[Rackat]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rackat
You really seem to be concerned with the newbies getting to play alongside of those of us that have paid for our unlimited access.

No. Just telling you why Disney isn't going to do it.

Do you work for Disney on line services, or any place in the Disney company?

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
but I would like it a lot better if I was playing alongside of Paying newbs that don't abuse the game features. No, it isn't guarranteed that paying newbs would be better, but one can hope.

You sound like some of these global warming fanatics. "No, we don't know that it'll make it better, but we hope it will! Support us!"

Worst reason to bandwagon EVER!

I would retort with a like comment, but it would be a disservice to those reading this thread. I will say that when you pay for something yourself, you are less likely to abuse it. I would venture to guess that those of us paying for the game (you know, the adults?) would be less like to abuse the system and less likely to be griefers. Further, those of us that are paying for accounts for our children and are also players are more likely to ensure that our children are not griefers as well. But, I can’t guarantee that all parents watch their children’s on line activity as well as I do.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
If the benfits of paying were not readily seen, how many subscripion payers do you think there would be? I bought the subscription the same weekend I started playing and haven't regretted it yet. People either want to purchase the subscription or not.

I purchased my account in a similar fashion. However, not everyone has a similar purchase pattern. Nor do some of them have the ready cash you or I do.

Being elitist simply because you chose to (and could afford to) pay immediately means nothing.

You consider it elitist, I consider it no different than paying for another service. If I can afford to pay for a “member’s only/adult” server, then I should have that option. I would even pay a little extra for the privilege of such servers. It doesn’t make me elitist, it makes me discerning, Further, Disney is a capitalist venture, they are missing out on an opportunity for additional profit while driving off the very customers from which that profit could be made. If it were not Disney I would worry for the financial stewardship of the company, but surely the other Disney ventures far outweigh the POTCO revenues. Even though McDonald's serves Filet-O-Fish, I prefer to go to Joe's Crab Shack for my seafood. I pay a little bit more, but it is worth it. Does that make me elitist? No.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
Second, a members only server system would actually be preferable

To you maybe. Based on zero facts and a lot of wishful thinking. Wonderful reasons for implementing something.

Well, no kidding? To me they would be preferable, and apparently to a lot of other people that post on these forums.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
It would only take a little bit of code by the programmers to tell the servers that a member may or may not join a particular server based on thier account status.

And 43.715% of all statistics are pulled from nether orifaces. Unless you're one of the developers of the game, you have zero authoritative standing for how much or little code it would take.

I appreciate your statistical analysis. But I would say you are 99.9% fos. I have not broken open the config for the game, or the code for the servers, but I have done so for other games. How many private HALO, Castle Wolfenstein, Quake IV, and other game servers have you set up? How many have you played on? It does not take a lot to make a private server…….which amazingly enough is not different than making a memer’s only/adult server.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Quote:
It is not much diferent than being allowed or disallowed access to a forum based on your registration.

And have you ever looked into the code even a simple board uses for forum-by-forum permissions system?

I'm not talking about "Well I saw this interface and it had checkboxes". I'm talking about the underlying code. And more, have you ever had to WRITE a permissions system?

As I said above, I have not broken open the code for this game, since it is Disney, it is not the same as opening the code for server set up for Halo or Castle Wolfenstein. Since it is proprietary and Disney is not allowing us to set up our own servers, it seems to me that they ought to at minimum give us the option of member’s only servers.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

Personally, I'd prefer they put more effort into the game itself, rather than some meaningless segregation.

Doing one does not necessarily preclude them from doing both.

Originally Posted by Nathaniel Wolfson

And think about this. If it was as simple as you say, why wouldn't they have incorporated the test environment the same way? Why have a completely isolated test server environment with a completely separate game loader?

Perhaps so that they can control access easier? Perhaps so that they can keep everything separate so that there is no bleed over between the beta and open from the tester’s computer settings? Only Disney knows, and so far they’re not telling.

You don’t have to agree with those of us that would like to see this option, but there really isn’t a necessity to be such an *** about your disagreement. Perhaps the sarcasm meter from both sides would calm down.