Jump to content

boomervoncannon

Pathfinder
  • Content Count

    2,801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    67

Everything posted by boomervoncannon

  1. Sure, when you buy a product you expect it to work. But if the company selling the product warns you up front that the product is not yet fully functional, then you bought it with that understanding. Either way if you buy it you are still a customer and not an employee. At no point whether the product works or it doesn't, does Maytag have the right to expect me to help fix the refrigerator. If they sell me the refrigerator with a clear warning that the ice maker doesn't work yet and online feedback and input from me may help it to work better in the future, then I have the option as a customer to participate by offering said feedback or not, but under no circumstance am I ever under any obligation to do so. I agree that the EA concept is flawed and a problem in the industry right now. I think studios are being greedy and shortsighted by seeing that they can flip what used to be a cost center in testing to a profit center in EA without stopping to consider the negative ramifications to a game's reputation in the market place when they do so with a far from finished EA game. I think at the moment Atlas is most definately a poster child for this sort of thing. I think by contrast Satisfactory released to EA in March with a game that was out of the gate far closer to a finished product and felt far more like I was getting my money's worth than Atlas did. Contrasting the two reveals one of the problems with EA: it is too all encompassing of a label. The consumer does not know whether he is getting a really enjoyable very playable game at a discount with a few bugs and some content not yet added, or a dumpster fire 2 years away from completion like Atlas. Some clearer standards of disclosure at a minimum are in both the consumer's and ultimately the industry's best long term interests. So I agree that the mixed bag nature is very much a problem. Because of the short term upside to studios, it's unlikely EA will ever just go away, so I think focusing on reform is the way to go. Going back to the refrigerator analogy, I think if Maytag wants to sell you a fridge that is not yet fully functional, there should be requirements that they disclose more clearly and specifically what works out of the box and what doesn't. I also don't think that hurling invective at those that decline to participate in the "job" of making the game better is a very useful or fair approach. This comes across as particularly selfish when you are exhorting others to make the game you are not yet playing better before you buy it. At a minimum you should refrain from it until you have actual skin in the game, and even then I'd consider it poor form. Either way I categorically reject the notion that anything I pay for as a leisure pursuit is a job for me. On this subject I refer you to Mr. Mark Twain: "Work is composed of that which a body is obliged to do. Play is composed of all else."
  2. Sorry but as Salty Del has already pointed out, artificial rarity is a widely used and useful concept in gaming beyond even video games. You don't have to like this concept, but the chances you are going to talk any MMO development team, whose constant struggle that they can never overcome is to produce content anywhere near as fast as players can consume it, out of using it this concept or mechanic in their games is not something I would bet on. Further saying there is no need to employ it, while it may be technically true, implies your understanding of this facet of gaming is poor. Artificial rarity gives players something to strive for in obtaining things, often adding considerably enjoyment when rare things are acquired. If it has value both for developers in giving players carrots to pursue, and likewise value to players for the stated reason, then there may not be a need per se, but there are definitely good valid reasons to use the mechanic. If you think WOW was the first MMO to employ rarity as a time sink, this further suggests a superficial understanding of the MMO space on your part. It's funny you mention sandbox because even notable sandbox games like Eve employ rarity as a time sink for their player bases too. Again, to reiterate, artificial rarity as a game mechanic is widely used in MMO's, is a perfectly valid mechanic as it has demonstrated value for both developers and players, and is employed in any number of gaming spheres beyond MMO's. If you do not care for the mechanic, perhaps another type of game would suit you better.
  3. What you are describing is entirely a function of your personal attitude and perspective, not of any objective reality. The proof of this is the fact that anyone else could subjectively look at it the exact opposite way. In essence you are mentally and emotionally taking a glass is half empty approach/perspective to whatever happens rather than a glass is half full, seeking to find the negative in everything rather than the positive. You are of course welcome to your own views, however, it's not reasonable to hold the devs responsible for your subjective perspective.
  4. Since wipes are a pretty typical part of the EA development process, the prudent move for you then would be to return at actual game launch, having gotten the game at half price and an early look at it's nascent form. Not a bad deal for you all things considered, assuming the game makes it to launch. There is no reason both your statement and Lotus's can't be true.
  5. Here is the problem with the premise of your post Realist. It is an underlying issue with EA games. It goes like this: Since the game is advertised as under development and not finished, complaints of an unfinished game, bugs etc are not legitimate and should be ignored in favor of more constructive feedback and input, but there is a flip side to this coin. Once players have paid for the game, EA or not, they are customers, not employees, so while it would be and is nice when they behave as traditional beta testers, they are under no obligation to do so. They can play the game all they want and not report a thing nor offer any feedback. Will doing so improve the final product? Most likely, and that is their incentive to contribute, but there is a difference between an incentive and an obligation. Your post speaks in a tone that implies Atlas players have an obligation. Heck, forget that, you flat out say it is our job. It is no such thing. We are customers, not employees.
  6. So since you find the sailing part of a fantasy pirate themed game boring, your suggestion is essentially to eliminate the sailing part of the pirate game so you can more quickly get back to the non sailing parts of the pirate game because you clearly should never have expected to spend a lot of time in your pirate game sailing.... Do you see how your expectations and desires do not sound reasonable to those who do not share your let us say interesting take on what a pirate themed game should be?
  7. If only there were PVP games out there that weren’t sailing centric that you could play instead....
  8. I approve wholeheartedly sir of your screen name, avatar and profile.
  9. It would also serve the testing purpose of letting the devs gather data on how people specked their tames differently in reaction to the changes, which is useful development information.
  10. *immediately offers 500 doubloons for blackmail worthy pics of Realist’s bender. Double that if animals or statues are involved.*
  11. If your time is too valuable to waste on trying to obtain rare things in games, I would respectfully suggest that not only is Atlas perhaps not the game for you, but the MMO genre is one you should avoid.
  12. Yes but.... but... ummm..... oh I know! Small ships use less wind? I mean you can really save a bundle on your wind bills right?
  13. My favorite teacher was my US history teacher in hs. She had a razor sharp wit and did not suffer fools gladly. There were 2 things you could do on any paper written for her class to earn an automatic F. One was to misspell the word separate. The other was to fail to make a lot two separate words, ie alot. To this day I’m pretty sure I’ve never done either of those things just because of the fear of public ridicule in her class. Godspeed Miss Wells.
  14. That was bugging me too, but better you play spelling nazi than me.
  15. ...for commercial transport. Surely the world’s yacht clubs have not completely escaped your notice. But your point is otherwise completely valid and something Ark veterans should consider. Go do laps on Ragnarok or Crystal Isles with a motorboat and see how long it takes. The difference is in Atlas you have reason to need to make those trips, in Ark you did not. The only time I ever needed to move large quantities of anything heavy over significant distances was obsidian, and that was always done using a quetz.
  16. Since not in the patch notes then no. Also per the initial announcement in captains log it was expected to be released early June when the main update was expected to be released in May, so one could reasonably infer from that at the time that they intended to release it not long after the mega patch.
  17. *huffs* Why I would never.... Of all the presumptive, insulting, low blow, invidious suggestions. One does not do that sort of thing. One hires others to do that sort of thing.
  18. Why does this not work with unwanted girlfriends?
  19. Ummm, it's pretty clearly a far from finished game, and they announced it as a 2 year EA cycle. We can have a whole discussion about whether EA is appropriate for a company like Grapecard™ or a product like Atlas, but that is a seperate discussion from this one. So no, I don't accept the premise that it's not an EA game. If anything it is extremely obvious that it is, if the definition of EA is a still under development work in progress game. The fact people are playing rather than testing is debatable, but again plays into a seperate discussion. At this point it's fair to say some are testing, most are playing, but this fact is beyond GrapeCard's control. How much testing is being done is not information you or I have access to, so discussing it is pretty pointless, but asserting that there is none is not really a supportable assertion. When you say "they treat it like a released game." I'm unsure what you mean by this. Can you provide specific examples of how they do so that is measurably different from how developers would or should treat an EA game?
  20. They fixed paint as a whole so black actually looks black. You didn't say it had to be true, just that you wanted to be told. *ducks* I have no idea honestly. I was also busy with the stoopid rl, but black that looks black would be nice.
  21. *mumbles something about his number not all having been made up on the spot.* Oh look! A thing! *points somewhere else*
  22. Gating new content during an EA development where the whole point is to test things is, imo, an inherently bad idea, unless what you're trying to test is what percentage of the playerbase can or will make the effort to obtain it. Still, the more your new stuff is tested through use the better, so limiting how many customers testers players can get their hands on it seems a poor idea.
×
×
  • Create New...