MMP's Obligations

[Portal]

From Chas' post in the HOB thread:

It's bad enough there are people who think MMP should be obligated to sell them something they've never even paid for; imagine the volume of noise if your credit card was charged and then it took them, oh, say, 4 months to get you a game when they originally said it would be only be 3.

I agree it would be a bad call to charge for a product not immediately ready to ship.

You are pledging to buy a game should that game make it to production. MMP is not guaranteeing you that this will happen.

MMP is not making a contractual obligation, yes. However, for every game which languishes on the P# list after it hits P# (Devil's Cauldron being another great example), MMP damages its reputation as a game company with the market. If MMP doesn't want to be considered by its customers as some "garage-op", it should act more professionally with respect to its product management. Professional companies deliver.

I'm reasonably sure Essig, Starkweather et al are big boys who have no guns pointed at their heads to force them to go through MMP. I'm also quite sure they understand any risks which may be involved in all their work, and that there are potentially some pretty big rewards for them as well.

To be frank, I'm not sure why these guys come to MMP for publishing their designs, considering MMP's recent product management history. This suggests to me there's a broader weakness in the wargame publishing industry.

 

[MrP]

Just don't f*cking start again.
The horse is dead, I repeat, dead. D-E-A-D. Dead. Defunct. No longer living. Shuffled off this mortal coil.
Please.

 

[Portal]

MrP,

You saw my handle attached to "MMP" in a thread title. Why exactly are you reading this thread?

 

[Darrell Andersen]

I canna take it no more...

Jesus, man.

Let it go already, or at least take it private. All the people that can actually make any headway with your vision of what MMP should be or do actually have easily accessible emails and/or can be easily PM'd on these forums.

They are doing their best, let them do it. IMO, your complaints CAN'T help get us the product that we all want any faster.

Note that I am not judging the quality of your arguments but your non stop complaining about, hyper critiquing and uber second guessing of every decision, move and statement by anyone from MMP has worn it's course and is now actually DETRACTING from the value of your arguments.

YMMV.

 

[Portal]

Actually, I was just looking for a brief discussion with Chas about some points he was making. I took it public because I wanted anyone who had anything on-topic to add to post what they wanted to say. I wasn't looking for "Portal, stop talking about MMP" posts.

I started a new thread because we were off-topic in the HOB thread as it was.

 

[Vinnie]

MrP,

You saw my handle attached to "MMP" in a thread title. Why exactly are you reading this thread?

It's like a moth to a flame...he's been away "down under" for 3 weeks and just can't leave it.

 

[Darrell Andersen]

"I wasn't looking for "Portal, stop talking about MMP" posts"

But that is what you got and it is for a reason. You have been making the same point(s) for months and it is tiresome. I'd be very surprised if I am alone in that opinion.

Good luck with the quest Quixote, I've read this book before.

 

[MrP]

flutter flutter. Bzzzzzzzt. Aaaagh.

Playing Friday night Mr Vicca?

More to the point is why the hell do you keep going on and on and on?

 

[soggycrow]

Don't Forget to Vote



If you're reading this don't forget to vote on the thread. It's the least you can do.

 

[Psycho]

Just don't f*cking start again.
The horse is dead, I repeat, dead. D-E-A-D. Dead. Defunct. No longer living. Shuffled off this mortal coil.
Please.

You can hope for this:

but it always comes back

 

[Jazz]

I wasn't looking for "Portal, stop talking about MMP" posts.

.

If that's the case, you're not a particularly good judge of human nature I'm afraid. That, or you really haven't been paying much attention, 'cause that is exactly the response that most, if not all, of your posts about MMP in any context seem to elicit.

<shrug>

 

[SamB]

If you're reading this don't forget to vote on the thread. It's the least you can do.

That and negative rep for the originator.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

portal, stop making MMP posts

MMP is not making a contractual obligation, yes. However, for every game which languishes on the P# list after it hits P# (Devil's Cauldron being another great example),

Actually, as most people know, TDC is a terrible example since it was in no shape (and apparently, still isn't) to be be printed when/if it hit its target.

MMPs culpability lay in putting the game up for preorder in such a raw state, one they have not repeated since.

 

[Psycho]

If that's the case, you're not a particularly good judge of human nature I'm afraid.

That, or you really haven't been paying much attention,

The messages aren't making it through the tinfoil hat

'cause that is exactly the response that most, if not all, of your posts about MMP in any context seem to elicit.

<shrug>

You'd think he'd get it by now but obviously not.

He wants to be able to

and how dare we give our opinions (which are wrong of course).

 

[Jazz]

That and negative rep for the originator.

Oh Sam, negative rep is so tacky, not to mention a cheap shot....just say "NO" to negative rep....

 

[Bret Hildebran]

Catch 22

Actually, as most people know, TDC is a terrible example since it was in no shape (and apparently, still isn't) to be be printed when/if it hit its target.

MMPs culpability lay in putting the game up for preorder in such a raw state, one they have not repeated since.

'Course couldn't you argue that scenario is the perfect one to exercise a P# on? Beyond the printing investments, there are significant development investments, in time if nothing else, to take a "raw" game and make it publishable. If The Devil's Cauldron wouldn't sell (i.e. hit its P#), better to know now than after MMP invested a lot of time developing an unsaleable game.

'Course it upsets anyone that pre-ordered that it takes forever to publish. Kind of a Catch 22 for MMP.

 

[Portal]

I recognize MMP's dilemma. My proposed solution would be to be 100% clear, in the P# product description itself, that the product will not be close to completion once the P# is hit, and then use more professional product release scheduling to post a reasonably accurate timeframe of when this work will be completed and the product will come to market.

Professional companies are able to schedule their product releases reasonably accurately. Don't forget we, as ASL customers, are being asked to hold MMP at a higher standard than a "garage-op".

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

'Course couldn't you argue that scenario is the perfect one to exercise a P# on? Beyond the printing investments, there are significant development investments, in time if nothing else, to take a "raw" game and make it publishable. If The Devil's Cauldron wouldn't sell (i.e. hit its P#), better to know now than after MMP invested a lot of time developing an unsaleable game.

'Course it upsets anyone that pre-ordered that it takes forever to publish. Kind of a Catch 22 for MMP.

perhaps, though the double standard that'd exist with the efficiency of The Gamers line would infuriate many....oh, wait...:cheeky:

personally, despite the reception of AVL and FitS, any Starkweather game makes me leery; RSR had/has issues that should have been addressed in the playtest/development stage, such as rules changes "...been mulling for awhile..." being made after the game shipped, poor translation, excuses, not mea culpas for mistakes, a tendency for form over function...BV2, a much anticipated redux of a popular CWB game has miscarried from a 3BoM-style treatment to a Frankenstein-esque bolting on of another game system onto the much lauded CWB system-with little involvement from the rabid CWB crowd, indeed, we are seemingly an inconvenience to a megolomaniacal 'developer' who thinks he is 'reviving' CWB instead of slaying it.

(oops, did I say that out loud?)

 

[jwb3]

You saw my handle attached to "MMP" in a thread title. Why exactly are you reading this thread?

Because I saw the word "obligations", which is so often used in conjunction with the word "contractual" these days that I thought the thread might actually contain some new info about that subject.

It was only after that, as I noted that your handle was attached, that my heart sank and I told myself "Wonder what contractual obligation he's going to be yammering on about this time..."

Given that you've already stated that you're not talking about a contractual obligation, there is nothing new here after all -- and I shall be exiting the thread post-haste as soon as I finish *****ing at you. :angry:

If you're reading this don't forget to vote on the thread. It's the least you can do.

Only problem is, I don't know whether I should rate it one star for the original topic, or five stars for the "Give it a rest already" responses.

That and negative rep for the originator.

Neg rep!?! :huff'n'puff: Nobody uses neg rep!!! That's a terrible suggestion! Why, I oughta-- I oughta-- I oughta neg rep you for that one! :hissyfit::clown:


John

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

..<boring, repetitive drivel snipped>

i'm noticing you have an OCD compulsion to label everything...