[QUOTE]Yes I am sure there will be core and hardcore servers down the road that can toggle TPS on and off. No major issue imo. Similiar to many arma servers, you can have TPS server, and FPS only servers. No big deal. [/QUOTE]
If they make server standard whit only first person (so who join is able to learn how to play normally) and the possibility to enable the third person on your server the problem is solved.
So anyone could say he has a server with third person and anyone who wants to enter in this server can (probably I prefer and I'll chose the classic :D) but I'm not stopping anyone who whant to play in a different way, and I would be very happy if they could play in a server where everything is balanced (and explained in explicit way).
I love when I hear noises and I can not see what happens behind me: D.
[QUOTE=Sievers808;44807442]...[/QUOTE]
KSP community aside, go check out the 7 Days to Die forums if you like, they're a good bunch that doesn't display even half as much as the hostility as here. Perhaps that's because the Devs listen to their wishes and update the game frequently? Often once a week!?
I've been around since the Internets inception and I've watched PC gaming change over the years. This new "early access" model is great, in theory, but doesn't always work in practice. People just don't understand that Alpha is Alpha and Beta is Beta and finished is finished. Honestly, I bet that the majority of the retards complaining about Rust couldn't tell you the difference between an Alpha and Beta release...but I digress.
It doesn't change the fact that update frequency for Rust is abysmal regardless of what they're doing. There are many more Alpha-PreAlpha games that are progressing right along in a timely manner unlike Rust. I could name a few, but that is irrelevant to this discussion.
Combine Garry's bad attitude with the infrequent updates and the condescending manner in which Garry does post about updates, that are far out yet, and you get people that are mad and irritated that their beloved game isn't what they expect/want it to be as quickly or efficiently as they want.
Early release games are a bad idea. Not just because of the popularity they may achieve and the following they gather, but because a bunch of entitled idiots are going to spend money on an unfinished product and expect the moon and bitch, whine, and moan when the moon isn't delivered to their door step wrapped in a gold ribbon and sparkling like the rainbow-unicorn-fart they expected it to be.
Early access game sales should be reserved for the few development studios that have the time, money, and man power to deliver constant updates and are willing to accept and use community ideas. If a development studio isn't ready to listen to their community and their ideas and push out updates corresponding with those ideas then they need to develop their game until it's finished and THEN release it on its own merits. On what it is...instead of what the following and community [B][I]WANTED[/I][/B] it to be.
[QUOTE=JacksSparrow;44835014]...[/QUOTE]
Not going to argue with you on the rampant abuse with early-access games (lots of disingenuous crap on kickstarter) or even with Garry's attitude. But three points of disagreement:
1) The video game industry doesn't take risks, and doesn't care if you like games as long as you buy them. Indie developers often have awesome ideas that don't have the polish and may not even be fully realized, but they might need financial support to get started or bring on supporting talent. At least with early-access you get some enjoyment out of it, instead of checking a website every day waiting for a message from the developer.
I'll be pissed if Facepunch starts phoning it in at some point along the way, but I can't deny I got my 20 bucks worth.
2) The earlier a developer makes dramatic and ground-up changes, the better. I'm happy to see them rebuilding the engine now, instead of another month of spitpolish on features that make the already-monotonous play-testing easier or slightly more enjoyable.
3) Access to incomplete games shouldn't be artificially restricted to big developers, or open-minded developers, or any other subjective conditionals... that's what the community is for. When players get tired of being underwhelmed by early alpha games, they'll either adapt their expectations or they'll vote with their wallet (or the lack thereof). Steam should only be worried about developers outright lying or misrepresenting their work (*coughWarZcough*).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
