This is about CCP having no respect for their customers.

This whole scenario is more like a mandatory company recall that you must adhere to, but which they must compensate you for, not us going to them demanding an exchange/refund after a short period of time. In this situation they would have to offer a refund, store credit, or an exchange for an item of equal value, or a replacement of said item. CCP are only giving us one option instead of four that I have stated that consumers are entitled to.

I disagree. The customers, players, Mercenaries - whatever you want to call us - have been asking CCP to change the vehicles. We have been asking for a long time. I admit, what they do is quite radical, but hey, we wanted the change. Are those 4 BPOs really that important? Or do you really think this is just the start and they want to remove all BPOs?

In one of these threads about the BPOs I posted my opinion about this, and I still do not think they could legally pull off removing any BPOs that were part of a bundle purchased on the PSN store. However, nothing could stop them from removing all standard Market-place BPOs. Maybe respect for their customers? Only time will tell.

It's not about the vehicle changes. The changes are being used as an excuse to remove the BPOs. It shows the level to which they will go to take things from us.
I'm not concerned about any legal implications, I'm concerned about how meaningless aurum transactions become, when they are treated with such disdain.

There sure is a lot of concern for the economy of a market that does not currently or will not exist for some time to come.

Officer Weapons Salvage drop frequency will affect the economy of that non-existant market more than MLT and STD module BPOs.

On the one hand not a bad example but on the other it more like

You bought this really nice tv that we are taking back and here is some store credit to the value of your tv. You want another tv? Sorry we don't sell those anymore but we do sell tissue paper so buy as much as you want.

^^In cases of Law it's called a Settlement - AKA A MUTUAL AGREEMENT .

Peac3

Barring game design needs as long as the regular of that item is in the bpos should stay.

If they can be sold on secondary? we wont know at the moment.

Will they stay the same? we also won't know either. For all we know they could go like eve and make them just a source of making items or other blueprints.

It's not about the vehicle changes. The changes are being used as an excuse to remove the BPOs. It shows the level to which they will go to take things from us.
I'm not concerned about any legal implications, I'm concerned about how meaningless aurum transactions become, when they are treated with such disdain.

The BPO's were removed because they won't work anymore, it was actually pretty nice of CCP to provide the compensation that they did considering they could have just let them sit in people's assets for no reason (why keep something that you can't use?)
AUR transactions are already meaningless, they became that way the moment blueprints were taken off the market.

It's not about the vehicle changes. The changes are being used as an excuse to remove the BPOs. It shows the level to which they will go to take things from us.
I'm not concerned about any legal implications, I'm concerned about how meaningless aurum transactions become, when they are treated with such disdain.

If CCP was dedicated to their word not to remove BPOs from inventories, they could have replaced the BPOs with equivalents from the new content.

If CCP was dedicated to their word not to remove BPOs from inventories, they could have replaced the BPOs with equivalents from the new content.

Ok conspiracy theorist tell me why CCP wouldn't just remove all of the vehicle BPOs right now and excuse it with the vehicle rebalance? If they were in fact covering up the removal with the rebalance then it would only be logical if they removed at least more then just 4 pretty useless BPOs. Please give me a reasonable explanation for that.

They're perfectly safe in your inventory. This has already been stated by CCP.
You will keep BPOs you already have, but you simply won't be able to get more.

There is one whiner plastering GD with threads at the moment about how BPOs for non-existent items are being refunded and how that's clearly an awful thing and he should be reimbursed further, but nobody intelligent actually agrees with him.

First off they aren't 4 useless BPOs as I already use 3 of the 4 on my Blood Raider and Ishukone Watch Sagas to max out it's slots, and give myself a fully kitted and completely free LAV to run people down with.

[

It's rather too often that people miss the point of an argument online, but you just managed some sort of record there.

1. I answered that in the next sentence. That one you were apparently able to quote, but not read.

2. They aren't improving the game if they're going back on their word as well as devaluing the currency they rely on to make money for the game.

3. This is what's called an "analogy", where a person uses a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate the points being discussed.

4. That doesn't contradict my use of the word "waste". Making a choice to do something has no bearing on whether or not the effort was wasted.

5. Again, analogy. The point being that legality has nothing to do with mutual respect. But that's just one of the many points you've missed here.

Keep clutching at those straws...eventually you may grasp enough to build a raft.

1. Your argument is completely nullified by your own admission that it isn't about legality; CCP is quite clearly on the right side of the law in this scenario. Which brings us to

2. They haven't gone back on their word. Their word is the EULA, that pesky document that so stubbornly flies in the face of all of your arguments. They reserve the right to make changes to the game whenever they so choose. And no, they aren't devaluing Aurum by removing these BPOs. The introduction of BPOs are what devalued the game's entire economy (you know, the whole "you're risking ISK every time you put on a suit or summon a vehicle."

3. No, what you've done is frame a straw man argument and declared yourself the victor, because obviously CCP is removing these obsolete modules in order to make a cooking game...which I'll apparently be happy to support, seeing as to how I don't share your views.

4. Opportunity cost. You have made the decision to spend real money on virtual currency with no guarantee that the item you want will remain in the game. The cost of this decision is what you would have otherwise have spent that money on. There is no "waste."

5. Analogies work much better when they're logically sound. Not surprising, as your concept of "mutual respect" is entirely a one-sided affair that refuses to consider the reasons why CCP felt this move was necessary, or that they're acting in good faith by offering a full refund to those directly affected by their decision.

5.

Keep clutching at those straws...eventually you may grasp enough to build a raft.

1. Your argument is completely nullified by your own admission that it isn't about legality; CCP is quite clearly on the right side of the law in this scenario. Which brings us to

2. They haven't gone back on their word. Their word is the EULA, that pesky document that so stubbornly flies in the face of all of your arguments. They reserve the right to make changes to the game whenever they so choose. And no, they aren't devaluing Aurum by removing these BPOs. The introduction of BPOs are what devalued the game's entire economy (you know, the whole "you're risking ISK every time you put on a suit or summon a vehicle."

3. No, what you've done is frame a straw man argument and declared yourself the victor, because obviously CCP is removing these obsolete modules in order to make a cooking game...which I'll apparently be happy to support, seeing as to how I don't share your views.

4. Opportunity cost. You have made the decision to spend real money on virtual currency with no guarantee that the item you want will remain in the game. The cost of this decision is what you would have otherwise have spent that money on. There is no "waste."

5. Analogies work much better when they're logically sound. Not surprising, as your concept of "mutual respect" is entirely a one-sided affair that refuses to consider the reasons why CCP felt this move was necessary, or that they're acting in good faith by offering a full refund to those directly affected by their decision.

5.

TL;DR. Anyway who is this CU NT and why should any of us care about his opinion. I sure as FUC K don't!

what is cpm?

perfectly safe until ccp decided they don't like that bpo anymore so remove the item its based on without warning you

BUMP

BUMP