Just going to throw this out there...

[Noyjitat]

I just want to play the game and don't care who owns it. I don't care if ncsoft runs the game again or if blizzard or another company runs it, I just want to play so damned badly at this point that ownership doesn't matter.

Sadly I fear by the time we get the game back people will have lost the interest or moved on to other games and I really want to do more than just stand under atlas and chat or roll tons of alts like im doing in other games now. I miss the variety of stuff I had to do in city of heroes and the people and I really miss msrs and incarnate trials greatly.

These successors sound fun but so do many other mmos that come and go. I really just want what was stolen from me, from you, from all of us and not something new and shiny. New and shiny is good but only if you don't lose the option of playing the old fun and faithful.

[Illusionss]

I still, STILL have trouble believing that all my hard work, all my real-world dollars and all my real-world time got flushed down the toilet by some uncaring jackass of a company. Its more than missing the game, although of course I miss it tremendously... I fell that THEY STOLE SOMETHING FROM ME. They stole items I could have sold, for real cash. [Not that I ever would, just sayin'] My alts and their enhancements etc. were things I  PAID FOR. By what RIGHT do they steal from me, or any of us?

Before someone chimes in about the EULA, yes  I know but "legal" and "the right thing to do" are paths that only occasionally intersect. What they did was WRONG!

[Kaiser Tarantula]

Before someone chimes in about the EULA, yes  I know but "legal" and "the right thing to do" are paths that only occasionally intersect. What they did was WRONG!

This is why I hate the software industry these days.  Everyone's realizing that, hey, if I license something to someone instead of sell it to them, I can take it back later and there's not pancake they can do!  So thus comes the EULA, and the legal bull that lets them get away with highway robbery.

And before someone comes in and says they had every right to do it, consider this for a moment.  Let's say I manage to win, in court, legal ownership of your left eye, and all attached or adjacent bodily tissues and fibers.  And I decide to stab you in the eyesocket with a knife.  Is that right?  No.  Is it even fair?  No.  Is it within my rights?  Yes.  Still doesn't make it any less reprehensible of an action.

Law is supposed to protect people from dishonest, abusive behavior like this.  Not enable it.

[Eoraptor]

The law makes everybody equal. Justice goes to the highest bidder.

[Illusionss]

The problem is that is that people like me are now thinking, "Yeah if I have no power over it..... I am not going to buy it." they don't get to sell me something and then take it back at whim; that's a crap deal for the buyer. The buyer pays money for.... nothing, actually.

Hopefully more buyers will wake up about this issue.

[JaguarX]

This is why I hate the software industry these days.  Everyone's realizing that, hey, if I license something to someone instead of sell it to them, I can take it back later and there's not pancake they can do!  So thus comes the EULA, and the legal bull that lets them get away with highway robbery.

And before someone comes in and says they had every right to do it, consider this for a moment.  Let's say I manage to win, in court, legal ownership of your left eye, and all attached or adjacent bodily tissues and fibers.  And I decide to stab you in the eyesocket with a knife.  Is that right?  No.  Is it even fair?  No.  Is it within my rights?  Yes.  Still doesn't make it any less reprehensible of an action.

Law is supposed to protect people from dishonest, abusive behavior like this.  Not enable it.

I'm still kind of curious of how did they get it passed legal scrutiny in the first place?

They payed some law makers off? It looked like a good idea on paper without them thinking about in actual practice?


But really, Kaiser, there have been talks about financing transplants and the loss of money that happens when the recipient is not able to pay and or welch. There have been suggestions of creating a way where they can legally repo the organ. Think they made a couple of movies off that basis. Thus far, it haven't materialized but in the future, who knows. There might be a lot of eye stabbing and "licensing" or organs until it's paid off.

I think in today's world, especially in the software realm, it's imperative that the buyer ensure they know the difference between licensing and actual ownership buying. Unfortunately I don't think most buyers of software know the difference. I think as time go on, they will realize the difference, hopefully prior to a significant event, and wising up. Then software companies, especially game makers will have to change their tactics.

They know most players never bother reading those EULAs and ToS that explain that it's only a license, and that they can end it any time any reason. And of course they aint going to force it beyond the click button. And thus not many even think it's an issue, and think they own it, until they realize they don't which in many cases they find themselves more empty handed than necessary. If one person agrees that their eye and the stuff connected to it belongs to someone else and at any time the person can come and claim said eye, is it wrong for the person to claim the eye when the time come? A person who didn't read the agreement they agreed to, will be shocked and probably pissed and will be a vicious lesson in never ever agree to anything without reading it. Thus if a person don't want the risk of their eye being taken back, they should not enter into an agreement that says they agree that their eye can be taken back at any moment. Whether things stated or are enforceable or not, especially if going by sheer guess and not read over by a legal team as sometimes the oddest things are in fact enforceable.


Maybe they should make it where there is no way to play a game unless the player send in a certified letter signed by a lawyer that says they understand that the game is licensed only or they must personally call in and confirm with the legal department. That way, both sides are sure that the other side understand exactly what each side is getting into. It seems that depending on the player to read it and understand the agreement is not working at all. Failure of communication that leaves the player holding the bag.

[Super Firebug]

...and there's not pancake they can do!

Just a side note, here: I really wish we could change "pancake" to something like "grapefruit". I loathe grapefruit with a passion, but I dearly LOOOOVE pancakes.

[Triplash]

Just a side note, here: I really wish we could change "pancake" to something like "grapefruit". I loathe grapefruit with a passion, but I dearly LOOOOVE pancakes.

No way! You can have my pancake when you pry it from my cold, dead arrested fingers. What kind of grapefruit are you trying to pull here, anyway?

...   NOOOOO!!

[Kaiser Tarantula]

Maybe they should make it where there is no way to play a game unless the player send in a certified letter signed by a lawyer that says they understand that the game is licensed only or they must personally call in and confirm with the legal department. That way, both sides are sure that the other side understand exactly what each side is getting into. It seems that depending on the player to read it and understand the agreement is not working at all. Failure of communication that leaves the player holding the bag.

A better idea would to simply bring the ideas of conscience, common sense, and respect back into law.  Less focus on the letter of the law and more upon the spirit of it.

To go back to the knife-in-eyesocket example I gave earlier, I should never have been awarded possession of anyone else's organs, especially not when they're still alive and functioning in the other person's body.  Sure, there might be legal grounds, but that's just unconscionable; that organ's necessary for the bearer to function as a normal human being.

Similarly, when you make a service available on a regular basis to someone, and sell them things to use and enjoy within that service, you should strive to make sure that some aspect of that service, and the things you've sold to them within it, persist after your closure of it.  Ideally, you shouldn't shut down an MMO until there's nobody left on it, or you've made preparations for someone else to run it, or provided a sequel MMO.  Or you're simply not financially capable of keeping it alive any longer.  I've seen a lot of MMOs actually do this when they close down.  For instance PSO wasn't closed down until PSU was launched, at least in Japan.  Everquest is still running, despite the fact that there's an Everquest 2, and soon Everquest Next.  Sega offered an Arks Cash stipend to subscribing/AC-purchasing players of PSU in Japan when PSO2 was launched if they would move over to the new game.

What's so shocking about CoH's closure, and the closure of so many other NCsoft games (Auto Assault, Tabula Rasa) is that they don't make efforts to ensure the game goes down gracefully and that their players are left with an option to continue playing a game similar to the one they love.  Moreover, the closures are sudden, without warning, and often with only the most cursory explanations as to why.  This leaves players feeling like they've just been dumped out in the snow while taking a warm bath on a cold winter day, with all their clothes still inside.  The only other company I've ever seen to do this is EA (but that's a rant for a different time, and maybe a different place.)

Most of these 'goods' and this 'service' are entirely digital in nature.  Without development and expansion going on, they have a startlingly low overhead - the only costs include rental and maintenance of the server hardware (and that's assuming you don't own the server farm), and the bandwidth used in operating it.  This is why putting MMOs in 'maintenance mode' is so easy, it's why Everquest is still running to this day, and why private servers for many games are so common.  It wouldn't have been hard for NCsoft to put CoH into maintenance mode until they'd worked out an amicable closing procedure with their players.  Instead they kicked us out, locked the door behind us, and then squatted on CoH like some bloated, overfed vulture that's too fat to fly and too full to eat and yet still won't give up the carcass out of sheer greed.

This, honestly, is why I feel so many of us are still pissed off, after all this time.  By treating us this way, NCsoft has demonstrated that they feel no obligations to their playerbase, the people who give them the money that pleases their shareholders, and instead feel that their only obligations are to their shareholders, they people they give their money to.  They'll happily stick the knife in our eyesocket, if it means their shareholders get to see that little graph on Reuters go up.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there something, I dunno, bass ackwards about this?  I mean, to your average joe, the person giving you money is a lot more important than the person taking money from you.  Your employer is a lot more important to you than the collection agency hounding you about a loan repayment, for example.  Why is it different for businesses?

[FatherXmas]

Software has a long legal history being a licensed product going back to the first commercial mainframes.  Most companies didn't buy computers or the OS that ran on them, the hardware was leased and the software was licensed.  I'm talking pre PC era.  I'm guessing the fact that duplication/manufacturing costs are near zero, that licensing was the only existing legal means available to these first commercial programs to guarantee income to their creators (ownership is done with Copyright).

After 30 years of existing case law on the subject by the time the PC era started, it was just the way software was handled.  Software is licensed.  It may have come in a box with physical media to hold the software but you are buying a license, not the paper tape/floppy/CD/DVD.

[JaguarX]

A better idea would to simply bring the ideas of conscience, common sense, and respect back into law.  Less focus on the letter of the law and more upon the spirit of it.

To go back to the knife-in-eyesocket example I gave earlier, I should never have been awarded possession of anyone else's organs, especially not when they're still alive and functioning in the other person's body.  Sure, there might be legal grounds, but that's just unconscionable; that organ's necessary for the bearer to function as a normal human being.

Similarly, when you make a service available on a regular basis to someone, and sell them things to use and enjoy within that service, you should strive to make sure that some aspect of that service, and the things you've sold to them within it, persist after your closure of it.  Ideally, you shouldn't shut down an MMO until there's nobody left on it, or you've made preparations for someone else to run it, or provided a sequel MMO.  Or you're simply not financially capable of keeping it alive any longer.  I've seen a lot of MMOs actually do this when they close down.  For instance PSO wasn't closed down until PSU was launched, at least in Japan.  Everquest is still running, despite the fact that there's an Everquest 2, and soon Everquest Next.  Sega offered an Arks Cash stipend to subscribing/AC-purchasing players of PSU in Japan when PSO2 was launched if they would move over to the new game.

What's so shocking about CoH's closure, and the closure of so many other NCsoft games (Auto Assault, Tabula Rasa) is that they don't make efforts to ensure the game goes down gracefully and that their players are left with an option to continue playing a game similar to the one they love.  Moreover, the closures are sudden, without warning, and often with only the most cursory explanations as to why.  This leaves players feeling like they've just been dumped out in the snow while taking a warm bath on a cold winter day, with all their clothes still inside.  The only other company I've ever seen to do this is EA (but that's a rant for a different time, and maybe a different place.)

Most of these 'goods' and this 'service' are entirely digital in nature.  Without development and expansion going on, they have a startlingly low overhead - the only costs include rental and maintenance of the server hardware (and that's assuming you don't own the server farm), and the bandwidth used in operating it.  This is why putting MMOs in 'maintenance mode' is so easy, it's why Everquest is still running to this day, and why private servers for many games are so common.  It wouldn't have been hard for NCsoft to put CoH into maintenance mode until they'd worked out an amicable closing procedure with their players.  Instead they kicked us out, locked the door behind us, and then squatted on CoH like some bloated, overfed vulture that's too fat to fly and too full to eat and yet still won't give up the carcass out of sheer greed.

This, honestly, is why I feel so many of us are still pissed off, after all this time.  By treating us this way, NCsoft has demonstrated that they feel no obligations to their playerbase, the people who give them the money that pleases their shareholders, and instead feel that their only obligations are to their shareholders, they people they give their money to.  They'll happily stick the knife in our eyesocket, if it means their shareholders get to see that little graph on Reuters go up.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there something, I dunno, bass ackwards about this?  I mean, to your average joe, the person giving you money is a lot more important than the person taking money from you.  Your employer is a lot more important to you than the collection agency hounding you about a loan repayment, for example.  Why is it different for businesses?

lol. Well greed have a lot od leeway in the court of law. And also it depends on the person that view greed. what is greed to one is scraping by on another.

Yes, giving NCSOFT history of doing that, and EA, why do people keep going back to them, or kept going back to them? Either way  I agree that the law probably should be reviewed but to do that we the people have to make it worth their time to look at it. And that definitely will have to go beyond "Well yes they own the game, but they should be required by law to dump money into it and keep it open until they start to lose money or give it away." Because that explanation probably wouldn't have to apply only to games, but just about any operating business that provides anything from a restaurant to a car repair shop that requires that they must server their customers until they are no longer able to and lose money or turn the shop over to one of their customers or competitors to ensure it keep running. I think then able about the customer thing especially the loss of money might work or be a better start. Then again though, cant come across as "angry gamers" even if we are, angry gamers in the court of law and media already have a bad rap as over reacting over sensitive, put games above everything else people. Go to youtube, type in angry gamer or nerd raging, and generally that is what the general population see about the gamer's world. Even though the reality is that we all just normal people. The problem is that when things go well, gamers tend to stay within gaming community. When things go sour, that is when they choose to want to be visible to the general population.
But the days of when laws were common sense,  and respectable, I'm not sure how far back we would have to go as lot of laws back in the day were not so respectable and pretty embarrassing, while the laws today seem to favor a lot of corporate nonsense. The spirit of the law wasn't all it was cracked up to be throughout most of the US history.

But in the mean time I think the sure way to combat this is still, do not enter into agreements that are suspect. A certain group is offering a product, I like the product, but the history is spotty with criminal activities. Do I buy and enter into a contract verbal email, electronic, paper either one and then get highly pissed when I'm the fall guy even though it stated in the agreement that I will be the fall guy? Sometimes it's up to the customer to take some responsibility for their own actions and be smarter and not enter into or even bother with suspect agreements. More people did that, then less money they will make,  the more they may change tactics. and way of doing business. But the more they can find many people that will agree to anything and not take responsibility for their own action of agreeing, then they wont change and will continue to see how much those people will agree to anything as long as they show a carrot and shiny item.


Kind of like how renter's laws evolved. at one point in time it was perfectly legal to kick of a default renter off the premises for even being a day late with no regulations on late fee with some charging double or triple rent for late payments. Many place now it's 30 day notice and regulations on late fees. A cases were made that it was not fair practice, although legal at the time, and it eventually changed. For MMO, the case have to be made that the process of shutting down a game In the manner that some do it is not fair to the customer. Eventually it's up to the customer to say enough and make a case for change and no matter how beautiful the house is, to not enter  an agreement where it would be unfair to them. But in order to do that, the customer have to know and read their current rights before entering into that agreement. If people continue to not read what they are getting into and or just click on and agree to anything presented, then it wont change anything. More money that is given to these shady practices and companies the more money they have to ensure that the process stay in their favor. They cant make money without the customer and it's up to the customer to choose where and who they agree to give their money to. Sometimes in the beginning this require a bit of sacrifice as they may not be able to partake in that nice house on the lake that they want and they may have to go to someone else with a decent house with no lake but better and more fair agreement.

[Kaiser Tarantula]

Software has a long legal history being a licensed product going back to the first commercial mainframes.  Most companies didn't buy computers or the OS that ran on them, the hardware was leased and the software was licensed.  I'm talking pre PC era.

History informs but should not dictate.  We live in an age where computer ownership is a very real thing for the average person.  Times have changed and now we've got bloated software companies hanging on to that old model because it allows them to stiff consumers without any recourse for the latter.

Most people don't even realize they're buying a license.  You ask your Aunt Dolly whether or not she owns the copy of Windows 95 on her old computer and she'll say, "sure, I paid for it, didn't I?"  Yet she doesn't, and according to the software companies, never did.  And according to them they could revoke her right to use it and charge her for infringing upon their copyright at any time.  There's something intensely wrong with that level of disconnection going on between legal facts and common sense.

Think about it.  A toy company can make as many wooden rocking horses as they can obtain materials for, and sell them to people.  Are those people buying a license to use that wooden rocking horse?  No, they're buying ownership of that one, particular, wooden rocking horse.  Now, that doesn't give them the right to reverse-engineer the design and make their own imitation wooden rocking horses (patent and possibly copyright law covers that, unless I miss my guess), but it does mean that the company can't come, revoke their license, and take the horse back.

Yet, somehow, a software company can produce as many copies of a piece of software as they can find storage space or bandwidth for, and sell them to people, and later revoke the buyer's right to use them, because of a little line saying "licensed, not sold".  Why, all of a sudden, does the same system that works for wooden rocking horses, suddenly fail when applied to software, making "licensed, not sold" a necessity?  I contend that it's not failing - it's just not being used.  Software companies don't want to adapt to the times and are keeping hold of the outmoded licensing system simply for the leverage it offers over the consumer.  There's something intensely wrong with that.

But in the mean time I think the sure way to combat this is still, do not enter into agreements that are suspect. A certain group is offering a product, I like the product, but the history is spotty with criminal activities. Do I buy and enter into a contract verbal email, electronic, paper either one and then get highly pissed when I'm the fall guy even though it stated in the agreement that I will be the fall guy? Sometimes it's up to the customer to take some responsibility for their own actions and be smarter and not enter into or even bother with suspect agreements. More people did that, then less money they will make,  the more they may change tactics. and way of doing business. But the more they can find many people that will agree to anything and not take responsibility for their own action of agreeing, then they wont change and will continue to see how much those people will agree to anything as long as they show a carrot and shiny item.

While you've got a point JaguarX, that it's kinda up to the consumer to not enter into license agreements that hold provisions like this, most people aren't even aware such agreements exist, and software companies are in no hurry to tell them.  Can you read a full copy of the software's EULA before you take that software box out of the store?  If you bring it back to the store, opened, and say, "I'm sorry, I refused the EULA of this software, I want a refund" will you get it?  Usually the answer is no, and I'm speaking from experience on that.  I actually tried this once with the Wal-Mart in my old neighborhood and got escorted out of the store.  And yes, the EULA had a provision that stated, "If you do not accept this EULA, return the software to your place of purchase for a full refund."  Fat lot of good that did me, I couldn't prove the EULA said that without booting up the installer, even had I been offered the chance to do so!

Not only is that kind of underhanded behavior common practice, you've also got to consider that some software you just aren't going to get by without.  Let's face it, if you want to play video games, you're going to have to run Windows.  Sure, you can sometimes get around it with linux wrappers and the like, but those aren't perfect by a long shot.  Windows is basically the operating system that professional software companies develop for.  They hold all but a monopoly on the PC gaming market.  Most PCs that aren't custom built either by you or someone you've hired/cajoled into doing so will come with a Windows operating system by default - you've basically accepted their EULA the minute you first boot them up, you didn't have a choice in the matter.  The vast majority of people have no reasonable way of getting around that.  It's something you have to accept if you want to use a prebuilt manufactured PC.

So, not only are most people not aware that a choice needs to be made on whether to accept these agreements, there's a lot of instances out there where you're not given a choice - the only other alternative is not to own a computer that you didn't build yourself, or have custom-built for you, and carefully monitor the license agreements of every piece of software that you put on it.  Even then, you also need to check the agreements on each part that goes into your computer, and make sure that those aren't being 'licensed, not sold' as well - because as Father Xmas explained, it ain't always just limited to software.

It's enough to make a person's head spin to think about it.

[FatherXmas]

History informs but should not dictate.  We live in an age where computer ownership is a very real thing for the average person.  Times have changed and now we've got bloated software companies hanging on to that old model because it allows them to stiff consumers without any recourse for the latter.

And you conveniently blow by the actual reason I listed.  When software first came out the only legal framework available was what was being used for musical performances which was licensing.  It was decided that a computer running software was analogous to a musician performing somebody else's music.  It's as simple as that.

[JaguarX]

While you've got a point JaguarX, that it's kinda up to the consumer to not enter into license agreements that hold provisions like this, most people aren't even aware such agreements exist, and software companies are in no hurry to tell them.  Can you read a full copy of the software's EULA before you take that software box out of the store?  If you bring it back to the store, opened, and say, "I'm sorry, I refused the EULA of this software, I want a refund" will you get it?  Usually the answer is no, and I'm speaking from experience on that.  I actually tried this once with the Wal-Mart in my old neighborhood and got escorted out of the store.  And yes, the EULA had a provision that stated, "If you do not accept this EULA, return the software to your place of purchase for a full refund."  Fat lot of good that did me, I couldn't prove the EULA said that without booting up the installer, even had I been offered the chance to do so!

Not only is that kind of underhanded behavior common practice, you've also got to consider that some software you just aren't going to get by without.  Let's face it, if you want to play video games, you're going to have to run Windows.  Sure, you can sometimes get around it with linux wrappers and the like, but those aren't perfect by a long shot.  Windows is basically the operating system that professional software companies develop for.  They hold all but a monopoly on the PC gaming market.  Most PCs that aren't custom built either by you or someone you've hired/cajoled into doing so will come with a Windows operating system by default - you've basically accepted their EULA the minute you first boot them up, you didn't have a choice in the matter.  The vast majority of people have no reasonable way of getting around that.  It's something you have to accept if you want to use a prebuilt manufactured PC.

So, not only are most people not aware that a choice needs to be made on whether to accept these agreements, there's a lot of instances out there where you're not given a choice - the only other alternative is not to own a computer that you didn't build yourself, or have custom-built for you, and carefully monitor the license agreements of every piece of software that you put on it.  Even then, you also need to check the agreements on each part that goes into your computer, and make sure that those aren't being 'licensed, not sold' as well - because as Father Xmas explained, it ain't always just limited to software.

It's enough to make a person's head spin to think about it.

Yup. Some stuff there do not see to be much way around it. But Looking at how there are a way around it, and yet still people do not use their' way around it, whether there is a way or not around it, gets kind of moot in a way if people are not using what they know or ensuring that they know even when there is a way out.

Of course the companies are not going to go out of their way to put it front center big bold letters,, cant even install unless ever single word is read. They probably should. And that refund thing, any one ever bothered to go beyond taking it to wal-mart? Or did they get turned down rant rave and shrug and leave it be. If it says that you should be able to return it and get your money back with full refund if agreement is not inline with the EULA, then there is probably a way to get the money back, but not many people probably know how or want to bother with the hassle. And as long as people don't want to be bothered with the hassle, then what will happen and has happened is the same thing that happened with Windows. Eventually a few will get so powerful that it will be the only few options and then there wont be a choice. If people don't take their choice while it's offered, then someone else will. 

With games, there is always a way out. Players just choose to ignore it to play. And of course again, they wont ever know their rights or what they have rights to, if they never even bother to read the info that is there. That is where it has to start at. The player level reading first. Then from there, things can change if people want them to. But if they see the hassle not worth it, then the path will continue. Believe it or not, they need us more than we need them. People do not NEED to play games. But they need players to make money off the games. 

Yeah there should be a posted EULA on the box before purchase. To get that done, there probably have to be  a lobby for it just as there was a lobby for posting movie/game audience ratings on the box. I dont think any game now and days can be sold without a audience rating of E-Ao. But that wasn't always the case. Someone seen issue, they mad their case and the case won and now we have audience ratings on game boxes that is visible prior to purchase.

[General Idiot]

Yeah there should be a posted EULA on the box before purchase.

They'd have to go back to the old fashioned huge boxes that games used to come in to fit it all on the box, though. And even then they'd still have to write in tiny font and there'd be no room for anything else.

Or they might just finally put the EULA in plain text and cut out the pages and pages of legalese and the random stuff like not using this software to aid in the production or deployment of nuclear weapons. I shit you not, there's a game out there that has that in the EULA. I don't remember which one, sadly.

[Minotaur]

Many people can access the internet on their phones, putting a link to the EULA on the box would be a start so if you cared that much you could look before you buy. That should be a legal requirement for anything that's sold online.

[JaguarX]

They'd have to go back to the old fashioned huge boxes that games used to come in to fit it all on the box, though. And even then they'd still have to write in tiny font and there'd be no room for anything else.

Or they might just finally put the EULA in plain text and cut out the pages and pages of legalese and the random stuff like not using this software to aid in the production or deployment of nuclear weapons. I pancake you not, there's a game out there that has that in the EULA. I don't remember which one, sadly.

Yeah, they could cut down on the pages. Then again, in  some countries where a person can sue for anything, they probably added that in there to cover their bases. Like why do many blow dryers having warning label of "do not blow dry hair while sleep"? well some...person, was blow drying their hair, fell a sleep suffered burns and sued for damages because there was no warning that falling a sleep while blow drying hair would cause damages. Same with how things with a lot  of plastic wrap says, do not allow children to play with. One said do not allow children to wrap their head in plastic. Because some one probably allowed their kid to play with it, something happened, and sued.


But these days maybe a link could work like Minotaur said.

[Illusionss]

Kaiser: This, honestly, is why I feel so many of us are still pissed off, after all this time.  By treating us this way, NCsoft has demonstrated that they feel no obligations to their playerbase, the people who give them the money that pleases their shareholders, and instead feel that their only obligations are to their shareholders, they people they give their money to.  They'll happily stick the knife in our eyesocket, if it means their shareholders get to see that little graph on Reuters go up.

....but one problem for dear 'ol NC is that ever since this latest stunt of theirs, unless I am greatly missing something their little graph has not been strolling down the backstretch with an easy win. Its been sputtering, stuttering... two steps forward, one step back etc etc.

Another problem is that "I don't give a **** about you, now gimme all your loyalty" kind of does not work really well, especially with Western customers. American businesses are beginning to get this idea re employee loyalty, although they still do not care - but this is a subject for another time. To get loyalty you have to give it; well, we all know what NC's idea of "loyalty" is these days.

[Thunder Glove]

What's so shocking about CoH's closure, and the closure of so many other NCsoft games (Auto Assault, Tabula Rasa) is that they don't make efforts to ensure the game goes down gracefully and that their players are left with an option to continue playing a game similar to the one they love.  Moreover, the closures are sudden, without warning, and often with only the most cursory explanations as to why.  This leaves players feeling like they've just been dumped out in the snow while taking a warm bath on a cold winter day, with all their clothes still inside.  The only other company I've ever seen to do this is EA (but that's a rant for a different time, and maybe a different place.)

Yeah, that is what really stung - and still stings - about the closing.

August 27: Issue 24 is coming soon!  Here's another little morsel of information to whet your whistle!
August 28: Issue 24 is coming soon!  Here's another little morsel of information to whet your whistle!
August 29: Issue 24 is coming soon!  Here's another little morsel of information to whet your whistle!
August 30: Issue 24 is coming soon!  Here's another little morsel of information to whet your whistle!
August 31: We're closing the game!  All the developers are fired, so Issue 24 is never coming out! We're not having a special End-Of-Game event to tie up loose ends, we're just going to ignominiously flip a switch in three months! Go away now!  B'bye!

The game went from having a bright future with years of promised content ahead to completely dead.  And then NCSoft refused to sell, refused to even talk further about selling, set our CoH accounts inactive (another blow out of nowhere), and has been ignoring us ever since.

Yes, I'm still extremely angry, and no amount of hemming and hawing about profits or licenses will make me less angry.  I want our game back.

[LaughingAlex]

Yeah, that is what really stung - and still stings - about the closing.

August 27: Issue 24 is coming soon!  Here's another little morsel of information to whet your whistle!
August 28: Issue 24 is coming soon!  Here's another little morsel of information to whet your whistle!
August 29: Issue 24 is coming soon!  Here's another little morsel of information to whet your whistle!
August 30: Issue 24 is coming soon!  Here's another little morsel of information to whet your whistle!
August 31: We're closing the game!  All the developers are fired, so Issue 24 is never coming out! We're not having a special End-Of-Game event to tie up loose ends, we're just going to ignominiously flip a switch in three months! Go away now!  B'bye!

The game went from having a bright future with years of promised content ahead to completely dead.  And then NCSoft refused to sell, refused to even talk further about selling, set our CoH accounts inactive (another blow out of nowhere), and has been ignoring us ever since.

Yes, I'm still extremely angry, and no amount of hemming and hawing about profits or licenses will make me less angry.  I want our game back.

It's especially sore for me to, and I'm still angry about it today.  I'm even angrier that people seem to say CoX shut down cause it was doing badly, even though we know thats not true.  It really seems that NCSoft are the single most unethical company to this day, and I'm hopeful they'll fall apart with the next closure(I guarantee molten games won't last long under them).  I actually want some of my money back, even, at this point.  I feel they didn't even try to keep CoX running, likewise, when they announced the shutdown.  I personally think they did it cause they felt it was a blight on their may grindish games of holy trinity bullcrap, in that they don't actually want MMO's innovating.  I mean they even sold guild wars 2 and Arena net to another company which doesn't seem any better(they shut games down to).