Yewstance

This has been brought up before, and is explicit in the rules of the board game (and, I believe, covered in the rulebook of the digital version too). If you have used an ability of a card for a given check, then you cannot use that card, or any other cards of its type (Unless stated otherwise; See Belt of Dexterity, etc) a second time during the same check. Since taking damage is a part of the same check as your combat roll; if you've used Snakeskin Tunic for a +1 Dexterity to combat you will not also be able to use it (or another armor) to prevent damage. If you never used any armor ability to modify the check, and it still didn't let you reduce damage, then that is a bug.

I have barely played since the patch, but in case it hasn't changed... Try to play a spell that has the 'lock' symbol on it. Click it, drag it, whatever, and the check to see whether you can play an attack spell will popup and you may complete the check. Defeating it should remove the lock symbols. In other words, in these encounters the spells all show up as locked until you attempt to play them - the lock is more of a warning that you'll have to do a check, rather than a prevention. This was likely to prevent player frustration from either having to make checks that weren't relevant ("I was going to use a weapon anyway!") or making misplays ("Ah shoot I forgot I'd have to make an extra check. If I'd have known that I would have checked to see if the rest of the party had a blessing to help me first!"). If it doesn't let you play a 'locked' spell through any means (drag, click, zoom-and-click), then it's certainly a bug.

Can't access the link right now, and this should probably be in the Technical Discussion threads, but a couple of notes. 1. Bugs are entirely possible. The Summon Monster situation you described in particular seems bugged. 2. If you have used an armour to adjust the combat check (like "Reveal this to add 1 to your dexterity check"), you cannot use the effect of an armour to block damage, because you have already used an armour for the check. "One card type per check" rule comes into play there. Just making sure that's not the problem here.

A couple more notes regarding Treasure Chests: 1. Treasure chests are never a reward. They are only purchased (via real-world currency or in-game gold), or given out by promo codes or other specific purchases. There are specific exceptions, like when they removed Quest Mode and they gave out some chests. 2. Treasure chest cards are not from the original Rise of the Runelords set/game, and are largely made of cards from other sets of the card game and some exclusive digital cards (I think). So if you want to emulate the experience of the board game as closely as possible you would play without them. 3. The recent 'Stash' that was introduced with the PC version allowed you to instantly throw treasure cards found from Treasure Chests into your character decks (via the stash) rather than mixing them into the properly-numbered adventures/scenarios. This lets you use boons that are strong enough to be from decks 5 or 6 from the very beginning, if you're lucky with what you open. Which makes the game a lot easier, and makes 'searching for better cards' next to irrelevant, dramatically changing the strategy of gameplay. I believe cards that were simply given as part of the Obsidian/PC editions have to be found in scenarios as normal, so they don't really interfere with the strategy, besides deviating from the balance of the board game a bit. "Balance" can be debated back and forth here, but the important thing is that Treasure cards do not emulate the original board game. If you just want a greater variety of cards to acquire; by all means, keep them on. As for the feeling of 'progression', of getting more, then the Treasure Chests kind of (sort of) allow that, but they also break the balance quite a bit because of the Stash letting you auto-equip them. Personally, I'm not a fan of the Obsidian Edition... but I'm against the Stash as well, and a whole suite of other changes made with the PC release, so I'm probably not the best person to ask some of these things with.

The problem is undoubtedly the back-end consistency held for your account. They track your progress in the cloud in order to keep it consistent between the mobile and PC versions - a refund on Steam wouldn't cause them to un-do that (if they even have the ability to track at that precision to undo exactly and exclusively what you were granted). It also seems a very easy exploit, should they not delete someone's account in retaliation, to 'buy' everything in the mobile version by buying the Obsidian Edition on Steam, then refunding it. And you are most certainly correct that the Obsidian Edition is implicitly a much easier game, due to the huge capability for filling your starting decks with ludicrously powerful cards from the stash (And that some character alts are statistically better than their normal versions)... I'm just not sure if it can be un-done, I'm afraid. EDIT: As Parody pointed out, though, you can mimic the same effects/difficulty by turning off Treasure Cards from the options menu. Your choice whether to use the character alts or not. They're *mostly* balanced, just tend to favor one of two specific role cards for a character.

Issue has existed since before the latest patches, and was one of the (many) bugs I noted in my multi-bug report thread about a month ago. Seems to get worse in long campaigns, but Seelah is most prone to it from early on.

Yes, this problem already exists and has been reported for past patches. Cape of Escape was where I most frequently encountered the problem, personally. Disappointing to see that it doesn't seem to have been fixed in the latest patch, despite the age and impact (rendering many cards dramatically weaker) of the issue.

So... Okay, I've been thinking quite a lot about this, so prepare for a kind of long post. My apologies. I have refrained from actually making a thread or post to state my personal opinion on these matters, for a number of reasons (partially that I was waiting for further communication from Obsidian on a number of questions I'd already raised), but it seems relevant to the here and now to add my two cents. Or, in this case, twenty cents. First, I would like to state that my opinion may have changed since previous posts on these forums. These are my opinions as they currently stand now, after reflection and consideration. Buy-in to PC, and the shift in business philosophy I agree with the original post in some regards, but I am also highly sympathetic to the position Obsidian is in. Currently, an active buy-in is, quite likely, going to be more financially viable, serve the game as a sales platform better (by removing the ability to grind for content that a lot of development time is put into for a relatively niche game), and also treat its reviews and user response on Steam more highly. I have personally seen that Free-to-Play games often get a very bad rap on Steam, the single best example I can think of being Hex. (For context from my viewpoint: Hex has an extensive amount of solid, if challenging, single-player free content, but intends for the PvP to be payment-based, like a live TCG. That released the floodgates for "pay to win", and led to one of the single most ambitious and potentially deep and content-full card games to have middling to weak scores on Steam, even as it frequently shines in journalistic reviews. Of course, it has a whole host of its own issues, but a lot were swept under the rug in the face of the payment model for the purposes of negative feedback.) Furthermore, a lot of mobile board games and PC board games DON'T actually share purchases, particularly some published by Asmodee. Sentinels of the Multiverse, for example, I believe you must buy individually on PC and tablet - same with Ascension the deckbuilding game (which also is 'free on tablet, paid on Steam', I think). Pathfinder is not unique in this 'dual-approach'. The problem was in communication, and I'm all but certain that the developers' hands were tied on that front. Another problem is, of course, conceptually, the impact of this decision - especially on an established playerbase! On the whole, I have grown acclimatised with the new presentation of the game, the dichotomy of mobile (encouraging free-to-play) and PC (single buy-in for most content), though I regret the span of time and the awkward communication about how it was applied, particularly in how it contradicted earlier goals that were stated as facts by developers. Handling of pre-existing players, and the Ambassador Program It is HERE that I will get more critical. Whilst I can forgive the shift in business practices, as they were likely unavoidable or overall in the best interests of Obsidian, I am deeply unhappy with the communication and rollout of their Ambassador Program as a mitigation of the playerbase negative response. It has been slow to roll out (more and more days passing since the actual Steam release), new information has been slow to come by, questions were not answered in a timely manner (like my question as to whether I could spend an extra $10 to get over the $25USD threshold and still be counted in the lead-up to the game release)... And on top of that, it shoots down the previous equivalence of paying players to grinding players. Without a cent, you can have the same amount of content in the mobile game as someone whom has paid (with the exception of a small slice of promo material), but they are treated very differently (possibly due to technical limitations) by the program. I am someone who has purchased many, many, many treasure chests, own every character, every adventure path, a suite of dice, and still I am treated identically to someone who has just installed the game and played a single scenario and stopped, and I am also treated far worse than someone with the same or lesser set of content who spent $25 on gold or treasure chests. Right now, buying the standard PC version does not add almost anything of note to my game (with my stored 20,000 or so gold, which is looking to become worthless), and so a drive to purchase simply does not really exist. Furthermore, the lack of communication, which I will repeatedly bring up, has hurt. It is my reading of the situation that they intend to ultimately remove the Gold system from the game, as they have stated they wished to do at some points, but the lack of advance warning to the playerbase has led to, from consumer perspective, particularly to players who aimed to grind for content, wasted time under false information or assumptions. A LOT of people have made the argument "But you've had fun for a year!" which, in my case, is untrue. I've been playing the game for well under 50 days before the PC version, and in those 50 days there was literally no communication of any kind on the official forums or otherwise to warn me that my progression was going to be rendered irrelevant come the Steam release. In fact, the only information from developers seen contradicted that, stating that content would be perfectly matched between the consoles. I feel like I've spent literally hundreds of hours on content that is no longer recognised in the new business model, suddenly thrown with little warning at me. The 'Real Reason' I am not buying the PC version, and might never. With that said, despite my unhappiness with the lack of communication and treatment under the less-than-equal Ambassador Program, I am still willing to overlook that. There are technical reasons why 'counting' progression of players may have been infeasible. The switch in business model I can forgive, because I understand why it may have been done. The actual DEAL given to PC players (as long as they're newcomers) is entirely fair and reasonable. Even my unhappiness with communication may have been unavoidable given staffing constraints, contractual obligations, or any other reason. But, alas, even getting aside the earlier issues, I simply have now moved away from the game because of the direction it has taken with this patch, even if we ignore the existence of the PC release. I'll try to list them. 1. Introduction of the Stash allows for trivialisation of content, particularly early content, by getting later adventure-deck cards in treasure chests and the like and immediately throwing them into brand new character decks. This decreases the difficulty of the game dramatically, and badly damages the enjoyment of the progression and loot system, at least for me. There's very little drive to hang around longer in B and 1 and 2 scenarios to look for new magic weapons or better items and the like when even my starting characters are bounding around, beating villains and picking up useless throwaway crap relative to my 4 and 5 and 6 deck cards from the Stash. This has, in my eyes, borked the progression of the game in a disastrous manner. 2. The sudden emphasis on the Stash/Treasure, with large amounts of bonus cards given to PC players, and the removal of salvaging, interferes with the balance of the as-designed Rise of the Runelords adventure path. In some cases, the Treasure/stash cards are weaker than the same-numbered adventure deck cards, but more often than not they're a bit more powerful, likely as a consequence of a bit of power creep between expansions of the core set. I believe you can still turn them off, thankfully, but as a result then I feel like I'm playing sub-optimally. Either I play sub-optimally and intentionally handicap myself, or the existing level of challenge is decreased when I was hoping with this patch it would dramatically increase... because quite frankly, it's so much easier than the physical game for a whole number of reasons. 3. Speaking of balance, you can now spend gold to just win any roll or scenario you want. Just buy extra turns/blessings, extra dice, extra damage protection. Again, you can choose to intentionally play sub-optimally and not use them (you can also choose to "Just play solo Lem and don't give him Solo Performance", remember), or you can treat the game as a challenge to be overcome and find it disgustingly easy. You can effective buy your victories... which massively cheapens the emotional impact of 'legitimately' beating them when you know you could do the same thing just by a little dribble of gold for runes and the like. I am HUGELY against these new systems, even if they were put in place to try to render gold no longer "worthless". Even just putting in more alt-art or fancy dice would have been a better use of gold. Better yet - another set of art/equipment sets for each character would drive plenty of people to spending an extra $10-20 or tens of thousands of gold HAPPILY, without damaging the original gameplay experience. 4. Bugs. I made a comment before the PC release suggesting that I suspected a lot of bugs that existed pre-patch would not be fixed, and post-patch would bring even more. Sadly, I was correct. Many of the extensive list of bugs I have previously reported based on the last patch (of which were a subset of the 50+ I have come across over my gameplay) either still exist or have merely shifted into new bugs, whilst many new ones appear to have been introduced. Especially for a patch so long in the making - quite beside the PC release - I would have hoped for a more stable and consistent release BEFORE the Steam release, rather than sending the PC version out when many yet-to-be-treated bugs still remain and hinder the user experience, then opening the floodgates for even more. Once again, this may be the case of the developers not having a choice in the matter - deadlines are an annoyance - but 4 months of no announcements or communication, large quantities of bug reports, then ending up making the game buggier with the next patch is an insult to the mobile players. Overall, the massive adjustments to the progression and method of challenge to the game, as well as the overall stability and strategic shortfalls have, in the long term, been far more impactful to my enjoyment of the game than the concept or application of the PC release. Either way, I consider myself effectively driven out of the game, and may only return when actual content updates on a more stable platform present themselves... and even then I'm going to have to carefully consider whether I can ignore the many new progression mechanics that I consciously wish to avoid.

Couple of notes. 1. As Hannibal point out, for the interests of speeding up gameplay, the game will auto-reset your hand for you unless you press the trash/discard icon to end your turn. By pressing that, you can manually reset, discarding (or recharging, where applicable) selected cards before redrawing. 2. You CANNOT recharge it from your discard pile, and the wording is identical to in the board game. Card text (unless it, for some reason, explicitly states otherwise) ONLY works from your own hand, as part of the core rules. If a card says "Recharge this to add 1d4 to your check", you can't recharge it from your discard pile, nor from your buried cards, nor from the deck itself. Because its not in your hand, so its text is not relevant, as it cannot be played or activated for any means. Whether the wording is misleading or not (I don't think it is; that's like saying you can 'reveal' a weapon from your discard pile to use it in combat) is irrelevant, since it's consistent with the board game and the rules thereof.

Sorry for using "Player" and "Character" interchangeably. Been playing too much of the physical game... I feel it was implicit in my post that I meant on another CHARACTER's turn. But, as Hannibal has mentioned; it sounds like a new bug.

A similar bug already existed pre-patch. Not sure whether it's the SAME one or a NEW one, as a result. Previously, Shaman only worked on your turn, not on other players' turns, where the "Continue" arrow would remain greyed out. I've reported it in the past.

The key, as zeroth_hour pointed out, is that character respeccing (and the Stash feature, really) "Reduce the consequences of mistakes". Whether that is good or bad game design is highly subjective, and depends on WHY you play a game. Whole genres of games - Roguelikes, Rogue-lites, etc - are built on "high consequence" gameplay. Other popular titles are closely INSPIRED by high consequence gameplay, whether or not they actually are - Dark Souls comes to mind, or a number of games with 'hardcore' modes, such as numerous hack-and-slash titles. Others are effectively no consequence, generally leaning on frequent checkpointing (though 'no consequence' doesn't actually mean 'easy' - see VVVVVV or other high-difficulty platformers) and/or ability to undo/adapt decisions. However, I stand by my statement that the original board game is supposed to have a high consequence for mistakes. Character death is permanent, making players think twice before pushing to win a scenario despite dwindling resources. Character feats are permanent, encouraging players to closely understand how their characters may or may not change with time or cards.

Well, look at it this way, if you had to spend to bump yourself up to qualify for the Ambassador program, you're not actually missing out on much of a discount, by the math. You could have spent $10 on the 14th on things you didn't care about, and then $18.74 on the base PC release to get the Obsidian edition for free. As it is, as long as you get it while the sale's on, you'll get the Obsidian edition for $30. So you're only losing out on about $1.25 in discounts. Which is not nothing, but it's not a whole lot that you're missing out on, so in your shoes I wouldn't feel too bad about it. $10 in AUD, not USD, sorry for being inspecific. Also, I WOULD have gotten something extra for that $10 if spent on mobile. Gold or chests, presumably. Not much, given that both are effectively worthless in the new Obsidian Edition (as is my 20,000 saved gold...), but still something more than what I'm getting. Though, it's a moot point. I've decided to skip on the PC version, and indeed continued play of the app, for the indefinite future. Not happy with the integration of the Stash making it easy to just give adventure deck 5 and 6 cards to starting characters (nor the greater emphasis on the additional treasure chest cards in general, which I feel throw off the balance of RoTR, and salvaging them all is time consuming and gold effectively worthless now, since the consumables don't interest my gameplay either), and I'm not really getting any content out of buying PC now. With future content updates, clarifications, and perhaps rebalances; I will consider coming back in the future. In the meantime, I'll look into more gameplay of PACG physically.

Ugh. Re-reading the initial post makes me realize "spent $24.99 BEFORE the PC release". I asked a question as to whether I could spend ~$10 (on nothing. I guess treasure chests or gold, not that there's anything I want) to bring myself over that limit, and didn't get an official response. Well damn, now the opportunity is missed for the full Ambassador-ship. :/

It's a bug that's scheduled to be fixed in the next update. A dev has stated that the update is ready but is waiting for Apple to check it and put it through to the iOS store, but they didn't mention regarding Android (but I assume the fix is in place there as well, and also waiting on approval).

There's no reset option, and I can assure you the three main reasons for that are thus: 1. Reset options limit re-playability with the same character, since you'll never make another copy of a character to try a different build if you can do it on the fly. 2. Balancing options. Oh, this scenario will have a bunch of undead henchmen and villains? Let's specialize in my anti-undead feats... 3. It would contradict the rules of the board game. In the board game, once you choose a feat, that's final, which has been a conscious decision (partially for the above reasons) which the designers have defended on several occasions, and perhaps would be unhappy to hear the digital version diverge from. Sorry, but you'll have to make a new Seelah. It sounds like you're not very far into the story, though, to be fair.

I'd like to know this answer too, I'm sort of confused. A dev has explicitly stated that the ambassador and Steam Sale bonuses will stack, but I have a very low expectation - based on the communication so far - that the ambassador program will be working whilst the steam version is still on sale. Or that the Free DLC (which has been stated to be temporary) is still free. I'm HOPING that's not the case - because it sounds like really shady practice to offer a 'better deal' that's actually a worse deal when you consider that the initial deal will have passed its date by the time it comes along - but the numbers on Steam, the implications given, and Dev statements on the forums don't seem to be matching up closely.

Er, from memory, no, they've always been checked checkboxes (at least since I've been playing) if I try again with a new party and/or new characters. I've always had to go to the Completion tab to know what has or hasn't been completed explicitly. I always assumed a part of that was limiting gold grinding to Legendary difficulty missions or (formerly) Quest Mode.

If you look at the first few pages of this topic, and several others - including the Q&A thread - you'll find a lot of people ARE mad, so I'm surprised you're saying that. Right now it's all been swept up in a series of questions and players struggling to get their accounts and purchases working right, somewhat sweeping the question of "Buying a game you already own again" somewhat under the rug. Which, to be fair, we have had dev responses on. Perhaps its more accurate to say that people who were upset about the requirement to 're-buy' on PC have already made their peace (for better or worse) and don't see the need to re-iterate it multiple times, since the 'ambassador program' thing has been known by the forum community for over a week by now. Right now I'm still annoyed by certain elements, but am willing to overlook the sudden business model change... (which despite the fact that I feel somewhat 'victimized' - having spend not enough on mobile to get the full benefits, but having spent and grinded enough to earn all of the content anyway, making the PC purchase give me effectively no additional content - I do also believe it to be the betterment of the devs and the profitability of the title, particularly on Steam) ...if a few details are cleared up, more content (beyond just the "Goblin Update") is promised down the line in as timely manner as possible, and the current series of issues effecting all platforms are dealt with. I'm making no purchases until I have confidence that they'll run well and that I feel the long-term investment is worth it. Right now I have neither belief, but I'm willing for more announcements to change that.

Relatively recently moved to Canberra, territory of ACT in Australia. Only 1 registered store in the territory as far as I can tell, which is a pretty long distance from me, and not a single mention of ever having held PACG events, just normal Pathfinder at most.

Thanks for the responses. I'd like to reiterate (and reword/recontextualize) a couple of questions made in a different thread, if possible: First: All stated currency figures for the ambassador program are explicitly USD, correct? So if we're tracking our payments we need to keep in mind the conversion rate? Secondly: When does the ambassador program 'end', or how long do we have to reach the $25 USD threshold on mobile payments to still be eligible, or will it be indefinite? I'm sitting at, I think, in the vein of $10-15 USD spent on mobile, and with all characters and adventures unlocked, and a huge degree of treasure chests, I can't quite work out what I could justify buying since I basically own everything, but it seems to be pushed to be more financially sensible for me to spend a small amount more (even if it's just throwing away money) on the mobile version than actually buying the Obsidian Version. Thirdly: Are payments made in gold (via free-to-play/grinding) in any way considered as part of the ambassador program (as I was led to a believe by a summary stated to me on these forums), or - as suggested in the appropriate thread - solely real-world payments? I recognize the business decision in this, but having been told conflicting information I'd like to be certain.

I'd love to play PACG organized play, but there's nowhere in my city or state that runs it, nor do I know of enough people (read: effectively 0) with the interest to participate. Finally, I'd have to have the products delivered, and I have had the most shoddy luck with deliveries of any and every kind since moving to this city, with 0% success rate out of 3 attempts (one missing, one defective, one didn't match my order at all. So 2/3 sender/manufacturer related and not local post, to be fair). All in all, circumstances have seen the likelihood of me participating in Organized Play at this stage of life to be extremely low, though I'd jump at the opportunity.

That's a question that will have different answers for different people, so I'll summarize some possibilities - some of which apply to me. - It is the assumption that the game will run much better in PCs, on account of resources available. That there may be less crashing, run faster, shorter loading times, better connection speed. All of these quite desirable, and even more so with people with less-than-top-of-the-line mobile devices. People familiar with the Steam platform (and gaming in general) are much more likely to have dramatically better PCs than tablets or mobile phones, after all. Certainly I'd love to transition from my old and slow device to PC for this reason. The feeling of 'getting a lesser experience/product' is a big turn-off for some. - Some may believe that future content updates may, eventually, be solely restricted to the PC version. This has not been stated by devs, but the awkward "Free to play" vs "Pay to purchase" conflicting models are going to make future content releases hard to manage, and so there's a lot of uncertainty by the playerbase as to what to invest in (if anything). - Some prefer hotkeys/keyboard/mouse/scrollwheel to touch controls. I'd say likely a majority. - Visual fidelity and/or resolution of the game, and/or personal comfort, when sitting and looking at a large monitor rather than a small mobile device. Also, despite being on a mobile device, Pathfinder Adventures is actually pretty restrictive to play "On the go", as all progression requires a constantly active connection to be maintained. In some countries and on some devices, this may not be a huge issue, but for other countries - such as Australia - reliance on constant connectivity when travelling is a pipe dream, and that's even IF your chosen device supports any kind of mobile data network (which my tablet most certainly does not). In short - not everyone CAN play it 'on the go'.

@Ethics Gradient I understand all of that, but I'm more concerned about future potential content updates, so I'll summarize it into one very brief question, to make explicit my intent. Will further content updates - Adventures, Class Decks/Characters, etc - always be purchaseable with in-game currency/Gold on either or both platform(s)? I'm aware the Obsidian Edition promises such for free (and I wonder how far that goes, because they can't just keep making costly content and maintaining the game with updates for years off the back of a one-time $40 purchase, and it effectively means making more than $15 worth of DLC is nonviable because users would just purchase the Obsidian Edition upgrade), but I would have expected further content to require payment as per a typical DLC market... though that would contradict the "Free to play" mobile model, which is supposed to work in synchronicity with PC.

The feeling of progression is a powerful draw for some - myself included. The feeling of accomplishment, actually quite similar to the accomplishment of 'leveling up' in an RPG - getting access to new spells or abilities, just as in a game you would be getting access to new stories, cards or content. By having played the game on a mobile device, grinding for content - spending time or money, or both - and building our game experience, it can be a shock to some to feel that the effort is being either undone or invalidated by not recognizing the progression, if they choose to switch to the PC product. Most of the progression - either financial or time - is undone in that you must purchase that content (as a part of the static price tag) again regardless. I am a very active CCG/TCG player, both digitally and physically. In a digital game, if I have spent money or time to develop a collection of a certain size, I would be quite upset if I was asked to spend money purely to utilize my collection - my 'earned content', in how the game presents its progression - again on the same game. Pathfinder Adventures is toeing the line between being an equivalent product or not. Because of the (likely quite appropriate) movement from "Free to play" to "Typical product sale (with microtransactions)", and carrying the same progression - sort of - between both products as one merged system, there arrive awkward value propositions to be made. In my case, as I've said before and I'll say again; besides allowing me to play on my monitor rather than my mobile device (of which I could do via emulator anyway), there is effectively no reason for me to purchase the PC product. As it so happens, I may regardless for a number of reasons, but it is a purchase for content I already have earned, purchased or 'owned' for some time. Whether I had fun or not, I may still complain if I'm being asked to buy the same product again; just as I'd be annoyed to learn that I'd need to buy my car again to drive it in another state. I already bought, registered, and used my pre-existing car, why must I buy a duplicate to fit the same purpose? It's not that I don't like my car, it's that I don't see why I need to re-earn or re-purchase a previously provided and established product. ----- Personally, I find myself in an awkward situation. I empathize with the reasoning and the direction the game is heading, but I also feel like my previous investments in the game have gone unrewarded. That time to grinding content that will now be re-sold to me, and purchases made (underneath the $25 threshold) that will also now be re-sold to me, unless I overlook the PC version entirely... which I may or may not do. I feel somehow as if the model has unjustly shifted *after* I'd displayed interest and invested effort, like an unspoken contract that has been rewritten after I'd signed and acted by it. Perhaps its all the sharper to me that I only got into the game within the past two months, if not much less. As a result, I feel like I've RECENTLY dedicated time and money to prepare the game for future use, only to have the progression effectively ignored if I choose to purchase the PC edition, including all of the content I'd already - in my mind - 'earned'. Perhaps I'd feel far more easygoing if I'd done my grinding a year ago, and so I could more easily see this as a "NEW" product to buy.