Should Goth Annie be put up separately for a limited time?

Yes 2,570 66.39%
No 1,301 33.61%
Voters: 3871. You may not vote on this poll

Pros and Cons of Riot's "Goth Annie" Decision

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fenstick

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zero View Post
I bought it for the Goth Annie skin. While I also bought it for the champions inside, I picked it over the other because I didn't like Sivir. Annie was the first champion I had ever played. I wanted her skin.
No, you didn't buy it JUST for the skin, so that in your post. I already have all the champs in the bundle. I don't need runes. I don't even want the Annie skin, but if I did, I wouldn't pay 3900 for 1 non-super-legendary skin.

You didn't pay for your skin. You paid for champs and Runes, and then picked the deal you wanted for it's free content.

It would be no different than buying Red version of Pokemon over Blue because you like Red more. It's the same damn thing, just a different color, or in this case character.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Maou

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Sorry for the hate you guys have been getting. I can understand some peoples frustration to a point, but you guys don't deserve so much negativity for this. You guys created one of the most popular and successful game to date with such a huge player base. Yes, announcing that she would be sold separate then pulling that deal does make some a bit upset and maybe feel a bit leery towards different sales and such, but you guys are handling it in the best way you possibly can. Keep up the good work guys.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Daedelous

Senior Member

02-01-2013

How about new champion bundles for seasons 1/2, there are a *TON* of champions not tied to a bundle that new players would love to splurge on.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mayobe

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotAmes View Post
Somewhat unrelated, but is that something you think we should be doing? Many companies don't do this, but as one of the people who pushed for self-service refunds the hardest, I clearly don't think we have to do things like other companies.
Um, hell yes?

It doesn't really relate to what other companies do. It's about what you lot decide to do. The fact of the matter is that you have something that everyone wants packaged together with an enormous mountain of goat skite. People have to pay the enormous mountain price even if they aren't in the goat skite market or even if they've already capitalized the goat skite market.

If you want to be fair then the right thing to do would be to calculate the non-bundle value of all the items, get a ratio between that and the bundle price and then when someone buys the bundle reduce the price for them based on that ratio and whatever they already own in the bundle. Of course you're going to get inundated with used tampax if you can't make that retroactive, but I'm thinking with some database action that could be made to happen.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

General Farsight

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotAmes View Post
This is mostly about when the skin was released, and not what event it's tied to. We stopped doing Limited and moved to Legacy a while back (after last halloween?), so that's why it seems like there's a difference.
Thank the heavens for small mercies then. These elitist selfish fools can go get their self-gratification "i-am-better-than-you" elsewhere. No more limited skin, please. This just shows how destructive these people are, since they fight like this for other people to not have access to a skin that isn't even limited.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zero

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sessamo View Post
I have to conclude that you are insane. The massive lawsuit happened because they plainly refused to cover even the most basic of her medical damages.
It's in the documentation, quite plainly, that they refused basic responsibility for extensive damages.
I don't know where this weird hate on the victim comes from. It was a 79 year old woman who went to McDonald's with her grandson. Do you really think she maimed herself because "easy money yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah"?
I get that the lawsuit happened because they refused to compensate, but she could have sought enough to cover. Instead it was "maximum possible damages". Why? Because she could. That's how it is in every court case. Maximum possible damages. SO many court cases with overlapping charges trying to seek damages. I actually have had personal experience with that. Everyone tries to bleed everyone else dry of as much as they can. Her medical bills and compensation for her troubles weren't worth what she made off of the case.

"The jury damages included $160,000[2] to cover medical expenses and compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages."

"the $10,500 in medical bills"

Yea sure, she deserved plenty for McDonalds refusing to compensate her. That much 20 years ago? $3 million for $10.5k in bills.


My point in this is people are so quick to place as much blame and get as much as they can out of other people and refuse to accept responsibility for things themselves. You do something stupid, consequences can occur.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

iueras

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectre4802 View Post
Would it have died, though?

Massive, upfront negative reception to an idea is a good reason to double tap it in the head before it could get any worse. Not doing so makes it look like you couldn't care less about what people think or feel.

But of course, you've got people on the other side complaining about it being taken off, and now you look like you just blindly obey the whims of your audience.

And if you decided to not go ahead with the idea at all, you have people saying that maybe you should do the thing because it'd be nice, and you look bad for not indulging in that.

It's all a big, fat, no-win-situation.
Trying to keep everyone in your community happy all the time in any massive multiplayer online game is by definition a big, fat, no-win situation. Rolling over on a plan because some kids in the middle of the day whined about it loudly without giving any of the more mature folks (read: those who work for a living) a chance to weigh in is a mistake and makes you look like you simply float upon the whims of your QQers. And it's like blood in the water. Once these types see that they can get their way by whining fast and loudly, it gets worse and worse.

The best thing to do in any type of large online game is stick to your plans. In the case of a limited release of a skin like this, it definitely would have passed. After Feb 10th, if not by Monday.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SplendidSorrow

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiotAmes View Post
I think Hipp does a surprisingly good job of talking to the community. He doesn't have to at all - previous people in a similar position were much less vocal. Same goes for the rest of the company. Not that I want us to be that way. I just think it's easy to forget.

Ames, seriously I have a lot of respect for you coming here and saying what you've said, and what you've done. But its seriously upsetting that the cancellation still hasn't been posted to the main page like the announcement was.

If I went and announced to all my companies clients we're doing X, and then cancelled it but only put said cancellation in a place the majority of our clients wouldn't think to check...I'd be out of a job.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Mayobe

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippalus View Post
Thanks Ames for jumping in here.

Players who want to buy Goth Annie and already own most/all of the bundle will get their chance when we roll out new bundle tech that will adjust pricing for content they already own. That should happen in a month or two. That will also give us time to figure out if and how to comp players who overpaid for the bundle to get Goth Annie even when they already owned most of the content in the bundle.
Ah, yeah. See. I keep reading and there it is. Well done.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Zero

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

02-01-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenstick View Post
No, you didn't buy it JUST for the skin, so that in your post. I already have all the champs in the bundle. I don't need runes. I don't even want the Annie skin, but if I did, I wouldn't pay 3900 for 1 non-super-legendary skin.

You didn't pay for your skin. You paid for champs and Runes, and then picked the deal you wanted for it's free content.

It would be no different than buying Red version of Pokemon over Blue because you like Red more. It's the same damn thing, just a different color, or in this case character.
I never said I bought it just for the skin. I said I bought it over the other one because of the skin. The other pack had champions I wanted more. The DCE had Goth Annie. I went with that one. Still, I wouldn't have bought the DCE if it didn't have the skin in it as I already owned champions. I don't remember exactly how many though. I just know the fact that it was an Annie skin made it worthwhile.