Should have just released Old World, the pvp-centric Alpha version of the game, already and delayed New World, the PvE-centric one they keep delaying as if it's some sudden surprise they don't have pve content. That's too big of a second delay for me to keep blindly supporting them, cancelling my pre-order.
Imagine thinking a sandbox pvp only mmo can do well enough for a company as big as Amazon to deem it a success in 2020. They are making the game for more then just you and I am pretty sure the game will be better off without you if you don't have the patience for them to actually make the game better by delaying it.
Every delay makes a gap between cost vs profit that much wider.
And I hope that people realize Amazon is very tight with their budget and is not operating like "we have infinite money" model that so many people believe is how they run their game studio segment.
So after each delay the cost of development gets bigger which means the game will need to be even more profitable to recoup the cost - and yes Amazon like every successful business is tracking every cent here
At some point though the delays can add up to so much that its better to kill the project and cut losses than to continue spending money at the risk of never making a profit.
So keep that in mind - every delay puts more pressure to make the game even more profitable, and makes the project more in danger of getting the plug pulled
And this isnt the first delay for New World.
So in the end - let's stop sugar coating how delays are good- they are not, they are a huge additional cost and they just put a even more pressure on the dev team to deliver a highly profitable product - so this is just a huge amount of stress on the dev team.
But hey gamers are like - delays are great, yeah they are just going to make a better game - yay, I am the only one that matters - yay. Who cares if the devs have to spend weekends at work for the next six months and risk wrecking their family lives, not seeing their kids and putting a huge strain on their marriage - because the game will be better for me.
Yay!
Remember there is always a downside.
Yeah because if they didn't delay it, it would obviously have been great! Sure, it costs more money to delay a game, but as arguably the most legendary figure in video games once said "A delayed game is eventually good, but a rushed game is forever bad." -Shigeru Miyamoto
Please dont misunderstand that I am even suggesting that not delaying would have made it a good game.
Just saying that delays are not something we should be praising or speaking like it's a positive thing.
Sure they had to delay - but it's still not a good thing
A game being delayed so it is not released in a bad state, with a chance it is released in a good state, is somehow a bad thing.
Because all the testers I've spoken to have the same feedback - "no way in hell is this ready" , and devs were 100% aware of this as well
I can't think of a single game this statement couldn't apply to.
Yes MMOs used to launch with almost no content but now we have giants like ESO, WoW, EVE to name a few. A population has nothing to do today, there are a few hundred MMOs that have years and years worth of content to play through. You just can launch a game because it has potential now days.
Is everyone missing the obvious? Have we forgotten epic launches that had no social engineering back in the dark ages of development? Please stop the rant about how Amazon is doing the right thing with this New World project.
Amazon hit the market hard and heavy. The real world was ready for a new gaming experience, by the billion, and you and both know the moment of kick-ass profit in dwindling down to red.
The problem isn't the state of the game. The problem is the bullshit politics of real world investors/producers who continuously stir the pot because they know nothing about gamers and everything about profit.
Blizzard did not give a damn about what people thought of their game. Hundreds of thousands of people complained about it not being ready and it launched anyway. Why did Blizzard launch a Beta game? They had the attention of the world and thank god someone with some courage said, 'Launch it.'
Do not feed me this crap about readiness and sustainability. There is no such thing in the gaming world. You launch your idea when the world is eager to dive in and not when you have thousands upon thousands of reviews from people who do not play the game, will not play the game but is allowed to highlight the game.
Yeah...Smedlley did some questionable things but Smedley launched. Trust and believe it was not the content or the vision or the mechanics that those Smedley games died under, it was the management of the game(z) itself.
Amazon is not Smedley, they plan to support and stand behind their work, but they certainly are not Blizzard who has the courage to toss the game foundation out to the world and creatively make it better as it goes. Otherwise, what is the point in updates and releases?
Stop trying to be perfect and grab the branding iron while it's hot. Otherwise, this effort will die because the real world is not as dumb as they appear (hahaha -not to offend anyone, this is just my opinion).
Launch the damned game before it is judged by the masses.
This is probably good news seeing as how their other games are going. Was really hoping Amazon Games would be a world contender in the market. We need something fresh.
It started out as a failure right from the beginning. Whoever thought that a full-loot open world PvP game could make a big profit was way off base, and whoever listened to them was equally clueless.
Now they are scrambling to overcome the fatal mistake made at the beginning.
It started out as a failure right from the beginning. Whoever thought that a full-loot open world PvP game could make a big profit was way off base, and whoever listened to them was equally clueless.
Now they are scrambling to overcome the fatal mistake made at the beginning.
That is not the issue, the issue is that any type of MMO other than that based on the WoW template will struggle to make a big profit. That template is what players have been spoon feed to expect and any deviation from it is a dangerous path for any MMO. Not saying they should not try and a PvP centric MMO (though I am not a full loot fan) which could find traction, but any major deviation from what is now the norm for MMO's is an uphill struggle.
It started out as a failure right from the beginning. Whoever thought that a full-loot open world PvP game could make a big profit was way off base, and whoever listened to them was equally clueless.
Now they are scrambling to overcome the fatal mistake made at the beginning.
That is not the issue, the issue is that any type of MMO other than that based on the WoW template will struggle to make a big profit. That template is what players have been spoon feed to expect and any deviation from it is a dangerous path for any MMO. Not saying they should not try and a PvP centric MMO (though I am not a full loot fan) which could find traction, but any major deviation from what is now the norm for MMO's is an uphill struggle.
Agree, although I think developing and releasing any MMORPG these days is an uphill struggle.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It started out as a failure right from the beginning. Whoever thought that a full-loot open world PvP game could make a big profit was way off base, and whoever listened to them was equally clueless.
Now they are scrambling to overcome the fatal mistake made at the beginning.
That is not the issue, the issue is that any type of MMO other than that based on the WoW template will struggle to make a big profit. That template is what players have been spoon feed to expect and any deviation from it is a dangerous path for any MMO. Not saying they should not try and a PvP centric MMO (though I am not a full loot fan) which could find traction, but any major deviation from what is now the norm for MMO's is an uphill struggle.
I agree. Stepping out of the expectations of the customers is going to be difficult for any studio. I'm not certain how much room there is to innovate, and how willing developers/companies are to take on the risks associated with being original.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Unless the delays are planned all along. As we keep discussing in other threads the MMORPG market is flooded with games, and MMOs takea long time to develop. A lot of the excitement wears off the longer it takes, and it can be hard to keep finding new tidbits of info to renew that lost excitement.
New World is constantly being reported on and discussed because of the 'delays'. Also, they seem to be garnishing a great deal of goodwill for being willing to push back the release date to 'make a better game' for the customers. You can't buy publicity like this.
Or I could be full of shit and need to go take my meds...
Gamers are the most fickle lot - good will today doesn't mean jack shit tomorrow.
If the end result is not very good - all that goodwill for being willing to push will be forgotten in a blink of an eye.
The delays are not planned - they are not something game studios plan ever - they are the very thing all studios try to avoid like the plague.
I dont agree with your statement thats "Gamers are the most fickle lot" Any part of a group that goes online, there is a large % of vocal people who like to think they represent that group as a whole. It is very rare that any problem gets a large % of any group to come and become vocal online. Fact is, gamers all get excited for the same thing. Good games at a fair price. Most people dont come online to say if they are happy or upset about any content they buy. I know this because I work in sales and get to see numbers. It is called the "vocal minority" for a reason.
Any company makes a quality product at a fair price, it will get played but the vocal minority will still find something to pee on. Disregard them.
I dont agree with your statement thats "Gamers are the most fickle lot" Any part of a group that goes online, there is a large % of vocal people who like to think they represent that group as a whole. It is very rare that any problem gets a large % of any group to come and become vocal online. Fact is, gamers all get excited for the same thing. Good games at a fair price. Most people dont come online to say if they are happy or upset about any content they buy. I know this because I work in sales and get to see numbers. It is called the "vocal minority" for a reason.
Any company makes a quality product at a fair price, it will get played but the vocal minority will still find something to pee on. Disregard them.
If the New World ends up being a stinker - when it launches - do you think that people who are praising "hey delay is a good thing - gives them a chance to do it right" - that these sames people are still going to be singing prasises when they have a turd on their hands?
People get excited for the same thing, they also get angry for the same thing - as in bad game.
So those who sing praises, can turn and be the staunchest of haters just like that.
Fickleness and gamers go hand in hand.
I dont get you. How is a delay that does not yield results get spun in a good way for anyone? Again the vocal minority will get vocal but that does not make gamers as a whole a "fickle lot" as you put it. Most people will just get a refund and move on and never say a word.
I dont agree with your statement thats "Gamers are the most fickle lot" Any part of a group that goes online, there is a large % of vocal people who like to think they represent that group as a whole. It is very rare that any problem gets a large % of any group to come and become vocal online. Fact is, gamers all get excited for the same thing. Good games at a fair price. Most people dont come online to say if they are happy or upset about any content they buy. I know this because I work in sales and get to see numbers. It is called the "vocal minority" for a reason.
Any company makes a quality product at a fair price, it will get played but the vocal minority will still find something to pee on. Disregard them.
If the New World ends up being a stinker - when it launches - do you think that people who are praising "hey delay is a good thing - gives them a chance to do it right" - that these sames people are still going to be singing prasises when they have a turd on their hands?
People get excited for the same thing, they also get angry for the same thing - as in bad game.
So those who sing praises, can turn and be the staunchest of haters just like that.
Fickleness and gamers go hand in hand.
The game was not ready for launch due to lack of content and other issues so yes, a delay is a good thing.
Whether it ends up being garbage or not is a whole other thing. The two don't follow other than in the fact that they have a better chance of improving it with the delay than without it.
Neither you nor I know what they're going to do with the extra months.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I dont agree with your statement thats "Gamers are the most fickle lot" Any part of a group that goes online, there is a large % of vocal people who like to think they represent that group as a whole. It is very rare that any problem gets a large % of any group to come and become vocal online. Fact is, gamers all get excited for the same thing. Good games at a fair price. Most people dont come online to say if they are happy or upset about any content they buy. I know this because I work in sales and get to see numbers. It is called the "vocal minority" for a reason.
Any company makes a quality product at a fair price, it will get played but the vocal minority will still find something to pee on. Disregard them.
If the New World ends up being a stinker - when it launches - do you think that people who are praising "hey delay is a good thing - gives them a chance to do it right" - that these sames people are still going to be singing prasises when they have a turd on their hands?
People get excited for the same thing, they also get angry for the same thing - as in bad game.
So those who sing praises, can turn and be the staunchest of haters just like that.
Fickleness and gamers go hand in hand.
Exactly what Iselin said.
The game isn't ready so "yes" they need to/should delay it. A delay will only make it better.
Now ... what does "better" mean? What does better, in this instance, look like?
There seem to be a lot of posts, over the course of years, that feel like "all or nothing." "One likes a particular game or not so pick a side."
But that's not reality. It's never black and whtie but all sorts of shades of gray.
As was mentioned in the No Man's Sky thread, that game had a lot of people very angry at launch. And, after time, has made good and then some.
Just like Final FAntasy 14 (also mentioned in that thread) has also made good from a disastrous launch.
Only time will tell with this game. I suspect it won't be anything special at launch but will be a bit "better" than if it launched earlier. Whether or not the development team has the same sense of pride and fortitude as the Final Fantasy 14 or No Man's Sky devs remains to be seen.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I dont get you. How is a delay that does not yield results get spun in a good way for anyone? Again the vocal minority will get vocal but that does not make gamers as a whole a "fickle lot" as you put it. Most people will just get a refund and move on and never say a word.
I think even the ones who just get their money and move on will probably think "man what a waste of a delay that was, the game sucks"
So whether they go on forums and say it, whether they just say it to their friends, or whether they just mutter it under their breath - it's the same end result - you have someone who went from "this delay is a good thing" - to "this delay was a total waste - the game still sucks"
This idea that you present where majority is an emotionless robot that is just happy no matter what the outcome - I don't agree with that one bit.
People who buy a game they are interested in - have expectations of the game being good and fun, just because people don't say a word - doesn't mean they didn't go from excited to disappointed.
In that case how are gamers fickle for not liking a bad product? Again I dont get your stand. Also as many pointed out we are in a schrodinger's cat situation. We dont know the outcome. Thats in Amazon Studios hand at the moment and 10 months away.
I wish that Age of Conan had bit the bullet and accepted several delays to get it right. That game had a lot of potential and threw it out of the window by releasing too early. If Amazon is willing to delay the game a few times to get it right, more power to them.\
Same with Cyperpunk 2077.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
I dont get you. How is a delay that does not yield results get spun in a good way for anyone? Again the vocal minority will get vocal but that does not make gamers as a whole a "fickle lot" as you put it. Most people will just get a refund and move on and never say a word.
I think even the ones who just get their money and move on will probably think "man what a waste of a delay that was, the game sucks"
So whether they go on forums and say it, whether they just say it to their friends, or whether they just mutter it under their breath - it's the same end result - you have someone who went from "this delay is a good thing" - to "this delay was a total waste - the game still sucks"
This idea that you present where majority is an emotionless robot that is just happy no matter what the outcome - I don't agree with that one bit.
People who buy a game they are interested in - have expectations of the game being good and fun, just because people don't say a word - doesn't mean they didn't go from excited to disappointed.
In that case how are gamers fickle for not liking a bad product? Again I dont get your stand. Also as many pointed out we are in a schrodinger's cat situation. We dont know the outcome. Thats in Amazon Studios hand at the moment and 10 months away.
To me, the fickleness comes along when a game company announces a project, sells it to the high heavens, then can't deliver on their promises (if at all). People sour on companies, switching from 'like' and 'adore' to 'hate' and 'despise', based on the impressions made by a game.
Only Blizzard seems to be mostly immune to that phenomenon, and that may be only because they've produced quality games and don't over-sell themselves.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
In that case how are gamers fickle for not liking a bad product? Again I dont get your stand. Also as many pointed out we are in a schrodinger's cat situation. We dont know the outcome. Thats in Amazon Studios hand at the moment and 10 months away.
You are moving goal posts
What happens to New world (good game or bad game outcome) - is unknown - I am not claiming to know or state how it will turn out.
Now as far as fickleness - that remains the same regardless of outcome - I said that gamers are a fickle lot
So lets define what that is:
"changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection."
Right now gamers are showing that they like what amazon is doing in terms of the delay - something along the lines - yay Amazon for taking time to fix the game.
My entire point is that IF (hypothetically speaking, i am not claiming the game will fail) if New World turns out to be a bad game - this support for Amazon will quickly change to something negative.
The gamers are not fickle for "liking a bad product" - they are fickle because they are so quick to change their "loyalties/interests/affection" - as per definition of what "fickle" means.
Do you get my stand now?
No, still dont get your stand. Maybe in your understanding someone speaking out about a bad product makes them fickle? Just because you praise a company for doing the right thing. Does not make you fickle when 10 months later you find out they didnt and you ask for a refund and you call them twits. Like I said above, gamers all want the same thing. A good game at a fair price. If we dont get that, maybe they have the right to get upset?
Our loyalties have not changed. All we want is a good game at a fair price. No one here is saying they love Amazon Studios. No one is saying they love how they make games. Their just happy to see maybe Amazon Studios maybe trying to make a good game over a rushed piles of not worth playing. I have no affection for Amazon Studio when I says this is the right move to delay the game.
In that case how are gamers fickle for not liking a bad product? Again I dont get your stand. Also as many pointed out we are in a schrodinger's cat situation. We dont know the outcome. Thats in Amazon Studios hand at the moment and 10 months away.
Now as far as fickleness - that remains the same regardless of outcome - I said that gamers are a fickle lot
So lets define what that is:
"changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection."
Right now gamers are showing that they like what amazon is doing in terms of the delay - something along the lines - yay Amazon for taking time to fix the game.
My entire point is that IF (hypothetically speaking, i am not claiming the game will fail) if New World turns out to be a bad game - this support for Amazon will quickly change to something negative.
The gamers are not fickle for "liking a bad product" - they are fickle because they are so quick to change their "loyalties/interests/affection" solely based on how a game turns out- as per definition of what "fickle" means.
Do you get my stand now?
Is that really being fickle?
So, I don't really have a horse in this race other than I will try the game out when it releases. Worse case scenario, I'll get some entertainment for a weekend or so.
So "right now" YES, I like that they are taking the time to work on the game. Good on you Amazon studios, you realize that you have work to do.
Then, if they release the game and it's bad then "too bad Amazon, you tried but failed, time to move on."
Them taking the time to work on the game is "good." Players are reacting to that. Maybe a few of their decisions (which also have their detractors) are gaining praise. But it makes sense that people will laud good decisions.
And they will lambaste a bad game if that is the outcome.
That's not being fickle. It's just reacting to what is in front of you.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Just because you praise a company for doing the right thing. Does not make you fickle when 10 months later you find out they didnt and you ask for a refund and you call them twits.
That is literally what fickle means.
"changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection."
With each good product, even good patch - yay company X - love these guys, they are the best
With each bad product, bad patch - this company sucks, the devs are clueless - worst company ever
Thas is what gamers do - and the word to describe this is - fickleness
The other stuff you bring up is valid - good games at fair price - however this has nothing to do with gamers being fickle
The issue of gamers fickleness is a well known problem in the video gaming industry, honestly feels weird to even have to explain it and discuss it as if this is some kind of a new concept.
Worst definition of fickle I have ever even seen or heard lol. I dont think you know what fickle is. Its unpredictably changing or erratic behavior.
Its extremely predictable to change your opinion if the information changes. To not do so would be stubborn. Holy cow, you must think everyone is fickle all the time.
Cant judge anything good or bad unless you are fickle? No matter how bad the product is, you have to stay with it or be considered fickle? Wow what a crazy concept.
I think you just jumped the shark on this. There goes a long fly ball to left field.
In that case how are gamers fickle for not liking a bad product? Again I dont get your stand. Also as many pointed out we are in a schrodinger's cat situation. We dont know the outcome. Thats in Amazon Studios hand at the moment and 10 months away.
Now as far as fickleness - that remains the same regardless of outcome - I said that gamers are a fickle lot
So lets define what that is:
"changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection."
Right now gamers are showing that they like what amazon is doing in terms of the delay - something along the lines - yay Amazon for taking time to fix the game.
My entire point is that IF (hypothetically speaking, i am not claiming the game will fail) if New World turns out to be a bad game - this support for Amazon will quickly change to something negative.
The gamers are not fickle for "liking a bad product" - they are fickle because they are so quick to change their "loyalties/interests/affection" solely based on how a game turns out- as per definition of what "fickle" means.
Do you get my stand now?
Is that really being fickle?
So, I don't really have a horse in this race other than I will try the game out when it releases. Worse case scenario, I'll get some entertainment for a weekend or so.
So "right now" YES, I like that they are taking the time to work on the game. Good on you Amazon studios, you realize that you have work to do.
Then, if they release the game and it's bad then "too bad Amazon, you tried but failed, time to move on."
Them taking the time to work on the game is "good." Players are reacting to that. Maybe a few of their decisions (which also have their detractors) are gaining praise. But it makes sense that people will laud good decisions.
And they will lambaste a bad game if that is the outcome.
That's not being fickle. It's just reacting to what is in front of you.
Ok answer me this -
Majority of gamers - generally speaking - are they fickle or not?
Also can you give me an example of what a fickle gamer would act like?
I would say there is a contingent of "gamers" that are permanently 13 years old with issues. But I couldn't say that was a majority.
I've seen a LOT of full-on dorkiness which makes me loath the word "gamer" as it brings up the idea of the person living in their basement, no real prospects in life, always playing video games.
However, I strongly suspect that's not really true. I know that there are very competent, confident, successful, well adjusted (as far as one can be considered as such) people who play video games.
As far as as example of a fickle gamer/player would be? Someone who absolutely loves a video game and then suddenly they despise the video game because the devs changed something and they throw a tantrum, only for them to love it again. Not love or hate the change but to wholesale love or hate the entire game because of a subset of things they don't like. One can love or hate a change but to keep flip-flopping one's opinion would seem fickle.
The difference to your example?
The difference would be players liking "the current effort" that Amazon studios are trying to make in order to create a successful game. That in and of itself is completely different from the actual game itself which a good many of us haven't played yet.
So yeah, their effort seems decent. People are lauding that effort, that they realize their game needs work.
And if the game releases and it sucks? It means that their best-intentioned efforts were just not good enough.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Just because you praise a company for doing the right thing. Does not make you fickle when 10 months later you find out they didnt and you ask for a refund and you call them twits.
That is literally what fickle means.
"changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection."
With each good product, even good patch - yay company X - love these guys, they are the best
With each bad product, bad patch - this company sucks, the devs are clueless - worst company ever
Thas is what gamers do - and the word to describe this is - fickleness
The other stuff you bring up is valid - good games at fair price - however this has nothing to do with gamers being fickle
The issue of gamers fickleness is a well known problem in the video gaming industry, honestly feels weird to even have to explain it and discuss it as if this is some kind of a new concept.
Worst definition of fickle I have ever even seen or heard lol. I dont think you know what fickle is. Its unpredictably changing or erratic behavior.
Its extremely predictable to change your opinion if the information changes. To not do so would be stubborn. Holy cow, you must think everyone is fickle all the time.
Cant judge anything good or bad unless you are fickle? No matter how bad the product is, you have to stay with it or be considered fickle? Wow what a crazy concept.
I think you just jumped the shark on this. There goes a long fly ball to left field.
You might want to let google know they have the worst definition of fickle
Yout entire post is a complete misunderstanding of my point
You made a crazy point that I never even mentioned - namely "no matter how bad the product is you have to stay with it to not be fickle" - umm not even close to what I am talking about
Yes what you wrote is a crazy concept, it is worth noting that is not what I am saying however
I dont disagree with googles definition. I disagree with your understanding of it. "changing frequently" is understood to mean on a whim. For no good reason other than to change.
It doesn't mean, just because you like the concept of an MMO then when you see the final product so you change your opinion to not like it, that now you are somehow fickle because you changed your mind. In fact you can change your mind for any good reason, and still not be fickle.
Just because you praise a company for doing the right thing. Does not make you fickle when 10 months later you find out they didnt and you ask for a refund and you call them twits.
That is literally what fickle means.
"changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection."
With each good product, even good patch - yay company X - love these guys, they are the best
With each bad product, bad patch - this company sucks, the devs are clueless - worst company ever
Thas is what gamers do - and the word to describe this is - fickleness
The other stuff you bring up is valid - good games at fair price - however this has nothing to do with gamers being fickle
The issue of gamers fickleness is a well known problem in the video gaming industry, honestly feels weird to even have to explain it and discuss it as if this is some kind of a new concept.
Worst definition of fickle I have ever even seen or heard lol. I dont think you know what fickle is. Its unpredictably changing or erratic behavior.
Its extremely predictable to change your opinion if the information changes. To not do so would be stubborn. Holy cow, you must think everyone is fickle all the time.
Cant judge anything good or bad unless you are fickle? No matter how bad the product is, you have to stay with it or be considered fickle? Wow what a crazy concept.
I think you just jumped the shark on this. There goes a long fly ball to left field.
You might want to let google know they have the worst definition of fickle
Yout entire post is a complete misunderstanding of my point
You made a crazy point that I never even mentioned - namely "no matter how bad the product is you have to stay with it to not be fickle" - umm not even close to what I am talking about
Yes what you wrote is a crazy concept, it is worth noting that is not what I am saying however
I dont disagree with googles definition. I disagree with your understanding of it. "changing frequently" is understood to mean on a whim. For no good reason other than to change.
It doesn't mean, just because you like the concept of an MMO then when you see the final product so you change your opinion to not like it, that now you are somehow fickle because you changed your mind. In fact you can change your mind for any good reason, and still not be fickle.
His view is if you change your mind your fickle. That would make everyone in the world fickle. Not the case.
Just because you praise a company for doing the right thing. Does not make you fickle when 10 months later you find out they didnt and you ask for a refund and you call them twits.
That is literally what fickle means.
"changing frequently, especially as regards one's loyalties, interests, or affection."
With each good product, even good patch - yay company X - love these guys, they are the best
With each bad product, bad patch - this company sucks, the devs are clueless - worst company ever
Thas is what gamers do - and the word to describe this is - fickleness
The other stuff you bring up is valid - good games at fair price - however this has nothing to do with gamers being fickle
The issue of gamers fickleness is a well known problem in the video gaming industry, honestly feels weird to even have to explain it and discuss it as if this is some kind of a new concept.
Worst definition of fickle I have ever even seen or heard lol. I dont think you know what fickle is. Its unpredictably changing or erratic behavior.
Its extremely predictable to change your opinion if the information changes. To not do so would be stubborn. Holy cow, you must think everyone is fickle all the time.
Cant judge anything good or bad unless you are fickle? No matter how bad the product is, you have to stay with it or be considered fickle? Wow what a crazy concept.
I think you just jumped the shark on this. There goes a long fly ball to left field.
You might want to let google know they have the worst definition of fickle
Yout entire post is a complete misunderstanding of my point
You made a crazy point that I never even mentioned - namely "no matter how bad the product is you have to stay with it to not be fickle" - umm not even close to what I am talking about
Yes what you wrote is a crazy concept, it is worth noting that is not what I am saying however
Comments
A game being delayed so it is not released in a bad state, with a chance it is released in a good state, is somehow a bad thing.
I can't think of a single game this statement couldn't apply to.
Amazon hit the market hard and heavy. The real world was ready for a new gaming experience, by the billion, and you and both know the moment of kick-ass profit in dwindling down to red.
The problem isn't the state of the game. The problem is the bullshit politics of real world investors/producers who continuously stir the pot because they know nothing about gamers and everything about profit.
Blizzard did not give a damn about what people thought of their game. Hundreds of thousands of people complained about it not being ready and it launched anyway. Why did Blizzard launch a Beta game? They had the attention of the world and thank god someone with some courage said, 'Launch it.'
Do not feed me this crap about readiness and sustainability. There is no such thing in the gaming world. You launch your idea when the world is eager to dive in and not when you have thousands upon thousands of reviews from people who do not play the game, will not play the game but is allowed to highlight the game.
Yeah...Smedlley did some questionable things but Smedley launched. Trust and believe it was not the content or the vision or the mechanics that those Smedley games died under, it was the management of the game(z) itself.
Amazon is not Smedley, they plan to support and stand behind their work, but they certainly are not Blizzard who has the courage to toss the game foundation out to the world and creatively make it better as it goes. Otherwise, what is the point in updates and releases?
Stop trying to be perfect and grab the branding iron while it's hot. Otherwise, this effort will die because the real world is not as dumb as they appear (hahaha -not to offend anyone, this is just my opinion).
Launch the damned game before it is judged by the masses.
Now they are scrambling to overcome the fatal mistake made at the beginning.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Any company makes a quality product at a fair price, it will get played but the vocal minority will still find something to pee on. Disregard them.
Whether it ends up being garbage or not is a whole other thing. The two don't follow other than in the fact that they have a better chance of improving it with the delay than without it.
Neither you nor I know what they're going to do with the extra months.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The game isn't ready so "yes" they need to/should delay it. A delay will only make it better.
Now ... what does "better" mean? What does better, in this instance, look like?
There seem to be a lot of posts, over the course of years, that feel like "all or nothing." "One likes a particular game or not so pick a side."
But that's not reality. It's never black and whtie but all sorts of shades of gray.
As was mentioned in the No Man's Sky thread, that game had a lot of people very angry at launch. And, after time, has made good and then some.
Just like Final FAntasy 14 (also mentioned in that thread) has also made good from a disastrous launch.
Only time will tell with this game. I suspect it won't be anything special at launch but will be a bit "better" than if it launched earlier. Whether or not the development team has the same sense of pride and fortitude as the Final Fantasy 14 or No Man's Sky devs remains to be seen.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Same with Cyperpunk 2077.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
So, I don't really have a horse in this race other than I will try the game out when it releases. Worse case scenario, I'll get some entertainment for a weekend or so.
So "right now" YES, I like that they are taking the time to work on the game. Good on you Amazon studios, you realize that you have work to do.
Then, if they release the game and it's bad then "too bad Amazon, you tried but failed, time to move on."
Them taking the time to work on the game is "good." Players are reacting to that. Maybe a few of their decisions (which also have their detractors) are gaining praise. But it makes sense that people will laud good decisions.
And they will lambaste a bad game if that is the outcome.
That's not being fickle. It's just reacting to what is in front of you.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Its extremely predictable to change your opinion if the information changes. To not do so would be stubborn. Holy cow, you must think everyone is fickle all the time.
Cant judge anything good or bad unless you are fickle? No matter how bad the product is, you have to stay with it or be considered fickle? Wow what a crazy concept.
I think you just jumped the shark on this. There goes a long fly ball to left field.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
It doesn't mean, just because you like the concept of an MMO then when you see the final product so you change your opinion to not like it, that now you are somehow fickle because you changed your mind. In fact you can change your mind for any good reason, and still not be fickle.