Jump to content

DoctorMcBatman

Members
  • Content Count

    157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

DoctorMcBatman last won the day on August 17

DoctorMcBatman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

73 Private

About DoctorMcBatman

  • Rank
    Master Sergeant

Recent Profile Visitors

421 profile views
  1. If we're being semantic, we paid for a licence. But I know I didn't pay for cosmetics. My paid license was not to access cosmetics, it was to access the game. If a person no longer needs a paid license to play this game, those of us who did pay for a license should be refunded. If my.games disagrees, I may initiate a chargeback. Regarding whether "in-game currency" refers to the current currency used to purchase upgrades or a new real-cash transaction, that is unclear, I agree. But that's not my fault. If my.games wants to be vague and imprecise, I'm going to assume the worst given all of the other red flags.
  2. For those that haven't seen it yet: https://worldwar3.com/en/2020/08/12/ww3-development-refocused-early-access-purchases-unavailable-from-13-8/?fbclid=IwAR1ehdq06k49RxEkJiNir16e1GVuZNr9idGNMjtcDT-Bh-MyZX-8v5A9ByA So this seems to confirm F2P. This is the awful news we all expected but hoped wouldn't come to pass. There is absolutely no conciliatory in-game content that is worth my $30. I paid for a game, not cosmetic bullshit or XP packs or whatever scam this project is turning into. If the game is going F2P, a refund is the only acceptable compensation. "Any in-game purchases made during the Early Access period..." So WW3 will implement MTX during the EA period? That's quite audacious. Once MTX and F2P are brought into the mix, the primary design ethos becomes player retention, while sensible game design is relegated. These two concepts are largely incompatible with each other. You have to compromise the latter to pursue the former. I was one of the few people who wanted to be an ambassador for this game and defended it despite the hiccups throughout 2018 through earlier this year, but this confirmation has pushed me well beyond my threshold.
  3. I would be very surprised if it's TF51. I think it's Techland or People Can Fly (I don't think Epic owns them anymore).
  4. Yep the one from May 25th, I didn't see it until a week or so ago. Was a bit surprised, given how good TF51's previous two roadmaps looked (especially the first one). Not talking about the content itself, just visual presentation - as any content on a roadmap shouldn't be taken seriously until the studio proves they can meet it (which was happening during the first part of EA, but then stopped). I could forgive it if the AMA was actually useful or if we had transparency through other means. That all makes sense, but there's a dissonance in what we've been told and what we've seen throughout this period. We were frequently assured all was well, everything was on schedule, all of the necessary money was there, etc., even through the rougher periods like parts of last year. Then earlier this year the team goes completely silent; players already know that player counts are bad for quite some time, and we know the game doesn't have a great reputation in the gaming community at large (which is shame, because even through all of this I maintain the game is really very good). Then out of nowhere a publishing deal is announced with a huge corporation, and we have received very few details on what this means. If we go by the original schedule (which we were told last year that it was still on schedule), right now we should be a few months into WW3's 1.0 release, I think right? So... it's a bit perplexing. That narrative doesn't add up based on what we've seen from our perspective. Maybe we're all totally wrong and there's a perfectly logical explanation for everything, but it doesn't feel that way. ____________________________________________________________________________________ One thing in general though guys, throwing a tantrum and demanding someone speaks to us isn't beneficial to anyone. And 5 angry people on a forum are nothing to a company, so you won't move the needle much anyway. We just have to wait and judge when the time comes. ____________________________________________________________________________________ I have some great memories of playing with TSA and your crew on Smolensk. That was peak WW3 for me. Took a bit of a break from gaming for a while, but I should check back into the Discord now that work has calmed down. I am still cautiously hopeful about WW3, because we really don't have a good Battlefield alternative. But I guess time will tell.
  5. I don't think WW3 is abandoned at all. Maybe a bit of development hell mixed with indirection. But they do seem genuine about completing the game and releasing it. I'm also not suggesting the game will automatically become bad, just that the communal interaction is not looking great and that can be a bad sign. If the model shifts too much and the focus ibecomes pointed toward MTX and they start using the dreaded term "live service," that will likely affect the design to a point that's past my personal threshold of acceptability. The big issue is we don't know how much about the game is changing due to this deal. If nothing was changing, they probably wouldn't be so silent. Maybe the changes will be better. Maybe. Or maybe not. All we know is the communication has become very poor.
  6. We are watching WW3 transform from a genuinely passionate indie game project into a corporate-run product. Devs are now probably not allowed to really post/interact with the community, and dev communication that does come through probably has some bureaucratic approval process or other red tape. It's hard to know if the silence is due to them not knowing where tf they're taking this game, or if it's due to typical PR silence from corporate entities that have very strict marketing and player exploitation plans. One of the big appeals about WW3 originally, aside from gameplay, was the fact it was being self-published by an indie dev and we wouldn't have to deal with any of the typical corporate/big publisher bullshit. I just hope they don't go F2P and give those of us who spent $30 some worthless cosmetics as consolation, while turning the game into a MTX shop. And while I agree this is a bit disrespectful, this community didn't fund the game - TF51 said the game was always fully funded even without the EA period, though that then begs the question 'why sign an external publisher deal?' But we're not going to get any real answers from TF51 or my.games - it's been all corporate-speak so far, and I doubt that will change. I saw that new roadmap... was that made by my.games? It was one of the crappiest hastily put together looking roadmaps I've ever seen. Both of TF51's previous roadmaps looked better and had actual effort put into them. It's obviously not a big issue in the grand scheme of things, but like, with my.games being a huge company you'd think their digital image editing savviness would be a few steps above this? (I'm assuming they were the ones who produced it)
  7. In the past, I think I've reported griefers to the hacks@worldwar3.com email (it's something like that).
  8. Disappointing. Mostly evasive answers. The answers that weren't evasive were very corporate and lacked detail. Not feeling any better about this.
  9. Yeah fair enough, that's a more accurate way of saying it, if they do leave the page up. I'm more concerned about the potentially shifting business model and how that will affect the game.
  10. That says nothing about the game being F2P once it is released. It just says it will be removed from the Steam store until it releases. EDIT: Although, the word "valuable" in that statement does imply a MTX economy, not necessarily F2P. Regardless, I don't like the sound of this.
  11. Is this confirmed? All I saw is that we will get a skin or camo or something, nothing about F2P.
  12. I just checked the roadmap for the first time in quite a while. Last time I looked at it, it had fairly different graphics/laid out plans. I see Recon: Tactical Royale listed. I definitely remember "Recon" being talked about and probably on the original roadmap from long ago, but this "Tactical Royale" component is new, right? Is this a battle royale mode? If dev time and resources are being dedicated to a battle royale mode, that is very disappointing and it's not something I expected or wanted when I put money down on WW3. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is or I'm in the minority with this view, but I was pretty surprised to see it on the roadmap. Would much prefer the focus to be on Warzone Large and Small and game modes like capture the flag, Rush-like modes, etc.
  13. Yeah I also thought naming it Breakthrough was a bit odd. I'm also not keen on small player count modes, but I'll reserve judgement for when I actually play it. Stability does seem to be a consistent issue players have, and yeah there's not really a good excuse for that. As I've said before here, if you're going to ask people to play the game, it needs to be playable. There's a certain amount of instability understanding for EA, but even I'd admit of all the EA games I've played, WW3 crashed the most (though my in-game performance was always very solid). But the devs have not shrugged off this feedback. They're aware of these issues, more so than we are because they have analytics to track them. I recall several months ago one of the devs did talk about stability and UE, something about WW3's memory usage/management and the fact that serious optimization would have to wait until nearer to release. My hope is that TF51 have decided/realized the super interactive EA thing wasn't working for them. So they're hopefully just making the game how they want to make it, and not including the community as much. Is that good for players right now? No, it feels like they went from being active to inactive on the game's development. But my hope is that they knowingly decided to step back from interactivity, even though they knew it would piss people off, but it may be what's needed to get the game in shape for an actual release. Though, this is just conjecture. I haven't been active on a consistent basis in a long time. And most gameplay trailers from any studio are heavily staged/scripted. But in the early days of WW3 on the bigger servers, I definitely had matches that mimic'd the feeling portrayed in those initial gameplay trailers. Actually, I'm rewatching them now and the Gamescom trailer at least does indeed appear to mostly be legitimate gameplay - you can even see the soldier and vehicle movement jankiness if you look closely. The only other trailers I'm seeing look to be obvious CG/in-engine for the most part and they are labeled that way. Fairly honest trailer campaign IMO, compared to AAA devs at least. Server browser did come shortly after that IIRC. We asked for a browser for a while, and like you said they kept saying 'not yet,' but then one day they were like 'alright, here's the browser.' It was way earlier than we expected and they clearly did shift development priorities to meet this request. Glad you brought it up because that's another good example. Not sure what's going on with the SCAR. I was playing when it first released, and it seemed to work fine then. I guess a later patch bugged it somehow? I'm pretty sure it was fine when it first got into the game.
  14. They developed a TDM mode because players asked. Who those players are and where they are now, I don't know, but I'd have some words for them if I did. I guarantee TF51 made other changes based on player feedback. And customization in 0.2 was meh, very few of the components actually did anything IIRC. I haven't played since .6 or .7, what has changed since then? Last I played, the customization system was essentially the same as on release, though I could be remembering it wrong. Agreed re: the HUD though, I have not liked the screenshots I've seen of the new HUD. ? No one blamed players. On several occasions I've aired my grievances with the game and my reasons for not feeling compelled to play it in quite a while. Yes, this EA period has been rocky. Yes, TF51 deserve a lot of criticism. Complaints about communications seem valid; they were very good about communication during the first part of the EA period when I was around actively, but it sounds like they've slacked a bit in this area. This thread was made to acknowledge these issues AND remind players that it's still in our best interest to support the game, or at the very least to refrain from negatively piling up on it any time it's mentioned on reddit/gaming forums. You brought up BFV. Battlefield is really the main comparison in terms of the gameplay WW3 offers. Do you really think the people running EA DICE give a fuck about what you want in a game? They've sold Battlefield out to market research and industry fads. They've shunned their longstanding core player base to chase a new demographic, because they think that's how they'll make more money. Admonishing WW3 as a failure at this point is shooting yourself in the foot as a gamer (if you care about genuine games made with integrity...). I'll take a passionate developer who screws up 10/10 times vs. a studio that abandons its roots to chase a quick buck. You might be angry at the issues you've endured while playing WW3, but expressing that anger as a degradation of TF51/WW3 only helps the big publisher monopoly. Gamers love to get outraged, but in this case I'm asking you: is it worth it? What does it accomplish and what do you want the PC gaming scene to ideally look like?
  15. Agreed. Having dedicated workstations is very common, definitely. But you have two PCs for gaming (simulators are games). And it is silly to complain about spending $100 when you have $3K worth of PCs after saying "not everyone has $2-3K to spend on a PC." And with SSDs, the "more stuff installed bogs down your PC" argument is not really relevant anymore. Mixing RAM generally works, so long as you match all specs (some even say it's OK to mismatch clock speed, but I wouldn't do that). Your MoBo recommends matching because that removes the potential problem of the consumer screwing up the match (which could put customer support pressure on the MoBo manufacturer). But if you're not comfortable doing that, it really isn't that expensive to buy a new set of 2x8 (sell your current 8GB stick on eBay and you get $20-30 back!). Here you go, Amazon Germany, all 2x8GB are under 100 Euro. The USD vs. Euro prices really are not so different. Is your setup this comprehensive? It looks like this guy's setup is physically only set up to do flight sims. Yeah, in this case not wanting to physically move the entire cockpit every time you want to play an FPS is a valid reason. I assumed you just have a regular tower and plug in a joystick and pedals. Do most flight sim players have a setup like this guy's? I'll admit, it's not an area I'm too familiar with. Wait... so you do have non-sims on your sim-only PC. So this is just a case of selective preference. And that's fine if you don't want to play WW3 that badly.
×
×
  • Create New...