EA Forums - Banner

Debate--bring back limited time items

Replies

  • Mjr1124
    654 posts
    edited June 2013
    You can't just make up a meaning for a word and claim its an opinion. If the Christmas event lasts for 2 months a year and they bring back items from the previous event, you could definitely call them seasonal. However, the fact that this season lasts 2 months and the fact that these items are only available for 2 months, even if it is every year, is still, by its very definition, limited. You are limited to only being able to get seasonal items 2 months out of the year, the definition of these words not an "opinion". All seasonal items fit the very definition of the word limited, but not all limited items would necessarily be seasonal.
  • FluidEmotion
    605 posts
    edited June 2013
    @sherryt07: I have read every post in this thread, but right now, I feel you are just being difficult. I don't know why, mayhaps you are very fond of discussing semantics. Perhaps you have studied philosophy and feel a need to discuss every keyterm used in a debate. Anyway, I think both sides in this discussion has gotten their points out in the open. I'm not even sure which side of the debate you are on anymore, but perhaps that was your goal, just messing around a bit for the fun of it.

    It seems there are some long-term players in this game that identify themselves as hardcore by having all the items so far, and presumably their world would fall apart if other players, espescially new ones, were given a chance to buy those items too. Seemingly they are unconcerned about the fact that if EA earns more money on this game, they will add even more new content. When it comes to the point, we'll only have to wait and see, but I for one, am quite confident EA will re-release atleast some, possibly a lot, of the previous limited time items. Seems we'll just have to wait and see. But it's still interesting that there are so many people against a possible re-release...
  • sherryt07
    3273 posts Member
    edited June 2013
    I want the duff racer. :mrgreen:
  • wolfman905
    35 posts
    edited June 2013
    I'm against bringing back limited time items. U missed it? Too bad :twisted:
    **rides off into the sunset on his duff racer**
  • blhoobler
    25 posts
    edited June 2013
    Internet epeen is the most ridiculous thing. You are not special for having a pixelated car, you are not special for logging in and paying money for fictious stuff. The bottom line is that EA. is as greedy as a company comes and they will make money anyway they can. I'm certain old items will pop back up. There is no reason for people to cry about others getting items that they want. And yet they will....
  • srmk64210
    32 posts
    edited June 2013
    I think that re-releasing the content is fine and I have all the premium items.

    If someone can explain how a new player gaining access to limited content ruins the game experience for a player that already has that content I'd love to hear it.

    Honestly, what difference does it make if people you probably don't know can get Kang or the Mapple Store in late 2013? Is your game experience based that much on feeling superior to other players that just got on board?

    Summed up my thoughts perfectly. Why punish people? Never even heard of it until recently.

    And why do people think they need a special reward for playing a game they like longer than me? It's like a fat guy wanting a kiss on the forehead for eating ice cream longer than I have.
  • am4692
    2253 posts New member
    edited June 2013
    Limited means limited, as much as I want the 2 items I missed it would ruin the limited items I have and render them meaningless.
  • antpants7
    375 posts Member
    edited June 2013
    Another chance to get the Swanky Fish would be good.

    But Brown House/Duff Racer were episode tie-ins - they are not relevant anymore.
  • DIrishB
    613 posts Member
    edited June 2013
    sherryt07 wrote:
    DIrishB wrote:
    This is like the 400th time I've said this, but Limited Time is not the same as One Time Only. By re-releasing old LT items again for a limited amount of time, it still falls under the category of Limited Time while giving newer players (latecomers on iDevices and Android players who never had the chance to get this stuff in the first place) the ability to purchase it--waitforit--for a LIMITED TIME. Then it's gone again. Occasionally, perhaps once a year or every six months, they can do it again.

    Now your argument is that you'll feel sleighted because you rushed to buy those items originally thinking they'd never come back. Fair enough, and I could almost understand that if it affected your game in some way...but it doesn't. It merely allows others to add to their towns. Again, I have every single item the game has offered, regular, premium, or limited time, but would still love to see newer players offered the chance to obtain the stuff if they're willing to spend the money (which is probably a smaller portion of the game playing audience than either of us realize). By charging donuts for the previously released LT stuff that was free for the early players, you still win in that you got it free. The other donut LT stuff shouldn't be that big a deal considering the previous statement.

    I'm just blown away at how many people would prefer NOT to allow other gamers to get that stuff (for a price). It's just...strange. It also affords EA a way of increasing profits without having to do additional work (since those items already exist in the code and merely need to be unlocked for purchase at occasional times). This increased profit allows for the possibility and in fact likely outcome of more content for the game, as EA will obviously devote more resources to a game that profitable. It really is a win-win situation for everyone but the egos of the elitists.

    Did you actually read my posts, or did you just assume this because I was arguing??? I want to know where I said I prefer to not allow other players get limited time items. The only problem I SAID I had was with EA using the term limited. Maybe I'm wrong in my opinion, but you are wrong in attributing these ulterior motives to me. BTW, I don't have everything yet, so my game would profit from bringing things back.

    First off, I read the posts you made in the past few pages, no I didn't decide to go back and find every post you made in the thread. Secondly, you're harping on me for making assumptions, and maybe I deserve that to some degree, but your posts certainly leaned in that direction, especially in regards to complaining that you'd be angry since by the Limited Time moniker you felt the need to spend money at that time on donuts to purchase those LT items. Surprise, their marketing plan worked! Thirdly, you keep insisting that Limited Time means limited time, which we all understand, but once again, it doesn't mean One Time Only, which you don't seem to understand. If they re-release Limited Time items again for another set, limited amount of time, the name/definition still applies. Seasonal Items would work for the Seasonal/Holiday stuff, but not for the majority of the LT items.

    And finally, since you seem so intent on arguing aspects of semantics, I have no further interest in the debate. Ive stated my point repeatedly, and for you to ask "did you actually read my posts" is more than a little hypocritical considering I've made those same points to you specifically more than several times.
    am4692 wrote:
    Limited means limited, as much as I want the 2 items I missed it would ruin the limited items I have and render them meaningless.

    So "in your opinion" (for Sherry's sake) you equate Limited as being One Time Only? Even though that isn't a necessarily applicable case? It can be, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but Limited Time items can be released again for set limited amounts of time and still be classified as Limited. Jesus I keep pointing this out and people keep making the same argument back. It's official, we're at an impasse. Just realize EA in all likliehood will re-release LT stuff from time to time if they see the potential for profit...and let's be completely realistic, they always see a chance for profit.

    antpants7 wrote:
    Another chance to get the Swanky Fish would be good.

    But Brown House/Duff Racer were episode tie-ins - they are not relevant anymore.

    They're relevant to the people who don't have them and want them. And I would argue that to the players who want them, it's not so much the tie in episode and the items' relevance to those that makes them wanted, but an attempt to have as "complete" and varied a Springfield as possible.
  • HomerSwapMeet
    726 posts
    edited June 2013
    HOMER-BUSH-GIF-1323370404.gif
  • chelsea0790
    407 posts
    edited June 2013
    Put it this way.. the holiday tree was a limited time item, the halloween trees and pumpkins were limited

    There is NO WAY the game will continue to have halloween and christmas without these items

    So, of course the seasonal content will return each year, it's a no brainer!

    Maybe not every single item, and probably never for the episode tie ins. But I am certain most, if not all of the seasonal content will be around every year :mrgreen:

    Remember folks, it's not christmas without a 'holiday tree'. They will return!
  • FluidEmotion
    605 posts
    edited June 2013
    DIrishB wrote:
    sherryt07 wrote:
    DIrishB wrote:
    This is like the 400th time I've said this, but Limited Time is not the same as One Time Only. By re-releasing old LT items again for a limited amount of time, it still falls under the category of Limited Time while giving newer players (latecomers on iDevices and Android players who never had the chance to get this stuff in the first place) the ability to purchase it--waitforit--for a LIMITED TIME. Then it's gone again. Occasionally, perhaps once a year or every six months, they can do it again.

    Now your argument is that you'll feel sleighted because you rushed to buy those items originally thinking they'd never come back. Fair enough, and I could almost understand that if it affected your game in some way...but it doesn't. It merely allows others to add to their towns. Again, I have every single item the game has offered, regular, premium, or limited time, but would still love to see newer players offered the chance to obtain the stuff if they're willing to spend the money (which is probably a smaller portion of the game playing audience than either of us realize). By charging donuts for the previously released LT stuff that was free for the early players, you still win in that you got it free. The other donut LT stuff shouldn't be that big a deal considering the previous statement.

    I'm just blown away at how many people would prefer NOT to allow other gamers to get that stuff (for a price). It's just...strange. It also affords EA a way of increasing profits without having to do additional work (since those items already exist in the code and merely need to be unlocked for purchase at occasional times). This increased profit allows for the possibility and in fact likely outcome of more content for the game, as EA will obviously devote more resources to a game that profitable. It really is a win-win situation for everyone but the egos of the elitists.

    Did you actually read my posts, or did you just assume this because I was arguing??? I want to know where I said I prefer to not allow other players get limited time items. The only problem I SAID I had was with EA using the term limited. Maybe I'm wrong in my opinion, but you are wrong in attributing these ulterior motives to me. BTW, I don't have everything yet, so my game would profit from bringing things back.

    First off, I read the posts you made in the past few pages, no I didn't decide to go back and find every post you made in the thread. Secondly, you're harping on me for making assumptions, and maybe I deserve that to some degree, but your posts certainly leaned in that direction, especially in regards to complaining that you'd be angry since by the Limited Time moniker you felt the need to spend money at that time on donuts to purchase those LT items. Surprise, their marketing plan worked! Thirdly, you keep insisting that Limited Time means limited time, which we all understand, but once again, it doesn't mean One Time Only, which you don't seem to understand. If they re-release Limited Time items again for another set, limited amount of time, the name/definition still applies. Seasonal Items would work for the Seasonal/Holiday stuff, but not for the majority of the LT items.

    And finally, since you seem so intent on arguing aspects of semantics, I have no further interest in the debate. Ive stated my point repeatedly, and for you to ask "did you actually read my posts" is more than a little hypocritical considering I've made those same points to you specifically more than several times.
    am4692 wrote:
    Limited means limited, as much as I want the 2 items I missed it would ruin the limited items I have and render them meaningless.

    So "in your opinion" (for Sherry's sake) you equate Limited as being One Time Only? Even though that isn't a necessarily applicable case? It can be, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but Limited Time items can be released again for set limited amounts of time and still be classified as Limited. Jesus I keep pointing this out and people keep making the same argument back. It's official, we're at an impasse. Just realize EA in all likliehood will re-release LT stuff from time to time if they see the potential for profit...and let's be completely realistic, they always see a chance for profit.

    antpants7 wrote:
    Another chance to get the Swanky Fish would be good.

    But Brown House/Duff Racer were episode tie-ins - they are not relevant anymore.

    They're relevant to the people who don't have them and want them. And I would argue that to the players who want them, it's not so much the tie in episode and the items' relevance to those that makes them wanted, but an attempt to have as "complete" and varied a Springfield as possible.

    Great post DIrishB. I hope people will bother taking the time to read your and excruciator69's posts before they once again say something about "limited time means limited time"... Like there is someone arguing about that. I am actually astounded that people seem to think that limited time equals one-time only... This is a marketing ploy and it is used by a lot of companies around the world. Certainly the people who have lived for a while should have encountered this is in some way. (And experienced that this item/candyflavour/"food"/offer returns somewhile later).

    It all boils down to supply and demand. If what was a limited time offer was popular, and the demand is deemed high enough, that offer will most probably return someday in the future.
  • utrolia
    138 posts Member
    edited June 2013
    I was at the hospital the day they introduced Burns Batman into the game.. Somehow got the batman sign lamp. But never the costume.. Sucks so much :( Especially since I have EVERYTHING in the game... Even all the donut items.. Been playing since the very beginning.
  • sherryt07
    3273 posts Member
    edited June 2013
    Get a room boys, and you can take your mutual admiration to a new level. :twisted: :mrgreen: :twisted:
  • DIrishB
    613 posts Member
    edited June 2013
    sherryt07 wrote:
    Get a room boys, and you can take your mutual admiration to a new level. :twisted: :mrgreen: :twisted:

    I'm tempted to suggest the same to you and that dictionary you keep quoting from...incorrectly.

    Sorry, had to do it. ;)
  • sherryt07
    3273 posts Member
    edited June 2013
    DIrishB wrote:
    sherryt07 wrote:
    Get a room boys, and you can take your mutual admiration to a new level. :twisted: :mrgreen: :twisted:

    I'm tempted to suggest the same to you and that dictionary you keep quoting from...incorrectly.

    Sorry, had to do it. ;)

    Twice. I've posted from a dictionary twice. And you guys jumped on the definition of limited, but glossed over the definition of opinion.

    I'm done. This doesn't seem to be a debate anymore.
  • FluidEmotion
    605 posts
    edited June 2013
    sherryt07 wrote:
    Twice. I've posted from a dictionary twice. And you guys jumped on the definition of limited, but glossed over the definition of opinion.

    I'm done. This doesn't seem to be a debate anymore.

    Now I don't like the way you are "debating". Seeming a victim and then you suddenly decide when the "debate" is "over". In my language we have a word for that kind of behaviour in a debate. It's called a "ruling technique", and it's a way to hassle your fellow debatees (if this is even an English word).

    Anyway, if you don't want to be a part of a debate, that is pretty simple to avoid. As long as you write in this thread, you would possibly get replies.

    This topic has been outdebated now I think, but come next time there is a hot topic, perhaps I'll be on your side for that one ;) (Hope you don't have any bad feelings from being in this one).

    But now I think it's time that I take DIrishB and Excruciator69 with me to a room, I guess we just might pick up a "motherless" dictionary along the way, and have a wordfeudparty or something like that...
  • sherryt07
    3273 posts Member
    edited June 2013
    sherryt07 wrote:
    Twice. I've posted from a dictionary twice. And you guys jumped on the definition of limited, but glossed over the definition of opinion.

    I'm done. This doesn't seem to be a debate anymore.

    Now I don't like the way you are "debating". Seeming a victim and then you suddenly decide when the "debate" is "over".In my language we have a word for that kind of behaviour in a debate. It's called a "ruling technique", and it's a way to hassle your fellow debatees (if this is even an English word).

    Anyway, if you don't want to be a part of a debate, that is pretty simple to avoid. As long as you write in this thread, you would possibly get replies.

    This topic has been outdebated now I think, but come next time there is a hot topic, perhaps I'll be on your side for that one ;) (Hope you don't have any bad feelings from being in this one).

    But now I think it's time that I take DIrishB and Excruciator69 with me to a room, I guess we just might pick up a "motherless" dictionary along the way, and have a wordfeudparty or something like that...

    I'm pretty sure the part I have hi-lighted in red is what's called an opinion. It's yours and its right for you because it's from your perspective. My opinion is that I am not playing a victim; and from my perspective I am right. I don't know where you get the "ruling technique", except maybe you've been waiting and looking for some reason to post it. Obviously the debate isn't over, you're still posting. So am I, so my "done" thing wasn't quite accurate. But it was me just stating "I" personally no longer see the need to post, not trying to end the debate. I know I couldn't anyway, you guys have taken up residence here.
  • Excruciator69
    697 posts
    edited June 2013
    sherryt07 wrote:
    Maybe I just want to argue, and thank you Excruciator69 for being up for the challenge. Is the 69 is the year you were born? If so, we have something in common. :D

    Thanks for chatting with me!

    No, not the year I was born. A bit later. I am still a member of Generation X-Wing.

    A much younger me tagged on the 69 because that number is just so funny. I regret it now. :(
  • Excruciator69
    697 posts
    edited June 2013
    am4692 wrote:
    Limited means limited, as much as I want the 2 items I missed it would ruin the limited items I have and render them meaningless.

    Someone didn't read the thread and missed The McRib™ Rationale. A slam-dunk argument. Also, a potential title for a Big Bang Theory episode when corporate sponsorship overtakes the writing room at major networks.

    Someone also failed to explain how it "renders them meaningless" which was one of the first challenges.
This discussion has been closed.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.