Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better. We are posting new FAQ's for this on the project itself today.
Breakdown of Mounts from Kickstarter;
- Land Mounts will first be obtained through an early quest that is present for players within the starting areas. - Once you have obtained your mount in the game, you will be able to assign your cosmetic skin from Kickstarter to the character of your choice from your account management screen. Once this skin has been assigned to the character, you may use the skin to apply the appearance of your Kickstarter mount to the mount you have earned in game. This does not remove the skin itself, as you can apply it again in the future to a different mount. - If you wish to remove the skin from a character on your account, and assign the skin item to another character you may do so. But it can only ever be active on one character/mount. -Dawnbreaker is a mount skin as well, that will be used in the same fashion, but is only applicable to a certain class of mounts. - Underwater Mounts are also used in the same fashion but are only applicable to underwater class mounts.
Dyes are normally one time use. The Kickstarter exclusive dye set, is a set of unique colors that will not be obtainable for players who did not participate in the Kickstarter. They work as follows.
-Normal dyes in game are one time use items, that apply a cosmetic color change on certain items/gear. The Kickstarter Dye Set is assigned to a character from your account management page. These Kickstarter dyes are not usable as normal dyes are. Instead you may use these dyes to override the color of another dye obtained in game. They do not expire, so you may continually override dye colors through the lifetime of your character. Once a dye has been overridden it becomes a bound dye to your character, so the colors cannot be sold for in-game benefit. When a item is sold or transferred color changes are reverted.
@Nelson_Rebel if they are faster than the first mounts you can aquire and you have those from the get go, then you have an advantage in moving around faster, especially in the early phases. That can make a clear difference, I would put it on the line of pay 2 progress faster (which i classify as p2w personally to some degree). In the end, it doesn't matter since none of you have been charged y et, so if the clarification doesn't sit well with you, you are free to withdraw out of the kickstarter without problem. It may have been bad wording but as you can see, Steven responded and clarified and you have the option to take your money back for a good long while still.
So I at least thank you Steven for the timely reply and clarification on this topic. Shows that you people are watching and reply when necessery.
the ks mounts are = to any in game since there no p2w advantage to ks items as posted :) its just a skin that KS will have and no others will be able to get after june 2 :)
@Steven Thanks, we appreciate the follow-up and clarity. I actually agree with everything there, even the limit to 1 skin per character at a time. With all the skins from the Braver pledge, I can just have Spectral on 1 character and White Runic Steed on another anyway.
It's the initial miscommunication that was worrying, but I fully support your team's vision as long as we have clear lines of transparency like this when both sides are polite and respectful.
This is a recent change of mind, as before in the live streams I remember Bacon flashing a moonstrider on the screen and Steven saying it was a mount you get with a certain kickstarter package. The wording in the kickstarters also more than suggest you receive specific mounts with certain packages.
There are ways to make this viable and still give us what agreed to pay for, with out risking people dropping or downgrading their packages. 1. Not receiving the mounts until certain, levels. 2. In stead of the notmal reward for the mount quest, you receive your unique mounts.
As for the few people saying they are ok with this just being skins, instead of what we agreed too. I would guess you didn't agree to a more expensive package.
<blockquote>Do I literally have to spell this out for you?
It says VERY clearly on the packages that backers RECEIVE an EXCLUSIVE MOUNT.
There is no confusion in that statement on ALL those packages. That is a purely POOR wording. (no offense to the developers and Steven)
So now we have a conflict of interests as all these backers have been thinking (up until yesterday which was when we actually learned they were skins NOT mounts) thought they were going to get Mounts with their pledges.
Having a fancy way to move around is NOT p2w. It’s a cool way to show off while you travel around. How do you even remotely get p2w off a cool looking mount?</blockquote> You can spell it out all you want. Nowhere in there does it say, "backers will be able to take this mount from their inventory the moment they log into the game." There is confusion for people who added to what was written. There would be no confusion if the devs had provided more details - especially had they added the word "skins".
Again, the devs have stressed several times that Ashes is not a P2W game. Mounts typically move faster than player running speed. So people should have been questioning how a mount that backers can ride the moment they log into the game is not P2W. The descriptions I've heard Steven give outside of KS indicate that the KS mounts are cosmetic - it's all about appearance. So, it should not be particularly surprising that the KS mounts are skins that we can use once we acquire a mount.
If it's really that important for you to be seen sitting on top of a cool looking mount the minute you log into the game - sure, pressure the devs to give all the backers a level 0 mule in our inventories that moves at player running speed...and you can put the skin on it. Problem solved.
@Nazareth I can understand your frustration and concern.
I'm sure some of the people who're lightly brushing this matter off didn't back the upper tier pledges.
I'm at Braver of Worlds myself, and I'll admit I'm disappointed with the wording from the viewpoint of principle. I'm sure many backers did expect actual mounts, but I can also understand why they have to be skins.
I likely won't change my pledge because I want the lifetime sub and because I support the vision of this game and what it stands for. That said, I hope they avoid these kinds of miscommunication on major aspects of the game in the future. Granted, games change during production, but this is during the Kickstarter phase, so I'd hope they don't flip-flop too much on what's laid out in Kickstarter.
Having a mount at level 1 because you helped kickstart would be clearly a Pay to Win feature. I agree the whole Mount skin thing is a little weird but in the end what difference does it make.
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/i-have-a-beef-re-twitch-live-stream-52417-kickstarter-mounts/page/4/#post-29071">CloudStrife wrote:</a></div><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/nazareth/" rel="nofollow">@nazareth</a> I can understand your frustration and concern. </blockquote>
I am not frustrated, very concerned though. They can jump on this change, list it in FAQ but the damage is done. There are people that have already bought into the packages, and because of circumstance not know of the changes, fully expecting one thing and getting another. This should be considered a legal, and consulting their lawyers, before making anything final, because misrepresentation is no joke anymore, and I want nothing to slow or interrupt production of this game. For that matter even reports to the better businesses dept. can slow certain aspects and licensing.
@cloudstrife I am not frustrated though very concerned. Misrepresentation, when millions was obtained , is no joke. All it takes is a few upset people and a lawyer wanting an easy case. This could slow or stop production, and that I do not want, as I am very excited about this game. Hell even reports to the BBB can cause headaches. I hope they dot their Is and cross their Ts with this.
Sorry if the KS was not clear enough on this, I will have an FAQ updated to reflect the appropriate information.
To clarify for everyone here;
The mounts in the KS package are skins that can be applied to mounts that you attain or breed in game. We did this so that you could reapply the skin to new mounts you may obtain as you progress in the game. In addition it removes the p2w component of “buying” a mount off the bat.
if a exclusive mount is in every way the same then a mount you get ingame but only has different aesthetics why does it matter if its a skin or not? IF the exclusive mounts would have different stats, could be used before any other mount or something this could be considered p2w, and thats something Intrepid doesn't want to do
so i don't get ruckus of this
Mounts in ESO are nothing more then skins if you would go down to it Mounts in WoW are nothing but different skins if you would go down to it and so on
You get the mount. You get what you paid for. "skin"(since people here treat it really need that word like they need water)
If I'm riding a water mount that's originally called Sea Turtle, apply "skin" to it what the mount is now known as a Tidesnapper. You got the mount. You got what you paid for.
I think the logical fallacy here is something among the lines of :
"known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate."
Some thoughts I think that should have run through people's head:
"No Pay 2 Win" Awesome! ~goes and buys a KS package with an EPIC mount~(expects to have an EPIC mount at launch).
Epic mount at launch? huh?
Moonstrider Mule(thats supposed to be a hybird mount between two. . . two other mounts breeding . . . but i didnt breed any mounts) at launch? huh?
Wait a minute, did I just buy an EPIC mount when they've been saying all KS items are cosmetics? huh?
When I pledged to the Braver of Worlds package I knew everything they're going to offer was going to be cosmetic, How they decide to achieve that doesn't matter to me cause in the end it is still a cosmetic.
Thanks @Steven for your quick response. Despite my name, I'm not crying about this :p
I purchased my backer level for the lifetime sub. I did think the subject warranted clarification which was the reason for my post. The answer doesn't change my decision to back the game and, in fact, skins that I can take off and move around my account works for me.
Look, if the issue was really of little importance and everyone who's making a "ruckus" is blowing this stuff out of proportion then Steven wouldn't have bothered to come on the forum and clarify to everyone the situation. Steven is a great person, but he rarely comments personally on topics. It shows both the urgency and importance of clearing the air.
Second, most people are upset on principle, not the actual mount/p2w argument. The principle is if you are going to ask someone to pledge to your game with promises, make sure your promises are clear. I'm not accusing intrepid of intentionally misleading people, but they did mislead people. And people did pledge based on those unclear and misleading promises.
It's good business practice to not mislead your customers. Like @Nazareth said, there are laws against misleading customers, and I don't want intrepid to be face with a lawsuit over a wording issue.
I don't care if the "mount" is a mount or skin. I actually prefer it to be a skin. I didn't pledge braver of the world for a mount, I did it for the lifetime sub. But that's me. And that's my money I'm spending. We're talking about other people here and their money. We should respect other people enough that we respect how they choose to spend their money. And that choice should be under a clear and transparent contract.
My intent was to get clarification on this, Steven Sharif has clarified it before you posted yours.
It cleared up muggy wordings on the Kickstarter package but regardless of that it was still bad wording and very clearly stated an inteny to give backers mounts. Which Backers should now be aware of
Also @whoever said Mounts offer a p2w aspect because they move faster than you can walk? Uh they are skins so... Not sure what you mean now
Funny. Then why did they call it weapon skin and not just a weapon? If skin was something that should automatically be assumed under all KS promises, the there was no need to put skin after weapon and armor. That would be redundant.
Stop trying to make the argument that it wasn't misleading. Even @Steven said so himself "Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better.". I can respect Steven even more because he owns up to his mistakes and he went out of his way to clarify it to the community.
You on the other hand continue to defend intrepid for a mistake they did even after they apologize for doing it. What are you trying to prove by insisting that no fault had happened? Why do you continue to insist that there's no distinction between a mount and a skin? If mounts are skin and skins are mounts then I guess breeders are not really breeding mounts, they're breeding skins that you just put on another skin which goes on top of another skin that looks like a mount but not really a mount, because it's a skin.
Let me fix your sentence for you.
"There is no misleading if you get the <del datetime="2017-05-25T23:01:18+00:00">mount.</del> skin."
Thank you @Steven for clarifying the issue. I look forward to getting my SKIN. It was a great idea and I believe most people will support it.
So far everyone got the clarification on the issues that they wanted to get. Now you are all just arguing semantics and points with each other. Dear Intrepid, See how badly we need a forum with PM capability?
@Shirikuryu Dude let me put this into another point of view because you seem to be really bent on the word "skin".
What is a mount at its base source code? A mount. Let me further elaborate because I guess I have too.
Depending on the category it's still a mount right?
Ok, now what is the difference between a horse with spots and a horse with stripes?
They look different, but last I checked It's still a horse.
If it happens to be an exclusive horse it is in every way shape or form a horse you get in game but the only difference is aesthetics. Skin or not it is still a horse.
To answer your question: <strong>Every weapon, armor piece, everything that falls under the same category that you replace as you level is effectively a "reskin" of whatever you had before. Or would you argue that weapon A is an axe but weapon B is a beefier ax? It's still an ax just "reskin" of the other cause an axe to a human might be made to look differently than an axe for an elf.</strong>
Why would it matter if it was a skin or a reskin of a mount or a mount that happens to have that skin? At the end of the day that is all a mount is: just different "reskins" of one another.
He responded in that way because that's what people that hold a professional job (in this case; the game) that is being developed are expected to respond. It has something to do with "being-professional".
Hopefully, I satisfied your thirst for the word "skin" in my post. Thanks for your unsolicited correction, it wasn't necessary.
Allow me to restore the integrity of my words:
There is no misleading if you get the mount. People will get the mount.
1st, I'm not hell bent on the skin vs mount. If I see an illogical argument, I'm gonna call it out. <del datetime="2017-05-26T00:31:48+00:00">You read my other post, my main issue was the misleading words which Steven has apologized for. So why don't we start there and you just admit that there was misleading.</del> Ok, If you want to chalk up Steven's apology as being "professional", that's fine, but in any court of law, that statement would be an admission of guilt.
2nd, No, a mount is not just a base source code. I'm not a tech expert, but a mount is coded for movement, for you to ride on. A skin only covers the functionality of the code to appear different. You cannot say all mounts are just rehashed skin, because the meaning of skin itself refers to the overlay on top of the functionality. A weapon has it's own function to deal damage. A skin on a weapon does not change the function and cannot function alone. A skin requires the functionality to be present first, and then it will change the visual modeling around it.
Your argument is solo based on the premise that we agree that a skin is a mount. It is not the case and never will be. A mount has it's own function. A skin will only cover it.
What's the difference between a stripe horse and a spotted horse? The spots and stripes.
Let me ask you this. What's the difference between a spotted sword and a spotted horse? Better yet, what's the difference between a sword that has a skin of a horse or a horse that has a skin of a sword? Exactly. It's a skin. The function beneath the skin is what relevant, not the skin itself. For you to keep suggesting that a skin is a mount is erasing the clear definition between them.
Under your logic, a skin is still a mount as long as it looks like a mount. Then please, have a "horse skin" over your legendary sword and then try to ride it around town. Otherwise admit that a skin is purely cosmetic and the function of a mount OR a weapon, whatever it is, is not a skin.
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/i-have-a-beef-re-twitch-live-stream-52417-kickstarter-mounts/page/5/#post-29171">Bringslite wrote:</a></div>So far everyone got the clarification on the issues that they wanted to get. Now you are all just arguing semantics and points with each other. Dear Intrepid, See how badly we need a forum with PM capability?</blockquote>
I apologize Bringslite, I don't normally call out people for stuff like this, but this one is just too illogical I had to call it out for what it is. Illogical.
<blockquote>Bringslite wrote: So far everyone got the clarification on the issues that they wanted to get. Now you are all just arguing semantics and points with each other.</blockquote> Ha! The entire kerfluffle is about semantics.
The remnant is about individuals trying to clear up "You misunderstood me!" But, as long as everyone is happy now - it's all good.
1) Well I'll agree they appear to have misled you- through your own assumptions and speculations. What a great start :) looks like we're making progress. Allow me point out another misleading point in your post: He said "sorry if it wasn't clear enough on this". . . That means what it means not "I'm sorry I mislead you guys." then he said, " “Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better.” That means through players own assumptions, speculations, and hype they mislead themselves. Players know first hand that everything in this game purchasable by money is <strong>cosmetic.</strong> Where is the confusion coming from?
2) Yes a mount that looks like a mount, quacks like a mount, swims like a mount, dances like a mount, glides like a mount, operates like a mount . . . is infact a mount; and a mount is a mount "coded" to behave like a mount, typically does what a mount supposed to do. No argument there. You completely missed the point I was trying to make but it looks like this is why you're here.
Ofcourse a skin covers the mount. Unknowingly you just agreed with me. Should end it here but well . . .
Are you even reading my post? a mount is a mount; and all mounts have skins, but it is still a mount . . .
Horse question, you just agreed with me. Well, this is getting easier.
A spotted sword and a spotted horse? You can't compare the two cause the two are two different entities.*lost and confused*
Now if you compared a sword with spots and another sword that has stripes it would make sense but a sword having a horse skin don't mix and do not make sense. You can not mix a sword without using a sword skin.
1) Well I'll agree they appear to have mislead you- through your own assumptions and speculations.. What a great start :) looks like we're making progress. Allow me to point out another misleading point in your post: He said "sorry if wasn't clear enough on this". . . that means what it means not "I'm sorry I mislead you guys." then he said, "Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better." That means through players own assumptions, speculations, and hype they probably mislead themselves. Players know first hand that everything in this game purchasable by money is cosmetic.
2) Yes a mount that looks like a mount, quacks like a mount, swims like a mount, dances like a mount, glides like a mount, operates like a mount. . . is infact a mount. A mount is a mount "coded" to behave like a mount, typically does what a mount supposed to do. No argument there. You completely missed the point I was trying to make but it looks like this is why you're here.
Ofcourse a skin covers the mount. Unknowingly you just agreed with me for the sake of arguing with me. Should end it here but well. . .
Are you reading my post? A mount is a mount; and all mounts have skins, but its still a mount.
Horse question, you just agreed with me. Well, this is getting easier.
A spotted sword and a spotted horse? You can't compare the two cause the two are two different entities.
Now if you compared a sword with spots and another sword with stripes it would have merit. But a sword having a horse skin don't mix and do not make sense. You can not mix a sword without using a sword skin.
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/i-have-a-beef-re-twitch-live-stream-52417-kickstarter-mounts/page/5/#post-29203">Dygz wrote:</a></div><blockquote>Bringslite wrote: So far everyone got the clarification on the issues that they wanted to get. Now you are all just arguing semantics and points with each other. </blockquote> Ha! The entire kerfluffle is about semantics.
The remnant is about individuals trying to clear up “You misunderstood me!” But, as long as everyone is happy now – it’s all good.
</blockquote>
Is everyone happy now? Unlikely. There was no intention of misleading, as with the live stream wording, the wording through out the entire KS it is obvious the first intentions was to give backers mounts. They have since changed their minds, because someone said "hey isn't that pay to win?". Well when you have quests in game that give you mounts for free, giving unique mounts to KS backers is not., specially if you tie those mounts to the very quest that give free mounts.
Now they have an entirely new problem as they still have not change Q&A in the KS, and backers are still rolling in, very few of which haven't any clue that they will not be receiving mounts as advertised, and may not even read the forums.
They need to talk to their legal dept. i would beat the lawyers would say, yep you made a mistake, but to avoid any issues, you should give the in game mounts, as the KS reads.
<blockquote><div class="d4p-bbp-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/i-have-a-beef-re-twitch-live-stream-52417-kickstarter-mounts/page/5/#post-29203">Dygz wrote:</a></div> Ha! The entire kerfluffle is about semantics.
The remnant is about individuals trying to clear up “You misunderstood me!” But, as long as everyone is happy now – it’s all good.
</blockquote>
Is everyone happy now? Unlikely. There was no intention of misleading, as with the live stream wording, the wording through out the entire KS it is obvious the first intentions was to give backers mounts. They have since changed their minds, because someone said "hey isn't that pay to win?". Well when you have quests in game that give you mounts for free, giving unique mounts to KS backers is not., specially if you tie those mounts to the very quest that give free mounts.
Now they have an entirely new problem as they still have not change Q&A in the KS, and backers are still rolling in, very few of which haven't any clue that they will not be receiving mounts as advertised, and may not even read the forums.
They need to talk to their legal dept. i would beat the lawyers would say, yep you made a mistake, but to avoid any issues, you should give the in game mounts, as the KS reads.
@Dygz "Ha! The entire kerfluffle is about semantics.
The remnant is about individuals trying to clear up “You misunderstood me!” But, as long as everyone is happy now – it’s all good."
For what ever reason, I can not reply with a quote.
Is everyone happy now? Unlikely. There was no intention of misleading, as with the live stream wording, the wording through out the entire KS it is obvious the first intentions was to give backers mounts. They have since changed their minds, because someone said "hey isn't that pay to win?". Well when you have quests in game that give you mounts for free, giving unique mounts to KS backers is not., specially if you tie those mounts to the very quest that give free mounts.
Now they have an entirely new problem as they still have not change Q&A in the KS, and backers are still rolling in, very few of which haven't any clue that they will not be receiving mounts as advertised, and may not even read the forums.
They need to talk to their legal dept. i would bet the lawyers would say, yep you made a mistake, but to avoid any issues, you should give the in game mounts, as the KS reads.
Comments
Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better. We are posting new FAQ's for this on the project itself today.
Breakdown of Mounts from Kickstarter;
- Land Mounts will first be obtained through an early quest that is present for players within the starting areas.
- Once you have obtained your mount in the game, you will be able to assign your cosmetic skin from Kickstarter to the character of your choice from your account management screen. Once this skin has been assigned to the character, you may use the skin to apply the appearance of your Kickstarter mount to the mount you have earned in game. This does not remove the skin itself, as you can apply it again in the future to a different mount.
- If you wish to remove the skin from a character on your account, and assign the skin item to another character you may do so. But it can only ever be active on one character/mount.
-Dawnbreaker is a mount skin as well, that will be used in the same fashion, but is only applicable to a certain class of mounts.
- Underwater Mounts are also used in the same fashion but are only applicable to underwater class mounts.
Dyes are normally one time use. The Kickstarter exclusive dye set, is a set of unique colors that will not be obtainable for players who did not participate in the Kickstarter. They work as follows.
-Normal dyes in game are one time use items, that apply a cosmetic color change on certain items/gear. The Kickstarter Dye Set is assigned to a character from your account management page. These Kickstarter dyes are not usable as normal dyes are. Instead you may use these dyes to override the color of another dye obtained in game. They do not expire, so you may continually override dye colors through the lifetime of your character. Once a dye has been overridden it becomes a bound dye to your character, so the colors cannot be sold for in-game benefit. When a item is sold or transferred color changes are reverted.
Hope this clarifies some stuff!
<3
-
In the end, it doesn't matter since none of you have been charged y et, so if the clarification doesn't sit well with you, you are free to withdraw out of the kickstarter without problem.
It may have been bad wording but as you can see, Steven responded and clarified and you have the option to take your money back for a good long while still.
So I at least thank you Steven for the timely reply and clarification on this topic. Shows that you people are watching and reply when necessery.
:) its just a skin that KS will have and no others will be able to get after june 2 :)
It's the initial miscommunication that was worrying, but I fully support your team's vision as long as we have clear lines of transparency like this when both sides are polite and respectful.
There are ways to make this viable and still give us what agreed to pay for, with out risking people dropping or downgrading their packages.
1. Not receiving the mounts until certain, levels.
2. In stead of the notmal reward for the mount quest, you receive your unique mounts.
As for the few people saying they are ok with this just being skins, instead of what we agreed too. I would guess you didn't agree to a more expensive package.
The skins make zero difference on any mount stat changes as they are only "skins"
The issue was derived from poor wording which I was explaining to another member.
I also appreciate @Steven for the clarification as that explains much more in-depth. Especially on the dyes!
I have no intention of not backing as I want this game to succed just as much
It says VERY clearly on the packages that backers RECEIVE an EXCLUSIVE MOUNT.
There is no confusion in that statement on ALL those packages. That is a purely POOR wording. (no offense to the developers and Steven)
So now we have a conflict of interests as all these backers have been thinking (up until yesterday which was when we actually learned they were skins NOT mounts) thought they were going to get Mounts with their pledges.
Having a fancy way to move around is NOT p2w. It’s a cool way to show off while you travel around. How do you even remotely get p2w off a cool looking mount?</blockquote>
You can spell it out all you want.
Nowhere in there does it say, "backers will be able to take this mount from their inventory the moment they log into the game."
There is confusion for people who added to what was written. There would be no confusion if the devs had provided more details - especially had they added the word "skins".
Again, the devs have stressed several times that Ashes is not a P2W game. Mounts typically move faster than player running speed. So people should have been questioning how a mount that backers can ride the moment they log into the game is not P2W.
The descriptions I've heard Steven give outside of KS indicate that the KS mounts are cosmetic - it's all about appearance.
So, it should not be particularly surprising that the KS mounts are skins that we can use once we acquire a mount.
If it's really that important for you to be seen sitting on top of a cool looking mount the minute you log into the game - sure, pressure the devs to give all the backers a level 0 mule in our inventories that moves at player running speed...and you can put the skin on it.
Problem solved.
I'm sure some of the people who're lightly brushing this matter off didn't back the upper tier pledges.
I'm at Braver of Worlds myself, and I'll admit I'm disappointed with the wording from the viewpoint of principle. I'm sure many backers did expect actual mounts, but I can also understand why they have to be skins.
I likely won't change my pledge because I want the lifetime sub and because I support the vision of this game and what it stands for. That said, I hope they avoid these kinds of miscommunication on major aspects of the game in the future. Granted, games change during production, but this is during the Kickstarter phase, so I'd hope they don't flip-flop too much on what's laid out in Kickstarter.
</blockquote>
I am not frustrated, very concerned though.
They can jump on this change, list it in FAQ but the damage is done. There are people that have already bought into the packages, and because of circumstance not know of the changes, fully expecting one thing and getting another. This should be considered a legal, and consulting their lawyers, before making anything final, because misrepresentation is no joke anymore, and I want nothing to slow or interrupt production of this game.
For that matter even reports to the better businesses dept. can slow certain aspects and licensing.
Sorry if the KS was not clear enough on this, I will have an FAQ updated to reflect the appropriate information.
To clarify for everyone here;
The mounts in the KS package are skins that can be applied to mounts that you attain or breed in game. We did this so that you could reapply the skin to new mounts you may obtain as you progress in the game. In addition it removes the p2w component of “buying” a mount off the bat.
<3
</blockquote>
Read this. Looks like multi use.
so i don't get ruckus of this
Mounts in ESO are nothing more then skins if you would go down to it
Mounts in WoW are nothing but different skins if you would go down to it
and so on
If I'm riding a water mount that's originally called Sea Turtle, apply "skin" to it what the mount is now known as a Tidesnapper. You got the mount. You got what you paid for.
I think the logical fallacy here is something among the lines of :
"known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate."
Some thoughts I think that should have run through people's head:
"No Pay 2 Win" Awesome! ~goes and buys a KS package with an EPIC mount~(expects to have an EPIC mount at launch).
Epic mount at launch? huh?
Moonstrider Mule(thats supposed to be a hybird mount between two. . . two other mounts breeding . . . but i didnt breed any mounts) at launch? huh?
Wait a minute, did I just buy an EPIC mount when they've been saying all KS items are cosmetics? huh?
When I pledged to the Braver of Worlds package I knew everything they're going to offer was going to be cosmetic, How they decide to achieve that doesn't matter to me cause in the end it is still a cosmetic.
I purchased my backer level for the lifetime sub. I did think the subject warranted clarification which was the reason for my post. The answer doesn't change my decision to back the game and, in fact, skins that I can take off and move around my account works for me.
Second, most people are upset on principle, not the actual mount/p2w argument. The principle is if you are going to ask someone to pledge to your game with promises, make sure your promises are clear. I'm not accusing intrepid of intentionally misleading people, but they did mislead people. And people did pledge based on those unclear and misleading promises.
It's good business practice to not mislead your customers. Like @Nazareth said, there are laws against misleading customers, and I don't want intrepid to be face with a lawsuit over a wording issue.
I don't care if the "mount" is a mount or skin. I actually prefer it to be a skin. I didn't pledge braver of the world for a mount, I did it for the lifetime sub. But that's me. And that's my money I'm spending. We're talking about other people here and their money. We should respect other people enough that we respect how they choose to spend their money. And that choice should be under a clear and transparent contract.
Also @Dygz
You're misunderstanding my intent here
My intent was to get clarification on this, Steven Sharif has clarified it before you posted yours.
It cleared up muggy wordings on the Kickstarter package but regardless of that it was still bad wording and very clearly stated an inteny to give backers mounts. Which Backers should
now be aware of
Also @whoever said Mounts offer a p2w aspect because they move faster than you can walk? Uh they are skins so... Not sure what you mean now
Or I am missing the point where people say "its not about the mount!" yet you still get it?
You got what you paid for. As people said before me it doesn't say anywhere you get the mount <strong>at launch. </strong>
Funny. Then why did they call it weapon skin and not just a weapon? If skin was something that should automatically be assumed under all KS promises, the there was no need to put skin after weapon and armor. That would be redundant.
Stop trying to make the argument that it wasn't misleading. Even @Steven said so himself "Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better.". I can respect Steven even more because he owns up to his mistakes and he went out of his way to clarify it to the community.
You on the other hand continue to defend intrepid for a mistake they did even after they apologize for doing it. What are you trying to prove by insisting that no fault had happened? Why do you continue to insist that there's no distinction between a mount and a skin? If mounts are skin and skins are mounts then I guess breeders are not really breeding mounts, they're breeding skins that you just put on another skin which goes on top of another skin that looks like a mount but not really a mount, because it's a skin.
Let me fix your sentence for you.
"There is no misleading if you get the <del datetime="2017-05-25T23:01:18+00:00">mount.</del> skin."
Thank you @Steven for clarifying the issue. I look forward to getting my SKIN. It was a great idea and I believe most people will support it.
Dear Intrepid, See how badly we need a forum with PM capability?
What is a mount at its base source code? A mount. Let me further elaborate because I guess I have too.
Depending on the category it's still a mount right?
Ok, now what is the difference between a horse with spots and a horse with stripes?
They look different, but last I checked It's still a horse.
If it happens to be an exclusive horse it is in every way shape or form a horse you get in game but the only difference is aesthetics. Skin or not it is still a horse.
To answer your question: <strong>Every weapon, armor piece, everything that falls under the same category that you replace as you level is effectively a "reskin" of whatever you had before. Or would you argue that weapon A is an axe but weapon B is a beefier ax? It's still an ax just "reskin" of the other cause an axe to a human might be made to look differently than an axe for an elf.</strong>
Why would it matter if it was a skin or a reskin of a mount or a mount that happens to have that skin? At the end of the day that is all a mount is: just different "reskins" of one another.
He responded in that way because that's what people that hold a professional job (in this case; the game) that is being developed are expected to respond. It has something to do with "being-professional".
Hopefully, I satisfied your thirst for the word "skin" in my post. Thanks for your unsolicited correction, it wasn't necessary.
Allow me to restore the integrity of my words:
There is no misleading if you get the mount. People will get the mount.
1st, I'm not hell bent on the skin vs mount. If I see an illogical argument, I'm gonna call it out. <del datetime="2017-05-26T00:31:48+00:00">You read my other post, my main issue was the misleading words which Steven has apologized for. So why don't we start there and you just admit that there was misleading.</del> Ok, If you want to chalk up Steven's apology as being "professional", that's fine, but in any court of law, that statement would be an admission of guilt.
2nd, No, a mount is not just a base source code. I'm not a tech expert, but a mount is coded for movement, for you to ride on. A skin only covers the functionality of the code to appear different. You cannot say all mounts are just rehashed skin, because the meaning of skin itself refers to the overlay on top of the functionality. A weapon has it's own function to deal damage. A skin on a weapon does not change the function and cannot function alone. A skin requires the functionality to be present first, and then it will change the visual modeling around it.
Your argument is solo based on the premise that we agree that a skin is a mount. It is not the case and never will be. A mount has it's own function. A skin will only cover it.
What's the difference between a stripe horse and a spotted horse? The spots and stripes.
Let me ask you this. What's the difference between a spotted sword and a spotted horse? Better yet, what's the difference between a sword that has a skin of a horse or a horse that has a skin of a sword? Exactly. It's a skin. The function beneath the skin is what relevant, not the skin itself. For you to keep suggesting that a skin is a mount is erasing the clear definition between them.
Under your logic, a skin is still a mount as long as it looks like a mount. Then please, have a "horse skin" over your legendary sword and then try to ride it around town. Otherwise admit that a skin is purely cosmetic and the function of a mount OR a weapon, whatever it is, is not a skin.
Dear Intrepid, See how badly we need a forum with PM capability?</blockquote>
I apologize Bringslite, I don't normally call out people for stuff like this, but this one is just too illogical I had to call it out for what it is. Illogical.
So far everyone got the clarification on the issues that they wanted to get. Now you are all just arguing semantics and points with each other.</blockquote>
Ha! The entire kerfluffle is about semantics.
The remnant is about individuals trying to clear up "You misunderstood me!"
But, as long as everyone is happy now - it's all good.
What a great start :) looks like we're making progress. Allow me point out another misleading point in your post: He said "sorry if it wasn't clear enough on this". . . That means what it means not "I'm sorry I mislead you guys." then he said, " “Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better.” That means through players own assumptions, speculations, and hype they mislead themselves. Players know first hand that everything in this game purchasable by money is <strong>cosmetic.</strong> Where is the confusion coming from?
2) Yes a mount that looks like a mount, quacks like a mount, swims like a mount, dances like a mount, glides like a mount, operates like a mount . . . is infact a mount; and a mount is a mount "coded" to behave like a mount, typically does what a mount supposed to do. No argument there. You completely missed the point I was trying to make but it looks like this is why you're here.
Ofcourse a skin covers the mount. Unknowingly you just agreed with me. Should end it here but well . . .
Are you even reading my post? a mount is a mount; and all mounts have skins, but it is still a mount . . .
Horse question, you just agreed with me. Well, this is getting easier.
A spotted sword and a spotted horse? You can't compare the two cause the two are two different entities.*lost and confused*
Now if you compared a sword with spots and another sword that has stripes it would make sense but a sword having a horse skin don't mix and do not make sense. You can not mix a sword without using a sword skin.
What a great start :) looks like we're making progress. Allow me to point out another misleading point in your post: He said "sorry if wasn't clear enough on this". . . that means what it means not "I'm sorry I mislead you guys." then he said, "Let me further clarify for everyone. Was definitely not an attempt to mislead, just could have been worded better."
That means through players own assumptions, speculations, and hype they probably mislead themselves. Players know first hand that everything in this game purchasable by money is cosmetic.
2) Yes a mount that looks like a mount, quacks like a mount, swims like a mount, dances like a mount, glides like a mount, operates like a mount. . . is infact a mount. A mount is a mount "coded" to behave like a mount, typically does what a mount supposed to do. No argument there. You completely missed the point I was trying to make but it looks like this is why you're here.
Ofcourse a skin covers the mount. Unknowingly you just agreed with me for the sake of arguing with me. Should end it here but well. . .
Are you reading my post? A mount is a mount; and all mounts have skins, but its still a mount.
Horse question, you just agreed with me. Well, this is getting easier.
A spotted sword and a spotted horse? You can't compare the two cause the two are two different entities.
Now if you compared a sword with spots and another sword with stripes it would have merit. But a sword having a horse skin don't mix and do not make sense. You can not mix a sword without using a sword skin.
So far everyone got the clarification on the issues that they wanted to get. Now you are all just arguing semantics and points with each other.
</blockquote>
Ha! The entire kerfluffle is about semantics.
The remnant is about individuals trying to clear up “You misunderstood me!”
But, as long as everyone is happy now – it’s all good.
</blockquote>
Is everyone happy now? Unlikely.
There was no intention of misleading, as with the live stream wording, the wording through out the entire KS it is obvious the first intentions was to give backers mounts. They have since changed their minds, because someone said "hey isn't that pay to win?". Well when you have quests in game that give you mounts for free, giving unique mounts to KS backers is not., specially if you tie those mounts to the very quest that give free mounts.
Now they have an entirely new problem as they still have not change Q&A in the KS, and backers are still rolling in, very few of which haven't any clue that they will not be receiving mounts as advertised, and may not even read the forums.
They need to talk to their legal dept. i would beat the lawyers would say, yep you made a mistake, but to avoid any issues, you should give the in game mounts, as the KS reads.
Ha! The entire kerfluffle is about semantics.
The remnant is about individuals trying to clear up “You misunderstood me!”
But, as long as everyone is happy now – it’s all good.
</blockquote>
Is everyone happy now? Unlikely.
There was no intention of misleading, as with the live stream wording, the wording through out the entire KS it is obvious the first intentions was to give backers mounts. They have since changed their minds, because someone said "hey isn't that pay to win?". Well when you have quests in game that give you mounts for free, giving unique mounts to KS backers is not., specially if you tie those mounts to the very quest that give free mounts.
Now they have an entirely new problem as they still have not change Q&A in the KS, and backers are still rolling in, very few of which haven't any clue that they will not be receiving mounts as advertised, and may not even read the forums.
They need to talk to their legal dept. i would beat the lawyers would say, yep you made a mistake, but to avoid any issues, you should give the in game mounts, as the KS reads.
"Ha! The entire kerfluffle is about semantics.
The remnant is about individuals trying to clear up “You misunderstood me!”
But, as long as everyone is happy now – it’s all good."
For what ever reason, I can not reply with a quote.
Is everyone happy now? Unlikely.
There was no intention of misleading, as with the live stream wording, the wording through out the entire KS it is obvious the first intentions was to give backers mounts. They have since changed their minds, because someone said "hey isn't that pay to win?". Well when you have quests in game that give you mounts for free, giving unique mounts to KS backers is not., specially if you tie those mounts to the very quest that give free mounts.
Now they have an entirely new problem as they still have not change Q&A in the KS, and backers are still rolling in, very few of which haven't any clue that they will not be receiving mounts as advertised, and may not even read the forums.
They need to talk to their legal dept. i would bet the lawyers would say, yep you made a mistake, but to avoid any issues, you should give the in game mounts, as the KS reads.