Jump to content

DoctorMcBatman

Members
  • Content Count

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

DoctorMcBatman last won the day on November 2 2020

DoctorMcBatman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

74 Private

About DoctorMcBatman

  • Rank
    Master Sergeant

Recent Profile Visitors

579 profile views
  1. Thank you for the clarification. Framed that way, it makes a lot more sense. I think the press release should have been clearer (I know that's on my.games and not you), as currently the question section is just labeled "FAQ" rather than "Popular questions from AMA" or something similar. I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only person to be confused by it and not realize it was just an AMA response pasted in. Regardless of all of this, I'm still not super impressed with how the player relationship has been handled over the last year, and I don't think I'll stick around WW3 any further. But, I get that's not on you personally either. I appreciate your responses.
  2. Okay, and what about this line from the August press release? This seems to confirm F2P. Did they mean "if" instead of "when"? If so, why is it not corrected?
  3. Can you confirm, will the game be free-to-play? If so, will EA purchasers be refunded their $30? I am not interested in cosmetics or XP packs or in-game currency.
  4. EDIT: You know what, I'm over it. Good luck with your game TF51.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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)
  11. In the past, I think I've reported griefers to the hacks@worldwar3.com email (it's something like that).
  12. Disappointing. Mostly evasive answers. The answers that weren't evasive were very corporate and lacked detail. Not feeling any better about this.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Is this confirmed? All I saw is that we will get a skin or camo or something, nothing about F2P.
×
×
  • Create New...