Creed Buhallin, on 10 October 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:
And World of Tanks, which is a far more similar comparison, has 30+. 4 maps is hugely underwhelming.
This has been the refrain since closed beta began - the next patch was going to be the miracle! The dev build was so far ahead we were all going to be blown away! Pay no mind to the whistle, that light at the end of the tunnel is NOT an onrushing train! I think that ship has sailed by now. Foundational issues remain on all levels, from netcode to graphics to performance to balance. The issue is not "It's still beta so it's OK for it to suck!" The question is whether or not they've progressed enough that the product is ready for open beta.
And regardless of what you think the answer to that question is, you have to be concerned about reception. You can be as insulting to the general population as you want about whether they understand what "beta" means, it won't change the reality of their perceptions. More importantly, if they really are going to start ticking off the premium time, then it doesn't matter. Once you're taking people's money, you don't get to use the "It's just beta" any more. Making people pay you to test is hugely unethical, and people inherently understand this because it manifests as expectations for a level of quality once they start giving you money. Again, I'll go to World of Tanks for the comparison. Throughout beta, you couldn't buy gold - you got a fixed allowance given to you each day to use as you will. When they launched for real, everything was wiped out and you could start giving them money. That's the right way to do it.
I was pretty deeply unimpressed with MWO anyway - they managed to put better graphics and a pay structure around a 10-year-old game without fixing ANY of the actual problems in the game. They're trying to cash in on F2P battlers while obviously having no understanding of what actually makes people keep playing them. I was willing to wait and see what it looked like when they finally launched it, and now I know.
Okay, going to try really hard not to be my normal loose canon self here. Failed.
Yes, once they start ticking off time they can still say it is beta. It has been clear from the start that once open beta hit, that the time would start ticking down. I don't know how that has been lost on people. This is a company after all that is trying to make money, and founders program was essentially a kick starter. I would have preferred that they used kick starter to do the founders packs instead of the MW:O website just to have less complaining about how it is "unethical". Really it isn't. They in no way duped anyone or pulled the wool over your eyes or just took the money and then stopped working on the game.
Another thing. They in no way 'made' you pay to test for them. If they did I'd really like to know how they did so. Did PGI/IGP send an enforcer to you who took a 9 iron to your knee caps if you didn't pay while you were in beta? Did they drive by in a company car and toss a brick with "MONEY NOW" written on it through your window? Can you show me on the anatomically correct doll where exactly they touched you to get you to pay? I really don't think they did any of that, so yeah, the whole boogeyman argument of "they made people pay to test the game" is erroneous to me and I don't buy into it one bit. I bought a founders pack because I wanted to support them, and I went into it knowing that it might take them a little time to work things out.
Here is the reality of any F2P game, it is always in flux. Balance issues and bugs will (and frequently do) crop up. Sometimes they are minor and other times they are relatively minor.
I don't know what everyone else was expecting when they bought into the founders program, but I sure as hell wasn't expecting a finished product. I expected things to not be perfect and have to submit crash reports, and bugs. I guess other people just saw the early access and thought "pre order"
As to the whole "right way to do 'gold'" sure they jumped the gun on adding the "Buy MC" to the launcher, but guess what. You don't have to click on it if you don't want to. Surprised? Oh wait, I guess one of the PGI enforcers walked into your house at night and drug you out of bed and forced you to click on that too.
Okay so you are unimpressed, I can't help you there. You don't like it and that is fine, but I myself really do not see how they haven't fixed some of the issues that were present in MW4.
Are there problems still to be worked through? Yes. Yes there are, but I honestly have faith that things will get better and am willing to give them more time to adjust, and fix things. This is computer programming after all and it isn't as easy as some people seem to think.
Lonestar1771, on 10 October 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:
I think when they said "Minimally Viable Product" they actually meant "Least Viable Product".
Yes, that is what minimally viable product would mean...almost like "least" and "minimal" were synonyms or something.
http://thesaurus.com.../least+possible
Czardread, on 10 October 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:
Creed is sadly right, reception IS key in F2P games. and just as he said, people who ALREADY put money on the game has the right to expect it to work.
Just as it was pointed out by someone else here, it seens the founders are being punished for theyr faith in the game.
as far as the weapons area, ok, i'll admit i did not knew that MRM still dont exist, but as far as the AC/2 rocking on chain fire, great, you spend at least 13 to 14 tons to hinder the enemy aiming, still dont do decent damage and you are still being mowed down by the enemy unless he is randomly walking around alone and oblivious to anything. against anything other than noobs, it's worthless.
I agree. Reception is key, but anyone who bought into the founders program thinking it was going to work fully without any problems, or any changes that might throw a wrench into the system was kidding themselves.
Edited by Evinthal, 10 October 2012 - 12:31 PM.
4
Its time to get a new updated computer 
