Should new map be free?

Yes. Back then they didn’t have as grand scale as they do now. They also said mounts were impossible too. Like people keep saying over and over, things change.

Thank you for digging this out. This is the video I was refering to.

I can understand both sides arguments. And while I still think a new map is more then just pur cosmetics and therefore should be free for everyone to enjoy, I can also live with it coming as a paid dlc.

But netherless I think Funcom should be very carefull with what they say in Streams to people in the future and not changing minds every 5 minutes. I mean its not the first time they announce stuff and later step back. Its not professional. Customers need to know what they will get for their money. I don´t buy a dishwasher just to then only be able to use one program, because the company forgot to mention that I will have to pay extra to use the other ones.

3 Likes

You wanna know what’s really tiresome? Needing to keep bringing the same quotes to people’s attention over and over again because they’re not reading the whole thread or don’t understand what they’re reading.

I’m really starting to think there’s either a bad language barrier on these forums, possibly a serious reading comprehension issue, or people just like starting arguments. My vote is the third option.
If you’re tired of the subject on this thread, allow me to suggest moving on to another one rather than making sarcastic comments that don’t lend to the discussion.

1 Like

You’re welcome. This reply is very well put and spot on. I agree with everything you’ve said here 100%.

1 Like

You know, I didn’t have high hopes when Alex said the team would improve their communication with the players. There’s a reason for the “corporate” communication style.

Both the players and the team members get frustrated with the rules that limit the communication to vague stuff like “our team is aware of this” and “we have exciting stuff in the pipeline (but can’t say anything else about it)”. Players get frustrated because they’re kept in the dark. The team gets frustrated because they want to tell the players about the new stuff.

But the reason for those rules are attitudes like this one:

On June 6th, 2018, a blog post was published, outlining the near-future plans and the roadmap that the team could come up with at that time. Two days later, there was a Community Friday video where the community managers went over these same things in greater detail. Both of these – the post and the video – are set in a particular context.

Roughly 20 months later, we have people using these to say that Funcom went back on their promise and how they should be careful about what they say and not change their minds “every 5 minutes”.

Never mind the context. Never mind the passage of time. Never mind the fact that they delivered everything that was on that roadmap and more on top. Never mind that the new map wasn’t even a thing back then.

There are people on the forums demanding a whole new map for free. There are people demanding moderation of official servers for free. There are people demanding that they publish a list of team members who worked on which part of which release, so that the forum members can identify those who should be fired.

Given all that, yeah, I agree the team should be very careful when it comes to what they say in public. And the next time anyone complains about how they don’t communicate well, we should all remind the complainer about how 5 minutes can be 20 months long.

8 Likes

Yes, the unbiased observer whose appeal to authority is that you have no dog in the fight. Your detached neutrality is a powerful suggestion that your arguments are sound.

I’ll offer a better explantion: People want free stuff. They would also rather have nobody get any stuff if they have to pay for it. That last one there is why we can’t have good stuff.

1 Like

Hey…wait. I thought you said this whole argument was tiresome…yet here you are.
You don’t know me. I’m probably a bit biased and far from detached or neutral. So, here again, this comment is obviously a sarcastic attempt to start an argument. I’ll pass, thanks.

Probably true for some, but not all.

Thank you for providing a source. At least it’s now possible to see where you’re coming from.

Yeah, no. Whether purposefully or not, you omit all the quotes from that video that make it clear that they’re talking about the roadmap that they had put out shortly before that video, such as:

At 02:25, Jens says:

We’re gonna discuss the roadmap that we recently released

Later on, at around 10:00, Natascha says:

What we do have is DLC, it’s coming out in June

Making it clear that they’re talking about the DLC that is soon to come

And again later Jens states that (emphasis mine)

We announced a roadmap for SOME of the things we’re gonna be doing going forward

So, not only does the roadmap that they are talking about already state that it does not contain everything they will ever do, even in the video (which is for obvious reasons a less formal method of communication) they ALSO make it clear. So yes, they state that the DLC is only going to be cosmetic. But they make it abundantly clear that they’re talking about the announced DLC, and what they’re contrasting it with is games that go pay-to-win.

3 Likes

I didn’t think to put those quotes in because it’s obvious that they were talking about the stuff that they were about to release.

Yes, those things being the one’s they outlined in the article and video. That’s not in dispute. But I’m don’t see how that negates future endeavors. Now bear with me, if you will.

Here’s where the confusion might be for many and why people might believe that these statements apply to what’s going on today. Nowhere in the article or video do they specifically, and I stress the word specifically, say that these statements will not or might not apply to future content releases. We can assume either way, but their statements don’t make it clear.

Half the people, such as yourself, are saying this only applies to the content they’re discussing in the article and video. The argument being that Funcom didn’t mean this was for all time.

The other half are saying these statements should also apply to this new map they plan on putting out probably because Funcom, at least to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t specified whether or not they meant the major updates would always be free and the paid dlc’s would always be only cosmetic.

So for everybody on both sides of the fence this is a circular argument. You can say I’m using semantics to push my point, or I can say the same about you. We’re all standing around the same tree, but each of us has a different view or perspective of the tree.

In the end, unless Funcom comes forward and says “no, we didn’t mean for all time” or “yes, we meant for all time”; or someone can produce a source where they’ve already said either way, we can all bat this back and forth till we’re blue in the face. We’re not getting anywhere without a final word from Funcom, which I’ve said time and time again that it’s up to Funcom to clear it up.

I understand both sides of the debate and would like to see this put to rest as much as everyone else. Don’t forget, this is a multinational site with possible language barriers. Things like this should be made very clear to all.

2 Likes

See here’s an interesting thing. Some players are best left behind in the old world so that the new and returning have something to call their own.

The leveling curve make all but those with nowhere else to go, reconsider their presence on the map on an official server.

Using the words update means to current map. And i infer that DLC’s they are talking about are for current map. By making a NEW Expansion map, all this is moot. Because the discussions are about the current Map as far as I am concerned . One could make the association with it being about CE only, but not once did I see anything about EXPANSION DLC as a topic. Robert is the only to mention a new map, and says it would be paid. Again, they can call it an expansion of the game, and win the semantics debate…

1 Like

Fair enough, but if that’s so obvious (and I actually agree that it is) then I don’t understand how anyone can possibly get the idea that “what they are about to release” equals “everything that will come after, even years down the road”.

Indeed. That video specifically (and I do mean specifically) mention that it refers to the roadmap (as posted a few days previously), and both the video and the roadmap in question explicitly and specifically say that this is not the be-all, end-all content plans they have. I’m not sure how much clearer it can be, but oh well.

Also bear in mind that Jens’ “statements” (and I use the term loosely, given the casual nature of community broadcasts like that) in that video are responses to questions in chat, and should be taken in that context - particularly the cutting of features (mounts, sorcery and city life) that happened shortly before EA ended. People were (understandably) upset at that, and wanted to know that these features would not then be introduced later as paid DLC.

Well, you’re right about one thing: If the sources listed here don’t clear up the matter, then nothing short of an official statement will, and debating it further is meaningless.

Incidentally, given the level of dissecting shown here (and we’re all equally guilty on that count), I am suddenly willing to cut Funcom a lot more slack when it comes to “communicating better”, because sheesh - it’s worse than literature class!

2 Likes

Lmao!!! No argument there.

And, here again, that’s why I brought up this being a multinational site with potential language barriers. Some folks here honestly just might not have understood the context and intent. Hell, I have a decent grasp on the language and found myself scratching my head a few times wondering exactly what was meant. So maybe it would behoove Funcom to step up and show that they’re actually trying to improve communications with the community.

At any rate…good talk.

1 Like

I know a gaming company who, in every stream where they show a teaser of a future release, announce out loud: “Please note that what we are going to show is a work in progress and subject to change.” They say it like it’s a joke, but clearly, some people need to hear that said out loud every single time.

To me, that’s something akin to a default setting: if it’s not out yet, it’s subject to change. Actually, even if it’s already out, it’s subject to change. Live-streamers are not lawyers (except those who are), so dissecting their every sentence in order to somehow compel them to “keep a promise” they’ve made is unfair. They really can’t say anything that hasn’t been pre-scripted for them by the company legal department, that couldn’t be interpreted against them.

American companies may have learned to sprinkle phrases like “remember, this is just our current plan, not a promise” at regular intervals in their streams; a Norwegian company, even one with an international customer base, may not. The legal culture is so vastly different.

2 Likes

Only way it should be paid is if it’s a full expasion as Funcom promised stated maps wouldn’t be paid DLC. Hense getting roasted by the media.

Let’s ignore the word “promise” for the moment… Could you point me to where they referenced the issue of new maps before it was sorta-kinda-announced that they were working on one?

Go read the article at massively overpowered

Everyone is having a lively discussion about wishes and dreams. Its lovely but there hasn’t been a single news and announcement since December of 19…Don’t be surprised if it doesn’t happen yall lol

I don’t think this answers your question to Jim, but I’m pretty sure it’s the article he’s referring to.

https://massivelyop.com/2020/02/17/the-survivalist-is-conan-exiles-done-with-free-dlc-or-are-we-getting-a-true-expansion/

1 Like

Thanks for the link! :slight_smile:

It’s an op-ed. They’re entitled to their opinion, as is everyone, but it really doesn’t equate to “Funcom promised that maps wouldn’t be paid DLC” :man_shrugging:

3 Likes