Posted by thewizard17 on 10/8/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:22:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for checking in, thecheater17. If there's anyone less popular than me in this whiny forum, it's you. You know, because of the proud cheating.

johnsensing and I have explained this to you on several occasions that there was no cheating involved. Maybe you are just too f****** stupid to understand?

So you have one person who doesn't think you're a filthy cheater? At a sim game on the internet? You must live a miserable life to value "success" that much.

You do understand that the ONLY reason your account wasn't canceled was because they were selling the game, right? Please tell me you're smart enough to know that.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 6:48:00 PM (view original):
Then the rewards just go to the next guy.

Let's say you have have 10 people playing and top 3 are playing for free. So you get money from 7 people. Those 3 people leave and you're left with 7 people. Those top 3 people play for free and now you get money from 4 people.

4 is less than 7.

Nope, not that simple.

Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product, like producers of any good and service. So right off the bat, those 7 who stay are individually much more valuable, even if they don’t always *have* to pay. They accept that sometimes they may pay, and will generally accept a more competitive game, seasons they have to pay more for. Keeping those customers will always take priority over the people who are only interested in freebies.

Beyond that, as I said, the incentive structure can always be changed, if necessary. A lot of people have been speculating for a long time that it may not make sense to offer full incentives to the lower divisions.

"Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product,"

But, I thought you don't talk about the business aspects of the game?

"I don’t talk about the business aspects of the game, because I don’t pretend it’s within my scope to do so."

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 6:48:00 PM (view original):
Then the rewards just go to the next guy.

Let's say you have have 10 people playing and top 3 are playing for free. So you get money from 7 people. Those 3 people leave and you're left with 7 people. Those top 3 people play for free and now you get money from 4 people.

4 is less than 7.

Nope, not that simple.

Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product, like producers of any good and service. So right off the bat, those 7 who stay are individually much more valuable, even if they don’t always *have* to pay. They accept that sometimes they may pay, and will generally accept a more competitive game, seasons they have to pay more for. Keeping those customers will always take priority over the people who are only interested in freebies.

Beyond that, as I said, the incentive structure can always be changed, if necessary. A lot of people have been speculating for a long time that it may not make sense to offer full incentives to the lower divisions.

"Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product,"

But, I thought you don't talk about the business aspects of the game?

"I don’t talk about the business aspects of the game, because I don’t pretend it’s within my scope to do so."

Cherry picking quotes again to obfuscate, as an alternative to engaging in the discussion. You do you, benis.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/8/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:22:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for checking in, thecheater17. If there's anyone less popular than me in this whiny forum, it's you. You know, because of the proud cheating.

johnsensing and I have explained this to you on several occasions that there was no cheating involved. Maybe you are just too f****** stupid to understand?

So you have one person who doesn't think you're a filthy cheater? At a sim game on the internet? You must live a miserable life to value "success" that much.

You do understand that the ONLY reason your account wasn't canceled was because they were selling the game, right? Please tell me you're smart enough to know that.

This is a Mike T specialty here. Probably nobody else to argue with, because he has a miserable job and his wife hates him.

If you look closely at my team dumbass, they did take action, they ended up resetting the remaining players WE. So if they had time to reset my players WE, why didn't they take the time to cancel my account?

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 6:48:00 PM (view original):
Then the rewards just go to the next guy.

Let's say you have have 10 people playing and top 3 are playing for free. So you get money from 7 people. Those 3 people leave and you're left with 7 people. Those top 3 people play for free and now you get money from 4 people.

4 is less than 7.

Nope, not that simple.

Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product, like producers of any good and service. So right off the bat, those 7 who stay are individually much more valuable, even if they don’t always *have* to pay. They accept that sometimes they may pay, and will generally accept a more competitive game, seasons they have to pay more for. Keeping those customers will always take priority over the people who are only interested in freebies.

Beyond that, as I said, the incentive structure can always be changed, if necessary. A lot of people have been speculating for a long time that it may not make sense to offer full incentives to the lower divisions.

"Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product,"

But, I thought you don't talk about the business aspects of the game?

"I don’t talk about the business aspects of the game, because I don’t pretend it’s within my scope to do so."

Cherry picking quotes again to obfuscate, as an alternative to engaging in the discussion. You do you, benis.

Then don't say you don't do something and then 20 minutes later do that exact thing.

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/8/2017 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/8/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:22:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for checking in, thecheater17. If there's anyone less popular than me in this whiny forum, it's you. You know, because of the proud cheating.

johnsensing and I have explained this to you on several occasions that there was no cheating involved. Maybe you are just too f****** stupid to understand?

So you have one person who doesn't think you're a filthy cheater? At a sim game on the internet? You must live a miserable life to value "success" that much.

You do understand that the ONLY reason your account wasn't canceled was because they were selling the game, right? Please tell me you're smart enough to know that.

This is a Mike T specialty here. Probably nobody else to argue with, because he has a miserable job and his wife hates him.

If you look closely at my team dumbass, they did take action, they ended up resetting the remaining players WE. So if they had time to reset my players WE, why didn't they take the time to cancel my account?

Because you don't run off customers during the sale process. Is that really all that difficult to understand?

Anyway, congrats on your "success". I'm sure both of your friends are proud. Maybe even your parents.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/8/2017 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by thewizard17 on 10/8/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 7:22:00 PM (view original):
Thanks for checking in, thecheater17. If there's anyone less popular than me in this whiny forum, it's you. You know, because of the proud cheating.

johnsensing and I have explained this to you on several occasions that there was no cheating involved. Maybe you are just too f****** stupid to understand?

So you have one person who doesn't think you're a filthy cheater? At a sim game on the internet? You must live a miserable life to value "success" that much.

You do understand that the ONLY reason your account wasn't canceled was because they were selling the game, right? Please tell me you're smart enough to know that.

This is a Mike T specialty here. Probably nobody else to argue with, because he has a miserable job and his wife hates him.

If you look closely at my team dumbass, they did take action, they ended up resetting the remaining players WE. So if they had time to reset my players WE, why didn't they take the time to cancel my account?

Because you don't run off customers during the sale process. Is that really all that difficult to understand?

Anyway, congrats on your "success". I'm sure both of your friends are proud. Maybe even your parents.

And this is where you look really stupid. According to you, did you just not say john s. was the only person that supported my position? If that's the case, that's 2 customers. I don't even think we have a combined 4 teams between both accounts. Now if you're selling a product and according to you, a bunch of people were against this so called "cheating", wouldn't you be turning more people away?

You are delusional, really dumb or just a really bad troll...or maybe all 3.

Have a good night Mike Troll. Bye.

A customer is a customer. zorzi threw the biggest hissy and didn't drop his Clemson team. You simply don't run off customers when you're selling a business. It's bad form.

Regardless of what you think I am, I'm not a cheater. Only one of us can say that.

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 7:47:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 7:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 7:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 10/8/2017 6:48:00 PM (view original):
Then the rewards just go to the next guy.

Let's say you have have 10 people playing and top 3 are playing for free. So you get money from 7 people. Those 3 people leave and you're left with 7 people. Those top 3 people play for free and now you get money from 4 people.

4 is less than 7.

Nope, not that simple.

Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product, like producers of any good and service. So right off the bat, those 7 who stay are individually much more valuable, even if they don’t always *have* to pay. They accept that sometimes they may pay, and will generally accept a more competitive game, seasons they have to pay more for. Keeping those customers will always take priority over the people who are only interested in freebies.

Beyond that, as I said, the incentive structure can always be changed, if necessary. A lot of people have been speculating for a long time that it may not make sense to offer full incentives to the lower divisions.

"Developers want customers who are willing to pay for the product,"

But, I thought you don't talk about the business aspects of the game?

"I don’t talk about the business aspects of the game, because I don’t pretend it’s within my scope to do so."

Cherry picking quotes again to obfuscate, as an alternative to engaging in the discussion. You do you, benis.

Then don't say you don't do something and then 20 minutes later do that exact thing.

You are the one insisting that your analysis is meaningful. I’m saying it’s not. You insist on having the discussion on those grounds. I’m saying none of it is meaningful, because the data you have access to is not complete, or insightful, for various reasons. You are not a shareholder. You don’t have insight or data that would make any of this meaningful. It is not within our scope. That’s why I talk about the game that exists, and the game I want to play, not obsess over how many people want to play with me.

Is this really your best play, to try to convince others that you’re too dense to actually discuss the game? You're taking managing expectations to a whole new level.

You should care about how many play. The game is pretty dependent on other users actually playing. Despite what the chronic complainers think, the game isn't designed for one user.

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 8:04:00 PM (view original):
You should care about how many play. The game is pretty dependent on other users actually playing. Despite what the chronic complainers think, the game isn't designed for one user.

Omg. I'm really glad I was sitting down when I read this.

someone gets it!

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 8:04:00 PM (view original):
You should care about how many play. The game is pretty dependent on other users actually playing. Despite what the chronic complainers think, the game isn't designed for one user.

I want to play a competitive, multi-player game with other users who value competition and good gameplay. I care not only about how many, but the makeup and values of the people playing. I would rather not play with whales, or any version of gamer who wants a game that can be gamed into success in perpetuity. And I certainly don’t want to play a game that caters to them.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 8:04:00 PM (view original):
You should care about how many play. The game is pretty dependent on other users actually playing. Despite what the chronic complainers think, the game isn't designed for one user.

I want to play a competitive, multi-player game with other users who value competition and good gameplay. I care not only about how many, but the makeup and values of the people playing. I would rather not play with whales, or any version of gamer who wants a game that can be gamed into success in perpetuity. And I certainly don’t want to play a game that caters to them.

That's fine and dandy, and I agree with most of it, but there is a volume point that determines if the game stays or goes. As you have stated, we don't have the details to know but, at some point, keeping the game around will not be worth the time. Remember Clutch Racing Dynasty? Not many do because not many played more than one season. It is no longer available.

Posted by pkoopman on 10/8/2017 8:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/8/2017 8:04:00 PM (view original):
You should care about how many play. The game is pretty dependent on other users actually playing. Despite what the chronic complainers think, the game isn't designed for one user.

I want to play a competitive, multi-player game with other users who value competition and good gameplay. I care not only about how many, but the makeup and values of the people playing. I would rather not play with whales, or any version of gamer who wants a game that can be gamed into success in perpetuity. And I certainly don’t want to play a game that caters to them.

You played the previous version for quite awhile that you claim catered to this type of gamer. It wasn't a problem for you then?

If this really is true, you would have stopped playing HD long before 3.0 was released.