Breaking Design Rules - Rust

[QUOTE=Bui;46391330]Do players really just want the old game with a new skin on it?[/QUOTE] I missed this earlier, but I would venture to say yes since hundreds of thousands of people paid money for legacy.

[QUOTE=frank_walls;46401725]I missed this earlier, but I would venture to say yes since hundreds of thousands of people paid money for legacy.[/QUOTE] Rust has sold over 1.6 million, and probably past 2 million by now (but I don't know the updated number), copies. Don't assume you can talk for that many people.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46401836]Rust has sold over 1.6 million, and probably past 2 million by now (but I don't know the updated number), copies. Don't assume you can talk for that many people.[/QUOTE] Well, seeing as how most of those were sold prior to the announcement of the experimental version you could say it's safe to assume players might not be bothered by that. Here's where you can get current sales figures. [URL="http://www.facepunchstudios.com/sales-figures/"]http://www.facepunchstudios.com/sales-figures/[/URL] Based upon that graph it appears Rust may be reaching a peak in sales.

Oh, hey, look at that, two million this last month. Note: experimental was announced in February. Between February and March 2014, Rust went from 850,000 copies to 1.25 million copies. Since then, another 750,000 copies were sold. It'd be great if we could get more granular sales figures, but let's split it down the middle, roughly, which puts 200,000 on either side of experimental's announcement. That puts it at approximately 50/50. It's not exactly that, and experimental being a deciding factor is difficult to quantify because it's not like users are polled at checkout. However, roughly 50% of the userbase bought Rust before experimental, and 50% after. A number bought Rust for what it'll be when it's done, not its current state. Myself included. How about that? And of course Rust would see sales momentum slow; most people who wanted it have bought it, and the development cycle is long. Experimental's not as playable as legacy was at the moment, but that's not the worst thing in the world, because legacy was, if anything, [B]too popular[/B] too early. garry doesn't have to care about sales right now. Facepunch Studios has more than enough money in the bank from Garry's Mod that they've been able to finance Rust's entire development so far without touching any of the sales profits from it. He could've sold zero copies so far and they'd be in the same position they are today with respect to funding Rust.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46401836]Rust has sold over 1.6 million, and probably past 2 million by now (but I don't know the updated number), copies. Don't assume you can talk for that many people.[/QUOTE] Legacy rust sold that many copies. I feel like if you bought legacy rust thats what you expected to be playing. With the difference between experimental and legacy being immense, it feels like buying counterstrike and then 6 months later the developer saying you now get minecraft instead. (Just a random example dont get too worked up about it eli)

[QUOTE=Bellyring;46401989]Legacy rust sold that many copies. [B]I feel like if you bought legacy rust thats what you expected to be playing.[/B][/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IcBwX4s.png[/IMG] I have no sympathy for this sentiment.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46402028][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/IcBwX4s.png[/IMG] I have no sympathy for this sentiment.[/QUOTE] If they wanted to make 2 different games they should have made 2 different games. I dont really care about your definition of early access. I dont really respect you after seeing the trash posts u have on this forum blindly following fp and refusing to form your own opinion. I paid for a game that i saw as being extremely promising and it turned out to be my favorite game ever. Now its being replaced by a game that i see as having no chance of being even a decent game. Then you add on thats its being created by a company that has shown absolutely no reason to be trusted between their lack of professionalism when interacting with the community and inability to fix problems throughout legacy and experimental. When experimental was announced up until right before it was released me and just about everyone else assumed it was going to be legacy remade, its now clear thats not the case and i dont see any reason we wouldnt be frustrated about that. Were fucking humans, try acting like one. How would you like it if your favorite game at the moment just got shut down? Illbe able to move on to another game, but id much rather keep playing rust.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46401925]Oh, hey, look at that, two million this last month. Note: experimental was announced in February. Between February and March 2014, Rust went from 850,000 copies to 1.25 million copies. Since then, another 750,000 copies were sold. It'd be great if we could get more granular sales figures, but let's split it down the middle, roughly, which puts 200,000 on either side of experimental's announcement. That puts it at approximately 50/50. It's not exactly that, and experimental being a deciding factor is difficult to quantify because it's not like users are polled at checkout. However, roughly 50% of the userbase bought Rust before experimental, and 50% after. A number bought Rust for what it'll be when it's done, not its current state. Myself included. How about that? And of course Rust would see sales momentum slow; most people who wanted it have bought it, and the development cycle is long. Experimental's not as playable as legacy was at the moment, but that's not the worst thing in the world, because legacy was, if anything, [B]too popular[/B] too early. garry doesn't have to care about sales right now. Facepunch Studios has more than enough money in the bank from Garry's Mod that they've been able to finance Rust's entire development so far without touching any of the sales profits from it. He could've sold zero copies so far and they'd be in the same position they are today with respect to funding Rust.[/QUOTE] You couldn't play the experimental version of Rust until this past summer. So up until then anyone that purchased the game would have expected it play similar legacy. You also seem to be failing to see that I'm not against the experimental version. I'm just stating that the current iteration of the game isn't as fun as the 10% complete version that legacy was. Also, after looking through the devblog Garry had also stated that legacy was a "barebones foundation" of the game. That is exactly what I was stating a foundation for a game should be - a basic foundation to build upon.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46401093]I was playing Rust before it was on Steam. Check. The problem is that you guys took legacy to be the finished game, when it never was.[/QUOTE] I said 'since it came out on steam.' You haven't played it since it came out on steam, yet talk about it as if you have a lot of experience. I had no mistaken impressions that legacy was a finished game, but it played like a finished game waiting on features much more than experimental currently does. [editline]3rd November 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46401236]It was nowhere near a complete foundation. It was a mere 10% of the devs' vision for Rust. Alpha is for building the foundation, beta is for adding content and polishing the foundation. There's a reason Rust was never officially referred to as a beta. Consider and adjust your perspective accordingly.[/QUOTE] You say 10% as if there were 100 features and 10 were done. Garry might have used that number at one point, but other than that, how would you measure it? You weren't even playing it before they stopped developing, so what are you basing that on?