional revenue and bring more players into the game universe that I have come to love.

 

 

 

 

Ouch!

At least I'm not the only one who seems to have horrible luck!

*Disclaimer*

I have never purchased a LTS for any game, but if I did, I can assure you no good would come from it =p

Just on the financial accounts of Funcom, they publically released the third quarter results back in November:

http://www.funcom.com/investors

On your point about treating their customer's poorly, I can tell you that the worst service I've ever had has repeatedly been from 'EA' proper, a string of MMORPG's and other games have been canned by EA and no longer supported, Earth and Beyond to name but one - there are many others.

On the other hand, Anarchy Online is STILL going strong having moved from one business model to another one successfully. For MMORPG's the most important 'serivce' is continuing support. But I agree in terms of 'fab customer service there is someway to go, but that is often the case in European comapnies, who do not have the same ethos of customer service that you see in Stateside companies.

Evidence of 'passion' isn't in the business side, but in the execution of the games themselves, in TSW in isolation the creativeness by the art department oozes from every orrifice. The game dynamics and and freedom say all you need. The story telling is better than anything seen in any MMORPG I have every played, all of these 'creative' elements show the artistic bent that the company has towards gamesmaking which (for me) puts TSW on par with Guild Wars 2 or LotRO.

 

You pick a business model and go with it fair enough, it doesn't work out and you have to change... again fair enough. But you hedge your bets right from the start, that shows you as a company have no faith in the initial model you have chosen.    Getting it wrong is fair enough, covering all bases in readiness I think  shows pre-planned preparation that brings into question the selling of lifetime subscriptions or subscriptions at all.  People may want lifetime subs but they want them for subscription based games, not necessarily buy to play, free to play. If the contract/agreement changes the customers should be given more than one option. Funcom should offer any dissatisfied customer more than one option, to my mind a refund in they are not happy with the new arrangement.  But they won't because they need the money.

Can you show when this has been done in mmorpgs? 

 

Even on the eve of launch with pre-order figures staring them in their face and their CEO doing a bunk trying to sell off his shares they carried on as normal. As a business that is beholding to customers surely that would of been a time to re-evaluate things. Well no I suppose not, if you don't give a fig about your customers.

The ceo wasn't a ceo at the time he made a personal decision. I don't see how this is not giving a crap about your customers. When you're faced with the following benefits: 

A) $10 of funcom points instead of 0 under the old subscription. 

B) Veteran Rewards

C) Enough points to buy dlc packs if it goes over the amount for monthly allowance they get it at the monthly allowance price. 

D)  20% discount from the store.  

 

The current buy to play has had a little bit of an impact on the Funcom share price, ordinarily I would say great.  But with Funcom I am not sure of their motives.  Joel has already stated the suits make the business decisions... passing the buck to my mind.  But what is their plan?  Are they fighting to keep the game going or looking to improve share price prior to takeover/sale.  This could all be a cash grab and they close shop.  Are they offering any guarantees, are they engaging the users as to the state of things.  No, Funcom have always been very secretive.  They only released the sale numbers on TSW because shareholders 'forced' them to do so.

 

I believe if they were going to close up shop they would have. Which if you were correct about them not giving a damn would be done hastily to avoid losing money as you say they are. They haven;t which shows a clear desire to  continue the game. All games wish to be profitable so I'm not going to get into the whole is it just for the money thing. People don't work for free. 

Yes making money is the job of any company but not at the expense of your customers...well not if there is anything about them.   Key to any good business is keeping your customers happy, repeat business. They went to no effort at all really with existing lifetime subs when they changed things, they just dictated terms.   Not good business practice. Indicates that as a company you are dealing with the same old Funcom, regardless of the change in personnel.

 

While you're making a grandstand about it I'm guessing you have a mortgage? Which is designed by nature to cheat you out of a large amount of money by giving you enough money upfront? If not I'm sure you had one at one time. So let’s talk about cheating people out of money in the avenues that matter compared to a mortgage I'm not sure I would sweat $15 a month.  If they repo your house, car whatever is that not by nature cheating the customer? 

 

 

Originally posted by banzai014

Originally posted by Roxtarr
Re-read the Terms and Conditions you agreed to and you may find you have no ground to stand on.

The EULA means nothing in Europe

O' really??

You may wana check again on this mate.

I am amazed this conversation is still going, and people are still suggesting that there's some sort of legal case here. If the EULA is meaningful as a contract, then it protects Funcom from the lawsuit because Funcom reserves the right to change the terms of the subscription at any time. If the EULA is not meaningful as a contract, then the person bringing suit has to show material or psychological harm. There is no material or psychological harm done to lifetime subscribers.

There is no lawsuit here. Oh sure, someone could hire a lawyer, and spend the money to try and bring Funcom to court, but that someone would be throwing their money away.

---

Originally posted by Abangyarudo
what I find amazing is if I read the op right he is not a lifetime subscriber hes a regular subber that has a few months left. So all this talk about life time subscription is meaningless because the person in question does not have one.

---