Pre-Order: F-14D Super Tomcat

Official News, Development Blogs and Updates
3164

Smin or Grom, at this point I don’t really care who’s answering back to me, but one thing I know for sure is that refunds have been previously made before for vehicles that were corrected due to errors on Gaijin’s end.

The M60A1 D.C. Ariete incident from many years ago was at BR 8.3 with a stabiliser, and the selling point of that tank was the stabiliser itself. The vehicle was then nerfed by removing the stabiliser and dropping the BR down to 7.7, but as far as I remembered, refunds were optionally given to people who intended not to keep the vehicle or bought it for the stabiliser as promised before.

Fast forward to today, and we are in a similar albeit different situation. The F-14D was being told by a member of the store team (which btw is still classed as a Developer on the forums) that it will only be exclusive as a premium vehicle because it is “virtually identical” to the F-14B, yet we are getting another broken “promise” in that sense since it has been backtracked and will be added WITH a tech tree variant.

All in all the TLDR is that I am purely asking for Gaijin to open up the possibility of a refund for users who have decided that they have been, in some capacity, deceived that the F-14D would be a premium exclusive, only for that statement to no longer hold going forward.

1 Like
3165

Am I wrong that Premiums are “pay to progress” not “pay to win”, the Premium F-14D still has it’s premium bonuses dose it not? I fail to see the issue.

3166

Read my pointer here instead.

3167

There has been no portrayal as such. My comments were regarding the frankly unacceptable insults and remarks made by some (nobody said all). A sample of which you can find on Reddit, posted by some here who have already shared their views.

3168

I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that Gaijin explicitly promised there would never be a Tech Tree F-14D. That is not the issue.

The issue is the context in which the premium was sold and the information available to players when they made the purchase.

When the F-14D was introduced as an $80 premium, players were told why a Tech Tree version was not planned. That naturally affected purchasing decisions. For someone who specifically wanted an F-14D, the practical choice at that moment was: buy the premium, or don’t have an F-14D.

Now, only a short time later, an almost identical Tech Tree version is being introduced.

You can say that plans changed because of feedback, and I’m perfectly willing to believe that. In fact, responding to player feedback is a good thing.

But that does not make the criticism disappear.

If community requests for a Tech Tree F-14D were already substantial before and during the premium’s release, then surely the possibility of reconsidering that decision was foreseeable. At the very least, that uncertainty could have been communicated more clearly to people being asked to spend $80.

Something as simple as:

«“There is currently no Tech Tree F-14D planned, but this may be reconsidered depending on player feedback.”»

would have given buyers a much clearer understanding of the situation.

Instead, the premium was released under the justification that a Tech Tree version was not planned, people purchased it under those circumstances, and shortly afterward that position changed.

Again: changing plans is not the problem.

The problem is that when those changing plans directly affect the perceived value of an $80 purchase, transparency matters considerably more.

And the “we stopped publishing planned vehicle trees because people accuse us of lying when plans change” argument does not really address this situation either. Nobody is asking for every future vehicle to be guaranteed years in advance. We are talking about a premium product that had just been sold specifically in the context of there being no planned Tech Tree equivalent.

There is also an important difference between:

“Plans can always change.”

and

“Customers should reasonably expect that the main selling proposition of an $80 premium might change almost immediately after release.”

Those are not the same thing.

I’m actually glad that player feedback resulted in a Tech Tree F-14D. I think it belongs there.

But you cannot use “we listened to feedback” as though that automatically invalidates criticism about how the premium was marketed beforehand.

Both things can be true:

Adding the Tech Tree F-14D was the right decision.

The way the premium F-14D was handled before that decision was poor communication.

6 Likes
3169

These were due to drastic changes to the gameplay or capability of the vehicles, such as M60 stabilization etc. A refund was not provided, but a 30% discount for the OF-40 MTCA.

No such drastic change has been made to the F-14D premium. It remains as it was, with all the same capabilities, rank and pack bonuses as before.

1 Like
3170

The unfortunate reality of this however is at the time, there were no plans. Had I or someone else said this, only for it not to come true, a different set of people would be here now saying I (or whoever posted that response) gave false hope / promises / lied to them about a reality that didnt happen and we simply “ignored feedback”.

In reality the opposite has happened here and we have actioned the feedback given to introduce a tree version at the next possible point.

3171

And I understand that, but I think this is exactly where we’re talking past each other.
I’m not accusing you personally (or any dev) of lying, nor am I saying Gaijin should have promised a Tech Tree F-14D when there genuinely were no plans for one.
I fully accept that there were no plans at the time, feedback continued, that feedback was reconsidered, and the decision changed. That’s actually a positive example of listening to the community.
The problem is that this explanation only addresses why Gaijin changed its mind. It doesn’t address the effect that sequence had on people who bought the premium.

2 Likes
3172

Once again, Nobody is invalidating any criticism or feedback of any kind.

Please check again what I said.

I was speaking specifically about the unjustified insults hurled at staff and devs. Which are not acceptable. Not about constructive criticism, which is always welcome.

3173

Correct.

Players are paying to skip the tech tree grind and immediately get a fully spaded, premium bonus F14D. Nothing is lost for people who brought it (other then braincells from playing 13.0-14.0 matchmaker)

The F14D (whatever the new name for the tech tree version will have) is great, as people who didnt have $80 to spend on the F14D / already have the tree researched, will now get access too the F14D, and people who wanted to buy it will retain access as they had before. I don’t see why people are complaining

3174

Even if other players requested it, I don’t recall Gaijin ever releasing an identical copy-paste of a premium vehicle into the tech tree with the exact same specifications just a couple of months later. Historically, premiums came after the tech tree version, or there was at least some difference in performance.

Many players argued that the F-14D should have been a tech tree vehicle in the first place, rather than a premium pack. Please don’t frame it as if the majority simply wanted an identical copy-paste added to the tech tree right after. The feedback you mentioned doesn’t reflect the entirety of the player base either. When submitting feedback, players might have asked for a tech tree F-14D, but very few would have demanded the outright removal of the premium or asked for it to be converted into a tech tree vehicle—simply because everyone knows Gaijin would never accept such requests. Even if there was feedback asking for a tech tree version, the opposing perspective from those who already bought the pack was completely ignored.

Releasing an identical copy of a popular premium aircraft into the tech tree just two months later, without even considering the opposing perspective, is undeniably misleading to paying customers. There were plenty of ways to gauge community sentiment properly, such as running a survey or creating an official poll, but instead, you are simply using “many players requested it” as an excuse to defend that misleading outcome.

The end result is clear: several players were directly misled and negatively affected by Gromvoiny’s official statement. That’s why I think Gaijin needs to apologize.

Nobody is defending toxic insults, but the community is raising legitimate concerns.

1 Like
3175

There almost was one other case, the JA37Di, which was initially prem but a TT version was added shortly after during dev server.

1 Like
3176

I don’t think the solution is to remove or delay the Tech Tree F-14D.

That would just punish everyone who asked for it.

A better solution would be to acknowledge that the purchasing context changed very quickly and give the premium version a stronger identity.

Make the premium and Tech Tree F-14Ds meaningfully different configurations, address the outstanding F-14D bug reports, and perhaps give existing premium owners some form of compensation or additional exclusive content.

Nobody needs a refund because a plan changed, but some acknowledgement would go a long way.

The worst outcome would be making the Tech Tree version worse just to preserve the premium’s value.

The better approach is to make both aircraft worth having for different reasons. Not just "exclusive skins’

Remember that lots of people bought the plane not for premium bonuses, but for exclusivity.

3177

In this case, the planned tree version was originally the F-14B. Which had the same general capabilities as the premium, which is why it was considered a sidegrade. However we have now included the F-14D.

There isnt a set rule that a premium must come before or after a TT version.

I am not attempting to frame anything. Several of the larger topics suggested exactly that: https://forum.warthunder.com/t/poll-f-14d-should-be-a-tech-tree-addition-to-the-us-aviation-tree/330934?page=11

Which is exactly what we are implementing.

3178

OK, but you still have a premium F-14D… it’s not like the TML/XC-8 (that I was refused a refund for BTW) there there is a major change to what you bought, you still have exactly what you paid for, a Premium F-14D, with all the SL/RP gains that come with it.

@Smin1080p_WT seems like the TT version needs those

so it’s not “identical”… Hint, hint…
Personally I see this as a win… I do not get the" Gaijin never listens to player feed back"…
OMG GAIJIN LISTENT TO PLAYERS BURN IT ALL mentality…
I have made my stance on the issue very clear from the get go:

1 Like
3179

Right and I get that the circumstances here is quite different as well, but the only reason I said it’s also kind of similar is the way it was sold to the users. The M60 was sold with the premise that it has a stabiliser, only for it to be backtracked. The F-14D likewise was also sold with the premise that a TT version wouldn’t come, only for it to also be backtracked. Different circumstances, similar methodology in that sense.

Again I’m only merely proposing looking into the possibility of offering refunds for users who decided that they were in a way “overpromised” for something and was then rug pulled from under.

3180

And that Grom replied with “There are no plans for this.”

That is. Players saw that official dev response in that exact topic, concluded a tech tree F-14D was out of the question, and made the purchase based on that statement. Linking that thread only reinforces that players were given official confirmation that it wouldn’t happen, only for it to be added two months later.

There doesn’t need to be a formal “rule” about release order for this to be a breach of consumer trust. When official statements shut down the possibility of a tech tree version, people spend money based on that confirmation. Overturning it immediately afterward without acknowledging the misleading effect on paying customers is what remains the issue here.

1 Like
3181

Right but my point is that some people bought it with the idea that they couldn’t get a jet that they loved for free, and had to buy it, only for that to become a false theory 3 months later.

That circumstances is far different from the M60 situation. It was precisely because of the M60 situation that they have instead opted to upgrade the vehicle with the correct features (and extras, if any) rather than downgrading the vehicle into something worse. The TML was advertised with a stabiliser and thermals, so instead of downgrading it without stabiliser and thermals and having another M60 situation the devs opted to upgrade it to the XC8 version with better thermals and reload rate.

3182

And up tiered it to a BR that was useless to me, the XC8 is worthless trash sitting un played at a BR far from where I have any line up.
The F-14D is still EXACTLY the plane you paid for, the XC8 is a completely different and worthless vehicle to me compared to the one I paid for. If I don’t get a refund for something Gaijin rendered completely un playable and worthless for me, I don’t see why people who got EXACTLY what they paid for should get their money back.

3183

While it might be useless to you, it is still a general upgrade over the TML and many people welcomed that change. Plus it retained all the promised features of thermals and gun stabiliser.

And I’ve also made the argument that the premium F-14D is a very different scenario compared to what we have had in the past, but this is really down to the store team/developer’s fault for making an offhand statement in which it was treated as official because of his position as a store team member/developer. Gaijin is still responsible for what they say in a public forum and anything they say can be used against them in an argumentative discussion.

Had there not been a statement by grom that the F-14D would exclusively be a premium vehicle, this wouldn’t have been a huge issue, but it is precisely because they have said it as an offhand remark that there will not be a researchable tech tree variant that has misled people into believing a tech tree variant was never going to come in any capacity.

Your circumstances are more of a personal opinion, the features of the CV90105 was still delivered as promised. The F-14D was an unfortunate incident of poor communications and lack of firm standing that has resulted into the argument that is currently being made.