Biggs datacron

"StarSon;c-2462875" wrote:


Also, while we're talking precedent, CG has never really cared about invalidating player investment so not sure why people expect them to start caring now.

Nah, there's been times when they've issued refunds or make-goods specifically because they do respect player investment. Even if that hadn't ever been the case though, I don't think it's out of bounds to think they should - whether they do or not in any given situation is really anyone's guess.

I'm in a strange situation here - I'm usually in the other camp on the issue of make goods. Feels weird - but it's a rare situation where the impact to the player is significant, and the impact of a make good is at or near 0 to any metric that CG could possibly care about (assuming the make-good was restricted to datacron materials).

Regardless - I'm not crying about it - I really don't care. I would probably care if I'd have taken Biggs to R5. But to me it doesn't make sense for CG to NOT do a make-good. 0 impact on the game economy and a 0 cost 'spoon full of sugar' if you will. I can think of lots of reasons for them to do it - and no reasons not to.