

Do You Still Trust In What Pgi Says?
#61
Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:50 AM
On the other hand. I will play this game. Effed up as it is, it's the closest thing to what I've wanted for so very long that inherent need wins out over emotional context towards the suppliers. (Whoa, that analogy sounds familiar).
So, no,don't trust, but they apparently have my testicleese in a ziplock somewhere (with all the other Founder's equipment).
#65
Posted 07 April 2013 - 07:31 AM
Black Ivan, on 07 April 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:
Even eorst is they have broken CBT rules with their stupid heat system.
KingDerp, on 07 April 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:
only came into existence 1 year and 9 months ago... Just after the end of the Smith Tinker deal...
Trust, not an effin' chance.
sokitumi, on 07 April 2013 - 03:29 AM, said:
Quote
Purplefluffybunny, on 07 April 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:
Unfortunately you are not in a position to make the call as to whether we feel PGI are ripping us off or not. Yes, you can move threads but you obviously are not in the know about a great many things. A lot of us know fully well the relationship between IGP and PGI and who has sold what rights to who. We know this because it was told to us by PGI very early on. We also know that PGI and IGP blame one another to deflect criticism and that is on the public record mate.
You can feel ripped-off, and I am not the one to determine that. I am one, however, who can move threads based on their content.
The Developers are doing things to curb hacking and cheating, like, oh.. let's say for instance maybe making the game Server Authoritative in the first place, which is harder and more complicated to program than an easily-hacked Client-side combat detection system. Russ Bullock has nothing to do with Sins of a Dark Age, despite what you heard earlier in this thread about IGP and PGI being the same people. Nobody here has a print-out of PGI's finances and budget, but we do know that our Founder's money went into MW:O's development and not shunted to Sins of a Dark Age or MW:T (as Tactics has its own Founder's Program, ya know). The "broken" heat system seems to be fine for the majority of players and really is a matter of personal opinion concerning weapon firing rates rather than physical evidence that they are Ripping us off. Also, the snide remarks about how their forums are firewalled/they don't listen to us/all that stuff is blatantly false.
So, this thread is nonconstructive. If you feel ripped-off, then you have to express yourself in a manner consistent with the current situation, rather than expressing discontent via inaccurate channels.
#66
Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:13 AM
Prosperity Park, on 07 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:
[...]
Where to begin, eh? Perhaps with something else you said instead,
Prosperity Park, on 07 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:
But you also say,
Prosperity Park, on 07 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:
Well, I know you don't have that information and your reason for why you think you are right, that they have their 'own' founders program, is asinine. Finance and budget reports will come out eventually, so soon we will see who is right on this particular little matter.
So what is an inaccurate channel? Are you going all Marshall Mcluhan on us and reversing reference points for rhetorical effect?
Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 07 April 2013 - 08:13 AM.
#67
Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:21 AM

#68
Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:46 AM
Seriously, PGI should really start to take their customers somewhat serious. Trust is the foundation of a solid fanbase, willing to assist with constructive ideas and criticism. But they don´t they do what they think is right. But that´s not allways the case. Making a game just for money is like making children just for the personal success. It´s wrong. If you make a game, you should value your customers, the players. Because that way, they will attract more of their kind, and this way, you will have a game that will run way longer. Good example : Black Prophecy. Once in 2008 Reakktor announced a space sim shooter with customizable spaceships from smallest Fighters to biggest capships. then Gamigo happened, the game went from good to terible, all because they started to push it out for money. it lastet 3 Years. A few months back the servers where shut down.
PGI won´t want that. I would like to hear some official voice in here, i would like to have some kind of open dialogue with devs and CEOs alike. that way trust is build, that´s how you make a good game, a good playerbase.
But yeah, i guess i may as well stop dreaming.
#69
Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:22 AM
Prosperity Park, on 07 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:
Your a complete tool, the server side authority system does nothing to prevent, removal of trees,buildings,terrain, modifying colors of thermal/night vision including to see through smoke (up until a recent patch that moved the colors into shaders).
All of which a readily and easily doable within the current implementation of MWO since closed beta.
A community mod, that can't spark discussion or engage in one without personal white knightly bias is hardly of any use, and only further serves to damage your own reputation on these boards.
Talk about the community mod on a power trip.
Edited by DV McKenna, 07 April 2013 - 11:28 AM.
#70
Posted 07 April 2013 - 11:42 AM
DV McKenna, on 07 April 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:
Your a complete tool, the server side authority system does nothing to prevent, removal of trees,buildings,terrain, modifying colors of thermal/night vision including to see through smoke (up until a recent patch that moved the colors into shaders).
All of which a readily and easily doable within the current implementation of MWO since closed beta.
A community mod, that can't spark discussion or engage in one without personal white knightly bias is hardly of any use, and only further serves to damage your own reputation on these boards.
Talk about the community mod on a power trip.
Here, here!
#71
Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:02 PM
#72
Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:26 PM
How about we stay on topic (despite it being moved to less popular jettisoned communication for some odd reason) without insulting eachother?
#73
Posted 07 April 2013 - 12:44 PM
#74
Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:56 PM
Edited by JohnoBurr, 07 April 2013 - 01:57 PM.
#75
Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:05 PM

Who needs free speech on a public forum? Not PGI! That might upset their potential customers.
Seriously, this kind of underhanded garbage is what I expect from people who have absolutely nothing to say in their defense.
Edited by Testosticore Fantastiballs, 07 April 2013 - 02:08 PM.
11 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users