Oh thank you adjusting my post to reflect the blindingly obvious, because you have no real argument other than "That's your opinion". While ignoring the fact that such an action ALSO APPLIES TO YOUR PERCEPTION, which by the way, is being fed to you by a PR machine.

 

So aside from telling me what I can't possibly not know, do you have anything of real merit to say? Or are you just fanboying it up?

I don't like stating the obvious... but you've been running this "BW can be legit about this!" line for long enough I had to assume you took it as fact...

ps... since when is reminding people to have some extra-personal perception not something "of real merit."

I'd be all for something like this if it was like 'WareCon 2012' or something.

I semi-regularly go to GenCon and Origins. I have a whole lotta friends that go to DragonCon. I'm aware of Star Wars Celebration, BlizzCon, Pax, and E3, but I don't go to those.

I would *totally* go to BioWareCon! I would be *thrilled* for a chance to pay money for plane tickets, hotel rooms, cabs, food, and admission to see new content, talk to devs, talk to other players, check out upcoming games, participate in panels and the like. Now *that* is my kind of vacation!

Hey BioWare, if you need help organizing BioWareCon, I'll volunteer! :-)

Paige

Bioware already stated they will open this up to the public and more details to come on it. Most likely a live stream format.

Then what is the point of the summit? If anyone can just chime in, why waste the money? That destroys ALL claims of filtering negative or non-constructive opinions.

As it stands, we have the exact same situation we have now, only a few of us get a payed vacation to Austin to meet the developers.

1. I had to assume

 

2. ps... since when is reminding people to have some extra-personal perception not something "of real merit."

1. No you didn't.

2. When it also applies to yourself and #1 above.

Then what is the point of the summit? If anyone can just chime in, why waste the money? That destroys ALL claims of filtering negative or non-constructive opinions.

 

As it stands, we have the exact same situation we have now, only a few of us get a payed vacation to Austin to meet the developers.

I disagree. I already posted what I felt the point is though. I am sorry we can't see Eye to eye. I don't think we ever will. We will just has to see the results of this event to see who was correct.

Either way we both hope for a better game. So if the outcome is positive then we both win

I disagree. I already posted what I felt the point is though. I am sorry we can't see Eye to eye. I don't think we ever will. We will just has to see the results of this event to see who was correct.

 

Either way we both hope for a better game. So if the outcome is positive then we both win

I will never see eye to eye with someone who accepts PR, at face value, on the HOPE that something good will come of it.

I want the game to do better. I do hope this ends in failure though. I really do. Because it's stupid.

Then they can start focusing on fixing their problems, like so many other game developers have done before without incident.

I will never see eye to eye with someone who accepts PR,

I don't accept it with face value. Rather I am waiting to see the result. I like the idea. I want to see how it plays out. I don't assume to know it will or will not work but it seems like a great idea to me. For reasons already stated.

I don't accept it with face value. Rather I am waiting to see the result. I like the idea. I want to see how it plays out. I don't assume to know it will or will not work but it seems like a great idea to me. For reasons already stated.

Fair enough.

Link is broken!

Thank you wanted to make sure I wasnt the only one.

The thing I'm worried about now, is the way Bioware has this event set up, any real improvement can be pinned to this summit as the cause. Anything after the summit can be attributed to the summit, if Bioware's PR team wanted to.

It would be one thing, if all the information to be gathered, wasn't already gathered by other sources. This sets an unhealthy precedent, that the same ideas weren't considered until everyone sat down in chairs.

We have no real way of knowing what the summit accomplished, after the fact.

If I post over and over that the UI bug where the mouse no longer clicks anything, and a guild leader says the same exact thing at the summit, and after the summit the bug is hotfixed, the summit can take all the credit.

that's what I'm seeing now. Problems that have been eloquently presented numerous times over the course of a year, being reiterated at a fancy summit, THEN being fixed.

People thank the summit, because it was presented as an event with more public exposure.

Kind of like how a person at a meeting comes up with a great idea, but only the guy next to them heard it, and before the first person can say it again, louder, the guy who heard them yells the idea and everyone praises him.

I kinda feel like my post was glossed over, but that's no big deal. I'm just posting again, to ask my main question again...because after 10+ pages, five other people have asked it too.

How were the pre-invited guilds chosen?

Seriously, it's not a difficult question and it's a question that will help answer a lot of questions and confusion many people have had. Granted, it may infuriate people as well if you used a bad criteria to choose them, but at least it's out in the open and people have a legitimate reason for feeling completely jipped instead of assuming they got jipped.

I kinda feel like my post was glossed over, but that's no big deal. I'm just posting again, to ask my main question again...because after 10+ pages, five other people have asked it too.

 

How were the pre-invited guilds chosen?

 

Seriously, it's not a difficult question and it's a question that will help answer a lot of questions and confusion many people have had. Granted, it may infuriate people as well if you used a bad criteria to choose them, but at least it's out in the open and people have a legitimate reason for feeling completely jipped instead of assuming they got jipped.

That's a good question and sadly, one that Stephen Reid will never answer (probably because it's a good question). They hid this info for a reason.

I can understand why you might ask guild leaders to have frank discussions with your design team but in truth believe it to be a stupid idea.

Just as Blizzard used to hold talks with the most successful guild in Wow, the direction applied to the game has hurt it. How will the unguilded or those in small social guilds, which make up the majority of players, be represented?

Surely in regards to the direction of the game it would have been far smarter to send a poll/questionaire to each subscriber to find the answers you are looking for?

I can understand why you might ask guild leaders to have frank discussions with your design team but in truth believe it to be a stupid idea.

 

Just as Blizzard used to hold talks with the most successful guild in Wow, the direction applied to the game has hurt it. How will the unguilded or those in small social guilds, which make up the majority of players, be represented?

 

Surely in regards to the direction of the game it would have been far smarter to send a poll/questionaire to each subscriber to find the answers you are looking for?

Agreed. They could host a multiple choice survey on this very site requiring people to login and thus prevent duplicate surveys. They survey could be focused in specific areas as well as get an overall feeling from each and every player who wishes to participate in the survey. A link to it could be posted on the game launcher.

The results of that survey could then be posted at a later date, with a response drawn up by bioware as to what they think about the results and what they intend to do. Full disclosure allows EVERYONE to not only see just how many others feel as they do, and they can see feedback in action by observing what bioware's reaction is to it.

Minimum effort, maximum result. Direct feedback connection between each and every player and the devs.

Then of course, Bioware need to follow up on that survey by actually putting their intentions into motion.

The simple fact is that action is needed if this product is to survive with a healthy population level in the mid-long term, not just words and blind faith.

We are covering costs for a select group, which will make up a significant number of the attendees. We're obviously also covering all the other running costs for the event.

 

While I understand everyone's opinions here, apparently we're stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. Previously (for the Fan Site Summits) we invited a select group; we got complaints that it should have been open to others even if they paid for themselves. In this case we invite a select group and in addition open up attendance to anyone who wishes to apply, and some are frustrated that we're asking people to attend at their own expense. Like I said, we understand people's reactions, but we won't be able to please everyone.

 

 

As stated, we will have a significant presence from EU guild leaders. We are conducting the summit in English, but most of our developers are English speaking, so it's a necessity. As I stated, an EU summit of some kind is still possible at some point.

 

 

Again, we'll have ways for people to interact with the summit who aren't present at the event. That was always part of our planning and we'll have more details soon.

 

Once again, I'd like to ask for comments to remain constructive in this thread. We are proceeding with the summit and would love to hear your comments about how we can make it a success.

Stephen, What about the possibility of a webcast for those of us who are interested, but live in places that are too far out of the way to make a trip possible(im in New Zealand)

Just a suggestion

In 2010, Bioware's very own Rich Vogel was part of a panel at GDC, discussing running MMO's. In which they stated:

".....it's imperative that developers stop guessing what players might be wanting and start gathering solid feedback as to what they're demanding."

I'm just not convinced that focusing on a select few guild leaders is the best way to obtain such "solid feedback". Because those individuals do not accurately represent the entire community.

1. No you didn't.

2. When it also applies to yourself and #1 above.

Ah yes, the "Be more pedantic than the other person" defense...

1) yes, I chose to assume... and at least in part in the hopes that it would aggravate you into revealing a real motive for why you want this to fail... I'll admit that freely, because, honestly I'm curious... I don't understand your motives here.

2) if you honestly don't think I appreciate this, you haven't comprehended anything I've posted... I have said, repeatedly, in this thread... that the fundamental difference between you and I is the way we interpret BW's intentions (something neither of us can possibly know. Unless you are, in fact, some sort of Zerg Overmind that runs the company, and has a strangely self-critical streak)... I have never denied you your opinion.

But, apparently anyone who disagrees with you has to just be "Fanboying it up." So I guess we're at an impasse.

I digress, because frankly, I don't understand how you don't like this...

-I totally understand not liking having BS shot at you... But you are just assuming that's what it will be at this point... Wait til it happens, and then, if it does nothing, or they don't listen... I'll be right there with you.

In the meantime...

1) It's not your money to spend, If they think this is worth it, why do you care?

2) It does have the POTENTIAL to help. why would you have them NOT DO something that COULD help, if you want a better game, and it costs you nothing.

3) In the words of a Securities disclaimer i had to print a few million times "Past Returns do not indicate future results." We must, as people, believe that things can change... They don't have to, it may even be very unlikely, but they CAN. So, while I totally understand not holding your breathe for them to do something, why deprive them of the chance?

I have to agree, this is not a good idea. It isn't bad, but certainly isn't good.

Why? Such an event is out of the reach to attend for the majority of your players, and smacks of exclusivity. Only those that can afford said event can attend and have input, leaving the vast majority of players out of it.

EVE online has a player-elected parliment. They listen to people in-game, and bring hot issues to the attention of the EVE developers, all done online in-game or over forums.

An online game needs online players to be discussing things with the developers online. Once you take the online aspect away from player & developer input, you create an exclusive club of players, whom develop a sense of entitlement in-game. Giving a small group of players a sense of entitlement in-game is NEVER a good idea.

We need a player parliment, a group of players, elected by players, who actively bring game issues to the attention of developers through direct lines of communications, such as a seperate forum just for this purpose.

Exactly. It's a publicity stunt, nothing more. People here on the boards feel ignored, so Bioware decides to pull a select few away from said boards. This is their problem solving.

Its called sifting through trolls and whiners. I'd rather have someone there that genuinely cares about making better game that they pay for on a monthly basis. Trolls would never leave from the cover of a computer to travel to Texas and troll in person.

Its called sifting through trolls and whiners. I'd rather have someone there that genuinely cares about making better game that they pay for on a monthly basis. Trolls would never leave from the cover of a computer to travel to Texas and troll in person.

Your logic is flawed. It's not a case of "sifting through trolls and whiners", it screams of a publicility stunt to invite those who are the biggest fans to go. And chances are, those "fans" do not necessarily have the rest of the communities interest at heart.

And so, rather than actually being a productive event, this whole "summit" may just turn out to be nothing more than a bunch of players showering Bioware with praise no matter what they do or don't do. Meanwhile the press laps up the news and gives Bioware more coverage for shelling out money for something that could be achieved in a more cost-effective, concise and wider reaching manner.

Furthermore, just because someone cannot go to Texas, doesn't mean that they are any worse than those who can. All it means is that those who go to Texas are either on a freebie from Bioware, or have money and time to burn.

Besides, what exactly makes you think that those guild leaders who ARE participating in this summit are actually going to succeed in helping to "make the game better"?

Its called sifting through trolls and whiners. I'd rather have someone there that genuinely cares about making better game that they pay for on a monthly basis. Trolls would never leave from the cover of a computer to travel to Texas and troll in person.

What you just wrote, is a huge logical fallacy, and if you took the time to waste mine by quoting me, you should have also taken the time, to read my other posts on why such reasoning is erroneous.

I'm not repeating myself for you.

P.S. It's called choosing the people most likely to have influence over the largest number of players, and buttering them up with a payed vacay, and one on one with the devs.

Then after the fact, when people complained, opening it up to others, who get to pay for the luxury of telling a dev directly, that guild banks are neato, and PVP sucks.