Fallout 76 Team Acknowledges Players' Anger & Frustration; Promises Better Communication - MMORPG.co

SBFord

Fallout 76 Team Acknowledges Players' Anger & Frustration; Promises Better Communication - MMORPG.com

In a new post on the Fallout 76 Reddit, Bethesda developers have acknowledged players' frustration and anger over issues they're encountering in the game and about the lack of communication coming from the team. The letter goes on to inform the community that patch notes will be released in a more timely fashion and details some of the things players can expect in the near future including a stash limit increase and QoL improvements.

Read the full story here

Ilaya

That's how it should be! Awesome, can't wait to get that on live.
Nice to see that they start communicating what's going on and what we F76 players can expect.

Finvega

Yup... you just need to beat it out of them first... but at least they realized the world of crap they put themselves in.

FlyByKnight

Where's that vocal minority person from this thread? Somebody tell them the vocal minority illuminati is at it again. Sound the alarms! How can such a tiny group be so powerful.

MadFrenchie

Pretty sure the industry just passes around a single template for "we're sorry" PR statements.  Another "we'll do better communicating in the future!" ramblings.

Cool to acknowledge it.  Come back to me when the work's done.

MadFrenchie

Also, how's about the tacit admission that the stash limits currently are where they are because they didn't even do enough testing to see if their servers could handle higher?

Jesus, they could at least try not to give these gaffes away.

maskedweasel

Lots of necessary changes, but.. the 600 stash.. that'll last about 20 seconds...  but at least it's something.

Celcius

Excellent, hopefully they iron out the performance and this isn't just a "we are fixing stuff!" that doesn't really fix performance for a lot of people still. I think they also need to post a sort of roadmap for content as to what players can expect. As it stands, the game doesn't have enough content to do once you have capped your level, gotten geared, and explored everything. Yeah I know that is a lot, but this is supposed to be like a MMO-Lite. 120 hours or whatever in an MMO lite type game is just not enough. They need hundreds of hours of content or even thousands. Seems like the new issue they will be facing is lack of content (like Destiny 1 did at launch and Destiny 2 did at launch)

Xarko

Not bad, give it six months and the game might be worth buying for 10 dollaros.

alkarionlog

but giving the money back is a no go huh?

cheyane

I sincerely wish them the very best because I want this game to be improved and become something I would want to buy in the future.

Gutlard

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

MadFrenchie

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

rojoArcueid

MadFrenchie said:

Pretty sure the industry just passes around a single template for "we're sorry" PR statements.  Another "we'll do better communicating in the future!" ramblings.

Cool to acknowledge it.  Come back to me when the work's done.

With the silly way apologies work in the west in the last decade or so (with all the political correctness crap) now everyone says "we're sorry" and people magically change their minds. As if an apology means anything. Actions have meaning, saying sorry meas bs.

As for the bullet points on the OP article, those things were made public suspiciously fast after fan outrage. This is basic stuff that games launch with. Keep rushing games and suffer the consequences of failure.

Sovrath

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

MadFrenchie

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

In some cases, sure.  In others, producers/developers abuse the advantages given while hiding behind the Early Access label.  A naive victim does not absolve a criminal of committing a crime when one occurs.

rojoArcueid

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

I think both players and company are at fault. You are right, people know they are buying into an early access turd and then complain. With that said, companies get all that early access money and then become lazy, still releasing an unfinished/broken turd. As a result, the people who were patiently waiting for a finished product have to pass on that turd.

We've all seen this patter before. They got the money first and put us all at their mercy, even the ones who didn't pay early. If nobody paid before release these companies would make sure they release a damn good game to make sure it sells.

MadFrenchie

rojoArcueid said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

I think both players and company are at fault. You are right, people know they are buying into an early access turd and then complain. With that said, companies get all that early access money and then become lazy, still releasing an unfinished/broken turd. As a result, the people who were patiently waiting for a finished product have to pass on that turd.

We've all seen this patter before. They got the money first and put us all at their mercy, even the ones who didn't pay early. If nobody paid before release these companies would make sure they release a damn good game to make sure it sells.

Nether, H1Z1, Sergei Titov's entire career...  There are many examples of Early Access titles that got supported but were still abandoned by devs, many times in an attempt to re-release the product (even, worse, sometimes under new names) and push further sales from an incomplete product.

Again, we can blame gamers, but naive gamers did not force Sergei to be a snake in the grass.

alkarionlog

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

In some cases, sure.  In others, producers/developers abuse the advantages given while hiding behind the Early Access label.  A naive victim does not absolve a criminal of committing a crime when one occurs.

and ignorance don't absolve people of being part of that crime, company pull this BS because people like to be "diferent" they " trust" others just want a common wellbeing, and no one will sell then just to get a hair of something better.

Sovrath

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

In some cases, sure.  In others, producers/developers abuse the advantages given while hiding behind the Early Access label.  A naive victim does not absolve a criminal of committing a crime when one occurs.

Again, we called it common sense.

If a developer tells me they are still working on the game but they offer me to buy into it, try it, give my feedback but that the game could develop in any number of ways I'm going to know that it's at an early stage.

I can either buy into it or not.

And if the game doesn't launch in a way that is satisfying to me then I know in the future NOT to take the same chance if I have issues with it.

The Early Access label essentially says the game isn't finished. If it's not finished then anything can happen.

MadFrenchie

Elidien said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

Its not just in purchases. I teach at the university level and every year the students doing poorly come to me (usually a week or two from the end of the semester) and beg for extra credit or extra assignments so they can bail themselves out. You should see the look when I tell them "not a chance".

I am with you though. Every purchase I make, there is a risk. I know when I pay $60 for a game, I am taking a risk. Heck, when I spend $7 on chicken for dinner tonight, I am taking a risk. When I order that $4 combo at McDonalds, I am taking a risk. The issues is that people believe that enough complaining allows this to be absolved of all risk. And risk is relative to the price. 

As I have said before, I love FO 76 and had hardly any negative experience except performance. It runs like a dumptruck and its has to be something with it - I can FO 4 on max, ESO on High, etc... It should run better than it does. However, its performance was within the level of risk I deemed acceptable at purchase. Now if I just dropped $40k on a car and it ran like that, I would be at the dealership complaining. 

If you purchase any game, even "finished" there is risk. I do not understand it when people are always blaming the company and asking for refunds. Yes there is a level that is needed but I do not think FO 76 is anywhere near it. And for the record, I got the tri-centennial edition and spent $80. So far it has been worth it (except performance which I know will get better).

This is less analogous to asking for extra credit when you failed the expectations clearly laid out for you at the beginning of the semester than it is if you had, say, stopped giving them lectures completely halfway through the semester but expected them to pass the same test you made when you planned on lecturing the entirety of the material during the semester.

Seelinnikoi

So this was a clear example of "lets put out a beta game and see if they notice"...

Shame on you Bethesda/Zenimax.

The glory days are long gone. Another Blizzard in the making. Lets just hope Square Enix does not fall to this...

Sovrath

MadFrenchie said:

Elidien said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

Its not just in purchases. I teach at the university level and every year the students doing poorly come to me (usually a week or two from the end of the semester) and beg for extra credit or extra assignments so they can bail themselves out. You should see the look when I tell them "not a chance".

I am with you though. Every purchase I make, there is a risk. I know when I pay $60 for a game, I am taking a risk. Heck, when I spend $7 on chicken for dinner tonight, I am taking a risk. When I order that $4 combo at McDonalds, I am taking a risk. The issues is that people believe that enough complaining allows this to be absolved of all risk. And risk is relative to the price. 

As I have said before, I love FO 76 and had hardly any negative experience except performance. It runs like a dumptruck and its has to be something with it - I can FO 4 on max, ESO on High, etc... It should run better than it does. However, its performance was within the level of risk I deemed acceptable at purchase. Now if I just dropped $40k on a car and it ran like that, I would be at the dealership complaining. 

If you purchase any game, even "finished" there is risk. I do not understand it when people are always blaming the company and asking for refunds. Yes there is a level that is needed but I do not think FO 76 is anywhere near it. And for the record, I got the tri-centennial edition and spent $80. So far it has been worth it (except performance which I know will get better).

This is less analogous to asking for extra credit when you failed the expectations clearly laid out for you at the beginning of the semester than it is if you had, say, stopped giving them lectures completely halfway through the semester but expected them to pass the same test you made when you planned on lecturing the entirety of the material during the semester.

The analogy would be that they signed up for a class with a specific teacher but found out the teacher was traveling a lot and may or may not be there and they might have to have a teaching assistant.

So you could take your chance and get a great education with that teacher or that teacher might not be available and you will just learn the course through someone else.

You know the risk and you can sign up or not.

Also, from their website:

When will these games release?

Its up to the developer to determine when they are ready to 'release'. Some developers have a concrete deadline in mind, while others will get a better sense as the development of the game progresses. You should be aware that some teams will be unable to 'finish' their game. So you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state.

MadFrenchie

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Elidien said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

Its not just in purchases. I teach at the university level and every year the students doing poorly come to me (usually a week or two from the end of the semester) and beg for extra credit or extra assignments so they can bail themselves out. You should see the look when I tell them "not a chance".

I am with you though. Every purchase I make, there is a risk. I know when I pay $60 for a game, I am taking a risk. Heck, when I spend $7 on chicken for dinner tonight, I am taking a risk. When I order that $4 combo at McDonalds, I am taking a risk. The issues is that people believe that enough complaining allows this to be absolved of all risk. And risk is relative to the price. 

As I have said before, I love FO 76 and had hardly any negative experience except performance. It runs like a dumptruck and its has to be something with it - I can FO 4 on max, ESO on High, etc... It should run better than it does. However, its performance was within the level of risk I deemed acceptable at purchase. Now if I just dropped $40k on a car and it ran like that, I would be at the dealership complaining. 

If you purchase any game, even "finished" there is risk. I do not understand it when people are always blaming the company and asking for refunds. Yes there is a level that is needed but I do not think FO 76 is anywhere near it. And for the record, I got the tri-centennial edition and spent $80. So far it has been worth it (except performance which I know will get better).

This is less analogous to asking for extra credit when you failed the expectations clearly laid out for you at the beginning of the semester than it is if you had, say, stopped giving them lectures completely halfway through the semester but expected them to pass the same test you made when you planned on lecturing the entirety of the material during the semester.

The analogy would be that they signed up for a class with a specific teacher but found out the teacher was traveling a lot and may or may not be there and they might have to have a teaching assistant.

So you could take your chance and get a great education with that teacher or that teacher might not be available and you will just learn the course through someone else.

You know the risk and you can sign up or not.

Also, from their website:

When will these games release?

Its up to the developer to determine when they are ready to 'release'. Some developers have a concrete deadline in mind, while others will get a better sense as the development of the game progresses. You should be aware that some teams will be unable to 'finish' their game. So you should only buy an Early Access game if you are excited about playing it in its current state.

Many of these games aren't merely traveling a lot.  Titov isn't traveling a lot; he's hiding out until the bad publicity blows over, then trying to re-release with new names to fool people into thinking the same thing won't happen.

Again, a naive victim never absolves the perpetrator in a crime.  Same principle applies here: the fact that there are naive consumers doesn't absolve shady practices by producers.

MadFrenchie

alkarionlog said:

MadFrenchie said:

Sovrath said:

MadFrenchie said:

Gutlard said:

It's just the norm that New Releases are Betas. Maybe players/reviewers should wait a few months for the 'actual' releases of games. Soft date is the New Release/Beta, and hard date is when they get their shit together and have a complete working game.

That's the date I'd wait for to review and play....ha

Gut Out!

It's been a disturbing trend of selling the title way before it's actually completed to use those funds to turn around and, actuallt y'know, complete the game.

Terrible practice.  Valve shares the blame for how heavily they push the Early Access products.  They contributed heavily to the "sell it before it's ready" idea.

It's still the players' fault. No one is forcing them to buy something that is advertised as "unfinished."

It says right there what they are getting into but they buy it anyway and then cry because it was exactly as advertised "unfinished."

How the hell they can operate in their own lives is beyond me.

Maybe it's a generation thing. We called it commons sense.

In some cases, sure.  In others, producers/developers abuse the advantages given while hiding behind the Early Access label.  A naive victim does not absolve a criminal of committing a crime when one occurs.

and ignorance don't absolve people of being part of that crime, company pull this BS because people like to be "diferent" they " trust" others just want a common wellbeing, and no one will sell then just to get a hair of something better.

Victims aren't "part" of the crime.  They're the victims of it.

If I walk into a bank being robbed and there was a conspicuous car out front parked by the door that I thought nothing of, I don't deserve to be shot for walking into a robbery.

Aeander

I'll believe it when I see it. Bethesda never officially provides the type of long term patching that their products universally need, and rely on modders to do their jobs for them.