I doubt anyone posting in this thread has any personal problem with PFO or Dancey. In my case I am a sandbox mmo player, I play Darkfall, Mortal Online, and Eve online so in the case of PFO it's my style of niche game, and I'm very use to buggy games. The problem is that sandbox games are always made by indie devs, and I don't want this cash-grab pay a sub for alpha nonsense to be the industry standard. If Mortal Online, Darkfall, or Eve Online had this pay for alpha system that PFO has I would never have played any of them. I hope that in the future the next sandbox game doesn't try to emulate the shady practices that the CEO of Pathfinder has been attempting.
I have no beef with MMORPG reviewing the game–it's entirely their prerogative--be interesting to hear the reviewer's take.
I am interested in the way the review is contextualized. I could review a game like Darkest Dungeons in the context of other roguelikes and chose to praise it's innovation in moving to enterprise management over party management, it's pacing and mood, the art-style, etc. Or I could chose to review it in the context of party-based dungeon crawls (like Pillars of Eternity) and say the graphics are pathetic–SPRITES!–the game play is pathetically slow, the balancing is all wrong with zero chance to develop characters, etc. The context for a review is critical.
Well, if you review it don't do it on a Mac Client because that won't be fixed until EE 8.0.
How in depth you go, how long you play, how much interaction with other players, will matter. Some stuff you can tell right off the bat. Some of the complexity of the game will cause you to dive into spreadsheets provided in links in the forums. There's a difference in which Tier you're at and the way it affects play (for good or bad).
I've been playing the game since the middle of January. Paid $100 for early access, and then picked up a Destiny's Twin account for $100 from a friend (primarily due to another friend who uses Mac, but just lost interest). That's not my judgment in the value of the game as much as supporting my friend who paid $1000 on the Kickstarter. I knew this game wasn't anywhere near a finished product, knew the risks, and can afford to waste my money (to a point).
I cringe every time I hear Ryan make his marketing pitches. This current dealing has been a bit of a train wreck, and a number of players were concerned this would be the case when he posted his thread. Probably because we're not as insular as some of the other players who've been invested in this thing since before last year. While there's be some misinformation or false assumptions about the game posted here, overall the sentiments are fairly accurate. Most MMO players will not want to buy this game or subscribe based on the state of the game and all of the other choices they can make with their money.
A fair, objective review would be most beneficial. It may initially detract players from joining, but at the same time give the developers a target on what they need to focus on to do better. A few follow-up reviews would help show whatever progress has been made, or lack thereof, and help to better inform would-be consumers. A crusade to destroy people, however, might be an invitation to a law suit.
I think a lot of the villainizing here is unwarranted. They made a decision to launch a beta into a barebones game. Whether it works is on them. I agree it will ultimately hurt the genre if the game fails, but claiming that they are somehow deceiving people or hurting the genre due to their business decisions is ridiculous People are responsible for how they spend their money. If they do so without considering the product and its history, its on them. You can't throw it on the developers. They made a business decision, and now their business will live or die by it. I personally hope they pull through, because niche games need to survive and thrive if we are ever going to see alternatives to super casual themepark games.
In that case I'd ask that you describe what you think was accomplished in relation to stopping paid-betas
I'm glad to see you are admitting to paying to be a beta tester. I understand you have a personal investment in this game as the leader of a good sized settlement and your motivation in posting so much is to help the game grow so your investment of time and leadership does not go to waste. I was sorry to see the CEO recommend a group that was quitting the game to try a larger settlement than yours. Like you initially, I felt it was a slap in the face to small and medium settlements and I wonder for the future if like many people have implied, only the few large settlements will be competitive.
Myself, I dont have a horse in this race. I love the vision of the game and if GW can actually pull it off, I might even give it a try and buy it. Actually, the more I find out, the more I would like to see this game happen however... I dont agree with charging people money to make that vision happen after already asking for money from kickstarter. The CEO has made some monumental blunders and if this keeps up, there is little chance he will ever realize his "vision".
Why not change the funding model and make the sub fee optional until the game is released on steam/stores? Most of you supporters would continue to fund the game and much of this bad press would go away. Why does this guy continue to compare his game to Eve? I understand he was probably fired as the marketing guy from CCP and has something to prove but constantly comparing his "vision" and processes to Eve/CCP is a bit creepy and smells of jealousy.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
I expect the review to be bruising because the game deserves it today, not because I think Bill has anything against it. It isn't finished and there are enough systems missing that it's hard to imagine anyone feeling it's worthwhile for the typical player to pay. People like having clearly defined lines in the sand so they can say "this is ready for typical players" and "this isn't." Pathfinder isn't ready. It isn't close to ready. The fact that they are charging for access and aren't wiping doesn't change the fact that the game is incomplete. If it deserves to be reviewed as a game that is ready for the public to play, it deserves a bad review, right now. the typical player is not going to enjoy themselves.
Yes, I'm new here. I still know the game isn't in a condition to be compared to things that the average player wants to play. I don't need to be an experienced forum member to know that. I welcome the review, because I think it will keep a bunch of people away from the game that shouldn't be playing it. Maybe in a year someone else will review it and find it ready to play.
I never imagined the review would be biased by personal attacks. Some users here are looking for ways to make it look bad because they don't like paid betas, and I believe that at least one of those users diduse personal attacks to call into doubt the character of the main developer, using links that have nothing to do with this game. That isn't this site's responsibility, and the user has already covered his ears so he won't have to listen to me challenge him on it.
Ah yes, I see, you claim personal attacks while you in turn single me out as having "covered my ears" to avoid you. You're so contradictory that it's embarrassing.
I didn't attack anyone. I exposed some lesser known facts though, and you seem to be the one "covering your ears" to drown out the truth about the individual in question. You simply cannot accept that your lord and savior isn't who you thought he was.
I probably know more about Ryan Dancey than you ever will (actually, I've already proven that). I supported his acquisition of TSR when it occurred in 97 and followed his career for over two decades. I am a huge Pathfinder fan and I find it absolutely disgraceful that this man is shaming the IP with his dishonest business practices. Why should I waste my breath reiterating the same things over and over and over again when you clearly couldn't care less and are entirely unwilling to have an open mind about it?
I'm looking for ways to make it look bad? I think not, your CEO pal has done enough of that himself, and the shitty state of the game - a game he is charging a monthly fee for while in an alpha state of development - speaks for itself. Like I said before, you just don't get it and you never will.
What is or is not this sites responsibility isn't your call to make, as much as you seem to think it is. I don't care about you, who you are, what you think or what you do. I suggest you go back to the PFO forums, so you can continue to bury your head in the sand while living in blissful ignorance.
My choice to discontinue discussing any subject, with you or anyone else, is my right. You have absolutely no right to criticize me for doing so, I find it offensive and disrespectful that you think you can or should.
The developers are following a different path by bringing small groups of systems online in discreet chunks every few weeks and making sure they work as expected before moving to the next group of features, instead of rolling out all features and then polishing and tweaking. it's confusing, and frustrating, and sometimes exceptionally buggy, but it's also a unique, interesting experience, and can be abnormally rewarding when you experience the changes. I don't think it's the sort of thing that 95% of people would like, which is why I don't recruit, but I love it, and I think for the right mind-set, it's been fantastic.
I know you are passionate about the game, but I have also read your posts and usually find you to be reasonable. So let me pose it this way:
There were almost 9000 unique Kickstarter backers (not counting all the extra Adventurer accounts purchased). Those people paid a LOT of money to support the game's development. These were the people most likely to stick with the company. Of all those people, how many are actively playing today? Not counting new people what may have heard about it or trying it. I can tell you from personal experience that the group I was with had over 100 accounts at start. Of those originals, only maybe 10 are playing. Honestly, do you think that is an aberration or do you think that is representative of the general population?
Edit to add- that doesn't invalidate your love for the game but rather than send people to external forums to recruit, I think GW would have been better served trying to get those original 9k backers interested again. If they cannot get them the more hardcore supports, they aren't going to keep many new people.
I get that you love the game and it may be the first MMO you really got invested in. If you looked through these forums you will find TONS of games with a few very dedicated fans saying almost identical things that you are about PFO. Almost all of those games failed miserably. So I guess my point to this part is that PFO isn't as unique of a snowflake as you think and every game's defenders feel JUST AS PASSIONATELY. Most of us have learned (you would likely argue jaded) that potential is meaningless in MMO development because EVERY game could potentially be wonderful and sounds fantastic on the drawing board. It's the execution that matters, and what a game is TODAY, not what one hopes it to be in a few years.
Also- If the CEO wasn't always word smithing and just used plain language, people would be much more tolerable. Example: When he tries to make the assertion that the games population is HIGHER today than it was a few months ago, I have a lot of trouble believing that and I think in your heart you would agree. He is likely counting all the people that are auto subbed for 4 months but haven't played in weeks or months. When questioned on it, he ignores the question. the same thing with this silly Early Enrollment/Beta thing. If he had been honest and just said it's a paid beta upfront folks wouldn't react as strongly. Instead he pumped this exclusive Early Enrollment wording and said that unless you paid $100 in the Kickstarter you would have to wait until a month before Open Enrollment while everyone else was building their unwiped characters (we know that changed right after the start of Early Enrollment and he let everyone in, because so many people stopped playing). Now as a result his game is going to get reviewed just like any other released game. he somehow thinks this is a good thing. It won't be. It is likely to get an even worse review than Mortal Online which is really saying something, and if that is your benchmark the future doesn't look bright.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I love this thread. I criticised the achievement gating system, because I hate grinding, and I ended up being accused by the CEO of being a power hungry player obsessed by PvP, even though I was a long advocate against PvP... (Caldeathe or Avari will confirm, if they have a drop of honesty). And I was also accused of being a greedy money obsessed metagamer looking to make quick money by farming accounts, even though I didn't even sell my accounts, which can be witnessed by Xeen to whom I offered my DT account, and Cheatle, to whom I offered my 1000$ premium account.
Am I a bitter dick ? Why not, whatever. But a greedy griefer ? That's preposterous.
PFO's major flaw is his CEO Ryan Dancey. Frankly, I even wonder if they wouldn't have more professional investors without him and his awful reputation.
I love this thread. I criticised the achievement gating system, because I hate grinding, and I ended up being accused by the CEO of being a power hungry player obsessed by PvP, even though I was a long advocate against PvP... (Caldeathe or Avari will confirm, if they have a drop of honesty). And I was also accused of being a greedy money obsessed metagamer looking to make quick money by farming accounts, even though I didn't even sell my accounts, which can be witnessed by Xeen to whom I offered my DT account, and Cheatle, to whom I offered my 1000$ premium account.
Am I a bitter dick ? Why not, whatever. But a greedy griefer ? That's preposterous.
PFO's major flaw is his CEO Ryan Dancey. Frankly, I even wonder if they wouldn't have more professional investors without him and his awful reputation.
They're stupid.
If you can afford wasting 1.6k $ in PFO, you obviously don't need them to make good money. And who would buy a PFO account anyway?
@ Bill Murphy: Instead of a normal review, would you consider a blog which will lead up to your summary? I'm sure many readers would love to see how your "adventure" is going.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I have no beef with MMORPG reviewing the game–it's entirely their prerogative--be interesting to hear the reviewer's take.
I am interested in the way the review is contextualized. I could review a game like Darkest Dungeons in the context of other roguelikes and chose to praise it's innovation in moving to enterprise management over party management, it's pacing and mood, the art-style, etc. Or I could chose to review it in the context of party-based dungeon crawls (like Pillars of Eternity) and say the graphics are pathetic–SPRITES!–the game play is pathetically slow, the balancing is all wrong with zero chance to develop characters, etc. The context for a review is critical.
They will likely review it in the context of comparing it to other launched, buy-to-play + subscription based, Open World Sandbox MMOs.
Bottom line is, once the Open Enrollment Kick Starters were invited in, with there $30.00 level + Free Month + Subscription there affer, PFO is now in OE.
In another thread Ryan said, it has all of the basic systems running well. For a game sold on the idea that the focus would be on settlement conquest, that is an odd statement to make, since settlements can't be conquered yet. That was exactly the same mistake Funcom made with Age of Conan when it first launched.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
The CEO said himself the game is not in alpha or beta and is a fully functioning sandbox game so now you're just spreading misinformation.
If he had been somewhat humble in his comments here, I am pretty sure no one would ask for an official review at this point. Something along the lines "We know it's in a rough state, but we're working hard to make the game better. Please continue to support us!" would have made all the difference. It's not smart to alienate your current and potential customers.
But since he had the nerve to claim that the game is fully functioning and subscription worthy, I can't wait for the official review!
I was in contact with some of the staff at MassivelyOP earlier and requested that they perform a review as well. Waiting to hear back from them about whether it's going to happen or not.
Originally posted by GolbezTheLion I was in contact with some of the staff at MassivelyOP earlier and requested that they perform a review as well. Waiting to hear back from them about whether it's going to happen or not.
You guys understand this will only cause more people to buy into it, right? Even if its like a 1/10, someone will read it and think "well yeah its because they dont appreciate <fill in the blank> system, and I do because I don't like mainstream!"
These people could have potentially never even HEARD about PFO, but this campaign to get major sites to review it will only push them out there more and make them more money.
If your goal is truly to protest their business tactics, the best way is to encourage your friends not to buy and don't talk about the game, let it wither away. If they have a quality product, it will grow organically, if not, you need to let it die organically. Look at games like Archeage - the thing is a mess, and clearly built from the ground up to make money, but we keep giving it press, and fools keep spending on it.
There are way bigger scandals in the MMO/crowdfunding world right now (Greed Monger and Stomping Land come to mind), and I feel like pushing a negative view of PFO and the devs will not only have the opposite of the desired effect, but is a waste of energy.
And just to reinforce my thoughts on this - I understand no one is directly advocating for hit pieces on PFO, but anyone reading this thread knows that a call for "reviews," is precisely that, just an indirect approach. I'm not saying the game shouldn't be reviewed or even giving the devs a pass, but if you feel that strongly on the subject you shouldn't be giving them free publicity (which is exact;y what the devs have been begging for recently, by the way).
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
Comments
Exactly.
I have no beef with MMORPG reviewing the game–it's entirely their prerogative--be interesting to hear the reviewer's take.
I am interested in the way the review is contextualized. I could review a game like Darkest Dungeons in the context of other roguelikes and chose to praise it's innovation in moving to enterprise management over party management, it's pacing and mood, the art-style, etc. Or I could chose to review it in the context of party-based dungeon crawls (like Pillars of Eternity) and say the graphics are pathetic–SPRITES!–the game play is pathetically slow, the balancing is all wrong with zero chance to develop characters, etc. The context for a review is critical.
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/
Well, if you review it don't do it on a Mac Client because that won't be fixed until EE 8.0.
How in depth you go, how long you play, how much interaction with other players, will matter. Some stuff you can tell right off the bat. Some of the complexity of the game will cause you to dive into spreadsheets provided in links in the forums. There's a difference in which Tier you're at and the way it affects play (for good or bad).
I've been playing the game since the middle of January. Paid $100 for early access, and then picked up a Destiny's Twin account for $100 from a friend (primarily due to another friend who uses Mac, but just lost interest). That's not my judgment in the value of the game as much as supporting my friend who paid $1000 on the Kickstarter. I knew this game wasn't anywhere near a finished product, knew the risks, and can afford to waste my money (to a point).
I cringe every time I hear Ryan make his marketing pitches. This current dealing has been a bit of a train wreck, and a number of players were concerned this would be the case when he posted his thread. Probably because we're not as insular as some of the other players who've been invested in this thing since before last year. While there's be some misinformation or false assumptions about the game posted here, overall the sentiments are fairly accurate. Most MMO players will not want to buy this game or subscribe based on the state of the game and all of the other choices they can make with their money.
A fair, objective review would be most beneficial. It may initially detract players from joining, but at the same time give the developers a target on what they need to focus on to do better. A few follow-up reviews would help show whatever progress has been made, or lack thereof, and help to better inform would-be consumers. A crusade to destroy people, however, might be an invitation to a law suit.
I'm glad to see you are admitting to paying to be a beta tester. I understand you have a personal investment in this game as the leader of a good sized settlement and your motivation in posting so much is to help the game grow so your investment of time and leadership does not go to waste. I was sorry to see the CEO recommend a group that was quitting the game to try a larger settlement than yours. Like you initially, I felt it was a slap in the face to small and medium settlements and I wonder for the future if like many people have implied, only the few large settlements will be competitive.
Myself, I dont have a horse in this race. I love the vision of the game and if GW can actually pull it off, I might even give it a try and buy it. Actually, the more I find out, the more I would like to see this game happen however... I dont agree with charging people money to make that vision happen after already asking for money from kickstarter. The CEO has made some monumental blunders and if this keeps up, there is little chance he will ever realize his "vision".
Why not change the funding model and make the sub fee optional until the game is released on steam/stores? Most of you supporters would continue to fund the game and much of this bad press would go away. Why does this guy continue to compare his game to Eve? I understand he was probably fired as the marketing guy from CCP and has something to prove but constantly comparing his "vision" and processes to Eve/CCP is a bit creepy and smells of jealousy.
The CEO said himself the game is not in alpha or beta and is a fully functioning sandbox game so now you're just spreading misinformation.
Ah yes, I see, you claim personal attacks while you in turn single me out as having "covered my ears" to avoid you. You're so contradictory that it's embarrassing.
I didn't attack anyone. I exposed some lesser known facts though, and you seem to be the one "covering your ears" to drown out the truth about the individual in question. You simply cannot accept that your lord and savior isn't who you thought he was.
I probably know more about Ryan Dancey than you ever will (actually, I've already proven that). I supported his acquisition of TSR when it occurred in 97 and followed his career for over two decades. I am a huge Pathfinder fan and I find it absolutely disgraceful that this man is shaming the IP with his dishonest business practices. Why should I waste my breath reiterating the same things over and over and over again when you clearly couldn't care less and are entirely unwilling to have an open mind about it?
I'm looking for ways to make it look bad? I think not, your CEO pal has done enough of that himself, and the shitty state of the game - a game he is charging a monthly fee for while in an alpha state of development - speaks for itself. Like I said before, you just don't get it and you never will.
What is or is not this sites responsibility isn't your call to make, as much as you seem to think it is. I don't care about you, who you are, what you think or what you do. I suggest you go back to the PFO forums, so you can continue to bury your head in the sand while living in blissful ignorance.
My choice to discontinue discussing any subject, with you or anyone else, is my right. You have absolutely no right to criticize me for doing so, I find it offensive and disrespectful that you think you can or should.
Just a really shitty, broken, and incomplete one, compared to every other game with a box price and $15/mo sub fee.
Gotcha.
I know you are passionate about the game, but I have also read your posts and usually find you to be reasonable. So let me pose it this way:
There were almost 9000 unique Kickstarter backers (not counting all the extra Adventurer accounts purchased). Those people paid a LOT of money to support the game's development. These were the people most likely to stick with the company. Of all those people, how many are actively playing today? Not counting new people what may have heard about it or trying it. I can tell you from personal experience that the group I was with had over 100 accounts at start. Of those originals, only maybe 10 are playing. Honestly, do you think that is an aberration or do you think that is representative of the general population?
Edit to add- that doesn't invalidate your love for the game but rather than send people to external forums to recruit, I think GW would have been better served trying to get those original 9k backers interested again. If they cannot get them the more hardcore supports, they aren't going to keep many new people.
I get that you love the game and it may be the first MMO you really got invested in. If you looked through these forums you will find TONS of games with a few very dedicated fans saying almost identical things that you are about PFO. Almost all of those games failed miserably. So I guess my point to this part is that PFO isn't as unique of a snowflake as you think and every game's defenders feel JUST AS PASSIONATELY. Most of us have learned (you would likely argue jaded) that potential is meaningless in MMO development because EVERY game could potentially be wonderful and sounds fantastic on the drawing board. It's the execution that matters, and what a game is TODAY, not what one hopes it to be in a few years.
Also- If the CEO wasn't always word smithing and just used plain language, people would be much more tolerable. Example: When he tries to make the assertion that the games population is HIGHER today than it was a few months ago, I have a lot of trouble believing that and I think in your heart you would agree. He is likely counting all the people that are auto subbed for 4 months but haven't played in weeks or months. When questioned on it, he ignores the question. the same thing with this silly Early Enrollment/Beta thing. If he had been honest and just said it's a paid beta upfront folks wouldn't react as strongly. Instead he pumped this exclusive Early Enrollment wording and said that unless you paid $100 in the Kickstarter you would have to wait until a month before Open Enrollment while everyone else was building their unwiped characters (we know that changed right after the start of Early Enrollment and he let everyone in, because so many people stopped playing). Now as a result his game is going to get reviewed just like any other released game. he somehow thinks this is a good thing. It won't be. It is likely to get an even worse review than Mortal Online which is really saying something, and if that is your benchmark the future doesn't look bright.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rlds?Interesting-Thread-at-MMORPGcom
I love this thread. I criticised the achievement gating system, because I hate grinding, and I ended up being accused by the CEO of being a power hungry player obsessed by PvP, even though I was a long advocate against PvP... (Caldeathe or Avari will confirm, if they have a drop of honesty). And I was also accused of being a greedy money obsessed metagamer looking to make quick money by farming accounts, even though I didn't even sell my accounts, which can be witnessed by Xeen to whom I offered my DT account, and Cheatle, to whom I offered my 1000$ premium account.
Am I a bitter dick ? Why not, whatever. But a greedy griefer ? That's preposterous.
PFO's major flaw is his CEO Ryan Dancey. Frankly, I even wonder if they wouldn't have more professional investors without him and his awful reputation.
They're stupid.
If you can afford wasting 1.6k $ in PFO, you obviously don't need them to make good money. And who would buy a PFO account anyway?
@ Bill Murphy: Instead of a normal review, would you consider a blog which will lead up to your summary? I'm sure many readers would love to see how your "adventure" is going.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
They will likely review it in the context of comparing it to other launched, buy-to-play + subscription based, Open World Sandbox MMOs.
Bottom line is, once the Open Enrollment Kick Starters were invited in, with there $30.00 level + Free Month + Subscription there affer, PFO is now in OE.
In another thread Ryan said, it has all of the basic systems running well. For a game sold on the idea that the focus would be on settlement conquest, that is an odd statement to make, since settlements can't be conquered yet. That was exactly the same mistake Funcom made with Age of Conan when it first launched.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
If he had been somewhat humble in his comments here, I am pretty sure no one would ask for an official review at this point. Something along the lines "We know it's in a rough state, but we're working hard to make the game better. Please continue to support us!" would have made all the difference. It's not smart to alienate your current and potential customers.
But since he had the nerve to claim that the game is fully functioning and subscription worthy, I can't wait for the official review!
We agree on something!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Based on how you acted on the Paizo forums, yea. You've accurately described yourself.
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/
You guys understand this will only cause more people to buy into it, right? Even if its like a 1/10, someone will read it and think "well yeah its because they dont appreciate <fill in the blank> system, and I do because I don't like mainstream!"
These people could have potentially never even HEARD about PFO, but this campaign to get major sites to review it will only push them out there more and make them more money.
If your goal is truly to protest their business tactics, the best way is to encourage your friends not to buy and don't talk about the game, let it wither away. If they have a quality product, it will grow organically, if not, you need to let it die organically. Look at games like Archeage - the thing is a mess, and clearly built from the ground up to make money, but we keep giving it press, and fools keep spending on it.
There are way bigger scandals in the MMO/crowdfunding world right now (Greed Monger and Stomping Land come to mind), and I feel like pushing a negative view of PFO and the devs will not only have the opposite of the desired effect, but is a waste of energy.
And just to reinforce my thoughts on this - I understand no one is directly advocating for hit pieces on PFO, but anyone reading this thread knows that a call for "reviews," is precisely that, just an indirect approach. I'm not saying the game shouldn't be reviewed or even giving the devs a pass, but if you feel that strongly on the subject you shouldn't be giving them free publicity (which is exact;y what the devs have been begging for recently, by the way).
Please visit my youtube channel for some H1Z1/DayZ casual roleplay videos!
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQoK5VZlwBBzpsksmXtjMQ