Jump to content


Are you guys having fun?

Rant.

  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

Dorander #101 Posted 18 July 2019 - 09:57 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,999
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Postpsychobear, on 18 July 2019 - 08:42 PM, said:

 

So you guys consider you've fixed the MM? Well, you didn't. You have merely patched it, there's a lot of work to be done on it until it can be considered ok. And that patch was heavily overdue, since you have created the problem yourselves, with the "brilliant" idea of the 3-5-7 pattern. That was what completely broke the MM, and it took you forever to admit there was a problem, then even longer to actually do something about it.

And yeah, "fix the MM" was one of the most spammed statements, while "fix/remove artillery" was the most spammed statement. What have you done about that? NOTHING AT ALL. Zip. Nada. Still you have the nerve to pretend you were/are listening to the playerbase. Really?

 

 

The problem with MM was measurable by the frequency with which people got bottom tier, and the frequency of being bottom tier was a problem for everybody who didn't constantly play tier X. There's simply no conceivable conflicting data about it, nobody feels good about being bottom tier often and nobody could rightfully claim that people weren't bottom tier often.

 

Artillery isn't like that, no matter how vocal people complain about it. It is not universally hated, contrary to what a vocal minority in this vocal minority likes to claim. And this time there IS conflicting data, for everyone who comes here to complain about artillery there are hundreds of thousands of people who play it, and every person who plays artillery is a vote for keeping artillery, whether people who dislike artillery want to admit that or not. Removing artillery is not going to be a viable solution, ever.

 

View Postpsychobear, on 18 July 2019 - 08:42 PM, said:

The game feels rigged. I'm not saying it actually is rigged, but it definitely feels so. Which is a problem in itself. If people feel that the game is rigged, they'll just leave at some point, becouse it does feel frustrating and unfair.

You can state that it's not rigged all you want, it's not enough of an argument. Volkswagen would have also stated that their cars' CO2 emission values weren't rigged. Well, surprise, as it turned out they actually were rigged.

You can't expect people to just take your word for it, especially given your record (as a company, i mean, not you personally). But you could at least lower the insanely stupid 50% RNG range to 20% (as in +/-10%) and that would make the game enjoyable enough to not feel that rigged anymore. 

 

Volkswagen's CO2 emissions were measurable, the supposed rigging isn't. Volkswagen claiming otherwise does not make sense in the face of evidence, Wargaming saying otherwise makes lots of sense in the face of the utter lack of evidence for it and the evidence against it. It's a really bad comparison, since nobody knew about the emissions until it was proven, yet people claim feels of rigging are valid or even real because it can't be proven.

 

Incidentally the most complained RNG to me seems to be the dispersion pattern, not the penetration and damage RNG. It's also not very fair to call it a 50% RNG range as I've never heard anyone complain about the upper half of it. Thing is though that I don't see how or why you let the penetration and damage roll RNG even affect you. I seldomly gamble on a "might penetrate if I roll high enough", I only gamble on a "is nearly always going to penetrate". Same with damage, I just shoot it, is it dead, great, is it not dead, shoot it again. Low damage rolls help you as a player as much as they hinder because people roll low against you or me as well.

 

Really bad accuracy though, that annoys the hell out of me. I had an Airfield game last night where I tried to kill a T49 at 400m with my Leopard PTA. I missed four out of five shots, in each case having at least his full turret exposed. It's an exceedingly rare situation, but that also makes it exceedingly irritating.



zuze91 #102 Posted 18 July 2019 - 10:07 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32811 battles
  • 391
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011

https://ibb.co/RzH8mnN

https://ibb.co/RzH8mnN


Edited by zuze91, 18 July 2019 - 10:07 PM.


psychobear #103 Posted 18 July 2019 - 10:27 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 19572 battles
  • 2,084
  • [L3GND] L3GND
  • Member since:
    06-21-2012

View PostDorander, on 18 July 2019 - 10:57 PM, said:

 

The problem with MM was measurable by the frequency with which people got bottom tier, and the frequency of being bottom tier was a problem for everybody who didn't constantly play tier X. There's simply no conceivable conflicting data about it, nobody feels good about being bottom tier often and nobody could rightfully claim that people weren't bottom tier often.

 

 

Of course it was measurable and there was simply not conceivable conflicting data about it. Which is exactly why it shouldn't have taken more than a week for them to admit it and fix it right away. Instead it took them what... a year? Or more?

 

View PostDorander, on 18 July 2019 - 10:57 PM, said:

 

Artillery isn't like that, no matter how vocal people complain about it. It is not universally hated, contrary to what a vocal minority in this vocal minority likes to claim. And this time there IS conflicting data, for everyone who comes here to complain about artillery there are hundreds of thousands of people who play it, and every person who plays artillery is a vote for keeping artillery, whether people who dislike artillery want to admit that or not. Removing artillery is not going to be a viable solution, ever.

 

 

"Every person that plays artillery is a vote for keeping artillery"?!!! Really? I honestly don't suspect you of being thick, so why make such statements? I myself have 2k+ games in artillery, and not only do i want it completely removed from the game, but i would be more than willing to actually pay money to WG for such a change. Do you have any way of knowing how many of those who play or have played artillery are of the same opinion? You most certainly don't, so please stop talking nonsense about "vocal minorities".

 

View PostDorander, on 18 July 2019 - 10:57 PM, said:

Incidentally the most complained RNG to me seems to be the dispersion pattern, not the penetration and damage RNG. It's also not very fair to call it a 50% RNG range as I've never heard anyone complain about the upper half of it. Thing is though that I don't see how or why you let the penetration and damage roll RNG even affect you. I seldomly gamble on a "might penetrate if I roll high enough", I only gamble on a "is nearly always going to penetrate". Same with damage, I just shoot it, is it dead, great, is it not dead, shoot it again. Low damage rolls help you as a player as much as they hinder because people roll low against you or me as well.

 

Really bad accuracy though, that annoys the hell out of me. I had an Airfield game last night where I tried to kill a T49 at 400m with my Leopard PTA. I missed four out of five shots, in each case having at least his full turret exposed. It's an exceedingly rare situation, but that also makes it exceedingly irritating.

 

I didn't claim the game is actually rigged, i just said it feels like that becouse of the hugely exaggerated RNG range, the point being that even if it is not rigged, it feeling rigged is enough to make people stop paying or even stop playing, both situations being bad.

As for calling the range 50%, it's not unfair at all, it is exactly and mathematically what it is. And that range is waaaay too much, by any standards. Yes, of course nobody's complaining about the +25% part, but it would be stupid to ask WG to change the RNG to -5/+25%, now wouldn't it. IMHO +/-10% would be enough to keep a high variation, as well as insure way less levels of irritation, thus making the game more enjoyable.

 


Edited by psychobear, 18 July 2019 - 10:30 PM.


Bulldog_Drummond #104 Posted 18 July 2019 - 10:31 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33118 battles
  • 10,443
  • [SHYLO] SHYLO
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostOldtanker68, on 16 July 2019 - 03:33 PM, said:

 

Its NOT FUN.

 

I have always had an odd idea of fun.



Slyspy #105 Posted 19 July 2019 - 12:51 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14698 battles
  • 17,434
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View Postpsychobear, on 18 July 2019 - 10:27 PM, said:

"Every person that plays artillery is a vote for keeping artillery"?!!! Really? I honestly don't suspect you of being thick, so why make such statements? I myself have 2k+ games in artillery, and not only do i want it completely removed from the game, but i would be more than willing to actually pay money to WG for such a change. Do you have any way of knowing how many of those who play or have played artillery are of the same opinion? You most certainly don't, so please stop talking nonsense about "vocal minorities".

 

 

 

Why would you play Arty if Arty is such an awful thing? 



kaneloon #106 Posted 19 July 2019 - 02:00 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 30946 battles
  • 3,640
  • [RHIN0] RHIN0
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

Yeah its harder and harder to do a good game now, battles are way too fast.

After 30s you already can tell the result of the battle : will the rushers win the rush or be crushed ?



Dorander #107 Posted 19 July 2019 - 09:19 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,999
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View Postpsychobear, on 18 July 2019 - 09:27 PM, said:

 

Of course it was measurable and there was simply not conceivable conflicting data about it. Which is exactly why it shouldn't have taken more than a week for them to admit it and fix it right away. Instead it took them what... a year? Or more?

 

 

I can't really comment with any certainty as to how Wargaming thinks. Could be they simply didn't consider it that much of a priority. Could be they had other reasons for doing it, I always held the position that it was designed to force players up the tiers in order to incentivize premium account/tank sales.

 

View Postpsychobear, on 18 July 2019 - 09:27 PM, said:

 

"Every person that plays artillery is a vote for keeping artillery"?!!! Really? I honestly don't suspect you of being thick, so why make such statements? I myself have 2k+ games in artillery, and not only do i want it completely removed from the game, but i would be more than willing to actually pay money to WG for such a change. Do you have any way of knowing how many of those who play or have played artillery are of the same opinion? You most certainly don't, so please stop talking nonsense about "vocal minorities".

 

 

Well I'm sorry to say that doesn't make me thick, it just means you either changed your mind at some point or something in the game weighed more heavily in playing artillery's favour than your hatred of it. Either way 2k battles is a lot of battles, that's even more than I have and I absolutely loathe artillery-free games. I had a disproportionate number of draws in my last few playing sessions and all draws had something in common: no artillery (with the exception of 1 arty in 1 battle) and subsequently massive camping.

 

Fact is though every time you play a battle in artillery for whatever reason you designed, you are letting whatever reason you have weigh more than your supposed hatred for it. Your actions are more informative than your words, just like the actions of every other player out there who plays artillery is more informative than any forum poll, which is a minority in which a vocally interested group votes which is a minority of that minority ever made. I barely play artillery because I don't like the way it plays, it's boring and not impactful and thus far too dependent on people who consistently let me down. It's a simple and easy choice, which is why my artillery battle percentage is below the average prevalence for artillery in the game.

 

You're right if you claim I don't have evidence but I'm not going to call it a reasonable assumption that all the people who play artillery aren't capable of making this choice for themselves and that most of them don't do it because they enjoy doing it. And that is ignoring the just as frequent reports as haters that people enjoy doing it, and of course that hilarious vote on a premium tank to be sold last year where people massively voted for the Leafblower.

 

View Postpsychobear, on 18 July 2019 - 09:27 PM, said:

 

I didn't claim the game is actually rigged, i just said it feels like that becouse of the hugely exaggerated RNG range, the point being that even if it is not rigged, it feeling rigged is enough to make people stop paying or even stop playing, both situations being bad.

As for calling the range 50%, it's not unfair at all, it is exactly and mathematically what it is. And that range is waaaay too much, by any standards. Yes, of course nobody's complaining about the +25% part, but it would be stupid to ask WG to change the RNG to -5/+25%, now wouldn't it. IMHO +/-10% would be enough to keep a high variation, as well as insure way less levels of irritation, thus making the game more enjoyable.

 

 

By what standards? The 25% RNG has been around since the beginning of the game, and if the game is to be analyzed as a potential standard, we'd have to measure it by the success of its functionality. How many billions of profit has it made again?

 

Changing the RNG to -5/+25 is just as arbitrary as changing it to -10/+10, the former just doesn't have the neatly balanced numbers humans tend to like so much. A bonus of up to 25% is just as feasable an option, it'd look just as neat, there is no rule that something can't simply have bonus RNG. Of course this is also a matter of percenption, the average would shift to 112.5% and people could claim it's + or - 12.5%. That perception can also be applied to the current state, if you look at your shell having a pen/damage value of 75% of whatever its current value is, and then claim you have an up to 50% bonus, the situation suddenly looks different even though the penetration chances are the same.

 

In fact, it could reduce irritation even more, because since the last decade in online gaming I think there's been a shift in how online games function; a shift away from grinds and playing penalties and more towards rewards and value for money. Wargaming has been tossing incredible amounts of freebies at us over the past few years to compensate for the horrible grinds. I've seen other games such as MMORPGs move from a subscription based model to a free to play model where subbing gives practical bonuses and conveniences. All games that I've seen this happen to, have become more enjoyable to play because of it and I think ended up retaining more customers. I suspect this is because we have a lot of alternatives at our disposal these days and we don't need to first be frustrated before we value some success in gameplay, if we don't like it we can just move on. Or maybe I just got older, not sure :coin:



VonniVidiVici #108 Posted 19 July 2019 - 11:50 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38759 battles
  • 12,519
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostSlyspy, on 19 July 2019 - 12:51 AM, said:

 

Why would you play Arty if Arty is such an awful thing? 

 

Missions. I sh't on people from time to time for that same reason.

 

View PostDorander, on 19 July 2019 - 09:19 AM, said:

since the last decade in online gaming I think there's been a shift in how online games function; a shift away from grinds and playing penalties and more towards rewards and value for money.

 

Value for money? We're moving in a direction where it's perfectly normal to release what publishers call a "full Elder scrolls game" in which you have to pay actual money if you don't want to wait for hours upon hours to open a single chest. AAA games are released in a broken state with cut content and excessive monetisation from day 1. Bugs are only fixed when they have a positive effect on the game (see Anthem).

I don't know which industry you're looking at but value for money isn't a thing in the gaming industry unless you mean return on investment for shareholders.


Edited by VonniVidiVici, 19 July 2019 - 11:55 AM.


ThinGun #109 Posted 19 July 2019 - 11:52 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 40036 battles
  • 2,586
  • [SHYLO] SHYLO
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostSlyspy, on 19 July 2019 - 12:51 AM, said:

 

Why would you play Arty if Arty is such an awful thing? 

 

It's the same reason that people continue to play after announcing they are leaving.  Or rack up battles while claiming not to enjoy it.

 

Basically, they don't believe what they are saying, they are just excited about being part of an echo chamber.



gav00 #110 Posted 19 July 2019 - 06:12 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10678 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013
Such a shame Eekeeboo pussied out as soon as the questions got too hard and his bluff was called...

Dorander #111 Posted 19 July 2019 - 06:54 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,999
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostVonniVidiVici, on 19 July 2019 - 10:50 AM, said:

 

Value for money? We're moving in a direction where it's perfectly normal to release what publishers call a "full Elder scrolls game" in which you have to pay actual money if you don't want to wait for hours upon hours to open a single chest. AAA games are released in a broken state with cut content and excessive monetisation from day 1. Bugs are only fixed when they have a positive effect on the game (see Anthem).

I don't know which industry you're looking at but value for money isn't a thing in the gaming industry unless you mean return on investment for shareholders.

 

I did mention online games, which is different from the broken rushed releases that plagues some singleplayer titles and to be more clear about it I was referring to existing titles and not per se new releases. And yes there are obvious counter-examples and these problems will persist as long as customers keep pre-ordering crap and giving developers money without having any idea what the quality of the product will be. However not every developer out there is EA or some of the other big ones people spew their vitriol about but inexplicably give heaps of cash.

 

I always found the "cut content" argument a little weird. It assumes for some odd reason that DLC content was going to be in the original game to begin with, no matter how unrelated it is to the main game. The alternative, that the DLC never would've been developed if they didn't expect a return on investment, is somehow unthinkable.

 

What "full Elder scrolls game" are you even talking about?



4nt #112 Posted 19 July 2019 - 07:27 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29197 battles
  • 1,584
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013
Zuze, that was hilarious, thanks! It's rare these days to get them dinguses to rage in chat, at least on WoT. Far easier on certain other games. And rarer still are these "I'm a programmer/Hacker/superspy! Honest, guv"-types.

VonniVidiVici #113 Posted 19 July 2019 - 09:31 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38759 battles
  • 12,519
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostDorander, on 19 July 2019 - 06:54 PM, said:

 

I did mention online games, which is different from the broken rushed releases that plagues some singleplayer titles and to be more clear about it I was referring to existing titles and not per se new releases. And yes there are obvious counter-examples and these problems will persist as long as customers keep pre-ordering crap and giving developers money without having any idea what the quality of the product will be. However not every developer out there is EA or some of the other big ones people spew their vitriol about but inexplicably give heaps of cash.

 

I always found the "cut content" argument a little weird. It assumes for some odd reason that DLC content was going to be in the original game to begin with, no matter how unrelated it is to the main game. The alternative, that the DLC never would've been developed if they didn't expect a return on investment, is somehow unthinkable.

 

What "full Elder scrolls game" are you even talking about?

 

The "full Elder Scrolls" game is Blades. It's a mobile game, yes, but hyped up as something far more which fits nicely in the "lying about features" theme. For an example of cut content, compare Fallout '76 to Fallout 4. You want to customise your character in your Fallout game? You can, just as in previous games, except now you're going to have to buy most of that stuff from the atom shop (using money) rather than just finding it somewhere or buying it with in-game currency. Not that this is limited to cosmetics as Bethesda swore the atom shop would be, just an example.

Speaking of which, the sh'tshows I'm talking about are generally online games (Fallout '76 and Anthem being the most idiotic examples) because the AAA gaming industry is enamoured with the idea of games as a service that encourages recurrent user spending, in other words make you pay full price for a game and proceed to milk you for every little feature thereafter which is considerably easier to do with an online game. Todd Howard when talking about Skyrim and its seventeen million re-releases is visibly bitter about the fact people can buy that game and not have to worry about being knickled and dimed for anything after that initial purchase.

 

And no, not every publisher (developers don't really have a say) is EA, but who are the big AAA gaming publishers today? EA, Blizzard-Activision, Bethesda, Epic, all of which seem to be competing to see who can make the news as the #1 most anti-consumer scumpany (which I'm hereby introducing as an official word).


Edited by VonniVidiVici, 19 July 2019 - 09:31 PM.


Strizi #114 Posted 19 July 2019 - 09:36 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 41988 battles
  • 885
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
I will play until august 27th, thats how much fun i have in wot at the moment.

ThinGun #115 Posted 19 July 2019 - 09:37 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 40036 battles
  • 2,586
  • [SHYLO] SHYLO
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostVonniVidiVici, on 19 July 2019 - 09:31 PM, said:

 

The "full Elder Scrolls" game is Blades. It's a mobile game, yes, but hyped up as something far more which fits nicely in the "lying about features" theme. For an example of cut content, compare Fallout '76 to Fallout 4. You want to customise your character in your Fallout game? You can, just as in previous games, except now you're going to have to buy most of that stuff from the atom shop (using money) rather than just finding it somewhere or buying it with in-game currency. Not that this is limited to cosmetics as Bethesda swore the atom shop would be, just an example.

Speaking of which, the sh'tshows I'm talking about are generally online games (Fallout '76 and Anthem being the most idiotic examples) because the AAA gaming industry is enamoured with the idea of games as a service that encourages recurrent user spending, in other words make you pay full price for a game and proceed to milk you for every little feature thereafter which is considerably easier to do with an online game. Todd Howard when talking about Skyrim and its seventeen million re-releases is visibly bitter about the fact people can buy that game and not have to worry about being knickled and dimed for anything after that initial purchase.

 

And no, not every publisher (developers don't really have a say) is EA, but who are the big AAA gaming publishers today? EA, Blizzard-Activision, Bethesda, Epic, all of which seem to be competing to see who can make the news as the #1 most anti-consumer scumpany (which I'm hereby introducing as an official word).

 

The problem with your theory is that these 'anti-consumer' organisations are actually retailers.  The very last thing they want to do is alienate their customer base.

 

I think what you're doing is assuming that, because YOU don't like something then EVERYBODY dislikes it.

 

The reality is, you're actually a tiny minority.  You're the part of the customer base that these companies couldn't care less about - the angry, the grumpy, the picky, the entitled, the hostile ... in retail terms, you're the awkward customer who can never be satisfied.  Guess what?  They ain't even gonna try, because you represent such a small percentage of an otherwise satisfied group.

 

Sometimes, 'being special' is actually quite the opposite.



VonniVidiVici #116 Posted 19 July 2019 - 11:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38759 battles
  • 12,519
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostThinGun, on 19 July 2019 - 09:37 PM, said:

 

The problem with your theory is that these 'anti-consumer' organisations are actually retailers.  The very last thing they want to do is alienate their customer base.

 

I think what you're doing is assuming that, because YOU don't like something then EVERYBODY dislikes it.

 

The reality is, you're actually a tiny minority.  You're the part of the customer base that these companies couldn't care less about - the angry, the grumpy, the picky, the entitled, the hostile ... in retail terms, you're the awkward customer who can never be satisfied.  Guess what?  They ain't even gonna try, because you represent such a small percentage of an otherwise satisfied group.

 

Sometimes, 'being special' is actually quite the opposite.

 

I can't tell if you just don't know what I'm talking about and are making assumptions, or if you had a stroke and genuinely enjoy the bullsh't you're being fed. Either way, if you like where the gaming industry is headed, may it be everything you hoped for. :rolleyes:

Dorander #117 Posted 19 July 2019 - 11:53 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 21025 battles
  • 5,999
  • Member since:
    05-07-2012

View PostVonniVidiVici, on 19 July 2019 - 08:31 PM, said:

 

The "full Elder Scrolls" game is Blades. It's a mobile game, yes, but hyped up as something far more which fits nicely in the "lying about features" theme. For an example of cut content, compare Fallout '76 to Fallout 4. You want to customise your character in your Fallout game? You can, just as in previous games, except now you're going to have to buy most of that stuff from the atom shop (using money) rather than just finding it somewhere or buying it with in-game currency. Not that this is limited to cosmetics as Bethesda swore the atom shop would be, just an example.

Speaking of which, the sh'tshows I'm talking about are generally online games (Fallout '76 and Anthem being the most idiotic examples) because the AAA gaming industry is enamoured with the idea of games as a service that encourages recurrent user spending, in other words make you pay full price for a game and proceed to milk you for every little feature thereafter which is considerably easier to do with an online game. Todd Howard when talking about Skyrim and its seventeen million re-releases is visibly bitter about the fact people can buy that game and not have to worry about being knickled and dimed for anything after that initial purchase.

 

And no, not every publisher (developers don't really have a say) is EA, but who are the big AAA gaming publishers today? EA, Blizzard-Activision, Bethesda, Epic, all of which seem to be competing to see who can make the news as the #1 most anti-consumer scumpany (which I'm hereby introducing as an official word).

 

I'll admit to being unfamiliar with Blades. I have played Fallout 76 however, and you unless something has radically and recently changed, you do not need to spend money to customize your character. That game rains free atoms on your head, I played it fairly briefly but intensively and was able to buy two power armour paints and various small items during that time without spending a dime. The PA paints were by far the most expensive purchases available in the shop after launch. There were also PA paints that you could earn in quests (or whatever that game called them with their silly "No NPCs so no questgivers" design, I forgot by now).

 

I do agree with you that games are immensely overhyped and this links to the pre-ordering madness I mentioned before. The only way developers will think to release good products is if people stop paying them for products that don't exist and they think they'll get rather than whatever it turns out to be they end up with. Consumers are as much to blame in this scenario, by massively pre-ordering and repeatedly falling for the hypes, they take away the responsibility developers (or publishers if you will) have to market their product on its existing qualities. Of course there's no organising this so people need to make the right decisions themselves. I no longer preorder anything. I don't buy EA or Ubisoft products on release, if ever, because they seldomly release anything actually new. Anthem looked good initially but holding off on purchasing it turned out to be the right call.

 

Then again I'm having trouble thinking of a game that tries to milk me for every feature. It's probably related to the fact that I barely game online anymore which means the worst they can toss at me is a lot of DLC and I can take all the time I want and consider whether I'm interested in buying it or not. I'm not subjected to lootboxes or similar sillyness. Worst I get is Wargaming's "Combat Intelligence" crap which I just close the second it pops up. That probably puts me in the "not-interesting-customer" category as well, but quite frankly I don't even care if some big companies make a lot of money off other people. It's the choice of those people how they care about how they spend their disposable income. There's loads of games out there to play where you don't have to deal with constant milking attempts or where you get value for your money.



Bulldog_Drummond #118 Posted 20 July 2019 - 12:07 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33118 battles
  • 10,443
  • [SHYLO] SHYLO
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014
Only PC game I've bought in the last 20 years was FTL (£5.99).  Actually I didn't even pay for that as my son got it with his pocket money on Steam and I hacked his account.

BeefCrtinBandit #119 Posted 20 July 2019 - 02:29 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7185 battles
  • 697
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    05-03-2016
devs ruin the game. mod says too fn bad. even the CC's are at odds with this company and they still lol. you can't make this up.

Edited by CraftyVeteran, 20 July 2019 - 02:29 AM.


ThinGun #120 Posted 20 July 2019 - 09:47 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 40036 battles
  • 2,586
  • [SHYLO] SHYLO
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostVonniVidiVici, on 19 July 2019 - 11:08 PM, said:

 

I can't tell if you just don't know what I'm talking about and are making assumptions, or if you had a stroke and genuinely enjoy the bullsh't you're being fed. Either way, if you like where the gaming industry is headed, may it be everything you hoped for. :rolleyes:

 

I don't know whether you're a stroppy little kid or an entitled twonk.  Either way, you need to stop thinking that the world revolves around you.  And maybe ease up on the ad hominems a bit, when conversing with grown ups. 

 

Look at the big picture.  See the 'gaming industry; for what it is.  Just another retailer.   Then look at retail generally, and see how the big players get to be successful.  Not a single one of them do it by being anti-consumerist.  Your whine about games is the equivalent of moaning at Amazon for not being able to deliver a product to your door inside 2 minutes by chauffeured limousine.  You might have a genuine concern, but it's not in the retailer's interest to try and please you, because you'll never be pleased. Businesses don't thrive by fighting unwinnable battles.

08:48 Added after 1 minute

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 20 July 2019 - 12:07 AM, said:

Only PC game I've bought in the last 20 years was FTL (£5.99).  Actually I didn't even pay for that as my son got it with his pocket money on Steam and I hacked his account.

 

I bought something called Riven.  That was about £9.99 and ran on XP.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users