It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I thought it would be neccessary to clarify that potentially apart from a few people that potentially have ulterior motives (either positive or negative) I would say that the majority of people who post negativity are not mindless haters as many of the CRS worshipers on here label them as. They are conveying their disapproval of decisions that CRS have made.
I can bet you that every player, veteran or current. who has spent anytime in game throughly enjoys the original CONCEPT of this game. That is, a hardcore combined arms combat simulator with WW2 weaponary across a large playing area with an emphasis on teamwork.
However CRS have, amongst other things, moved away from that into a battlefield esque sideshow called 'Rapid Assault'. This has angered many players as when they pay their subscription they were under the impression that they were paying for the continued development of World War 2 online when really were actually paying for a pet project that has very little commercial potential and was originally sold to the players as being for PREMIUM subscribers only and that they would have to pay MORE money to unlock more weapons. This is not what players would like, they want development of the game that they percieved they are paying for. You can look at the terms of conditions and say what CRS have done is legal and not fraudelent but such behaviour is poor business practise as it will annoy customers. Many customers have voted with their wallets and have unsubscribed which is why CRS are in their current position.
Now as I know what the worshipers on here will say CRS have never done anything wrong and will attack the above opinion to being different and will use the following arguments that CRS spout out
"Rapid Assault is being funded by outside investors and not current subscribers"
First of, is CRS going to release their fully audited company finances to back up that claim? Nope. Such a statement you have to take their word of it, just like you have to take their word for North Africa going into the map, Rapid Assault going into Beta in late 2011 and that they've never turned a profit throughout their history..... Secondly, they only started coming out with that statement back in early 2012, by then Rapid Assault had been in development for nearly a year (conservative estimate) and so in that time they could have been diverting all their development money from WW2online into developing this project. Thirdly, even if they stay absolutely true to this claim which individuals are doing the development? Are they hiring more people to support the project? No, they are using their ever decreasing existing staff who are diverted away from WW2online development. Thus people are paying the salaries of the people developing Rapid Assault with their current subscription revenue.
"Rapid Assault is F2P now and their business decisions are sound"
When they 'revealed' it in June 2011 and the Rat Chat afterwards they said that Rapid Assault was for subscribers and trial players only and that to unlock weapons like the 'bazooka' you would have to do a one off payment. As CRS put it, another 'revenue stream'. Now, in terms of business sense this is stupid. First of how are they expecting to attract NEW customers with some outdated pick up and play console shoot em' up? Have they not looked at the market? They are attempting to compete in the mainstream with a product that at best can compete with Call of Duty 2 (released 2005). Secondly, how are you going to attract 'potential' paying customers by expecting them to folk up money. Likewise it is disrestpectful to current customers to expect them to pay more to unlock new gear and the size of the potential 'revenue stream' from purchasing gear is going to be fairly minimal as unlike existing popular MMO's like World of Tanks Rapid Assault will have far less players.
You might say that it is different now but you need to understand the perspective on things. It's late 2011, players are angry over countless broken promises and in the revelation that their money has gone into development into a side show project with (at the time) a terrible business strategy which has no direct impact on the main game it caused people to leave. Hence why CRS have to cut their staff and have engaged in asking the players left for more money.
"I've played Rapid Assault and I enjoyed it"
I'm not going to disagree with a truthful opinion, why would I? A person's opinion are their most honest views. However, ever picked up a game and played it for a few hours thinking it's great but then overtime getting bored with it and not playing it? Take Call of Duty. When a new Call of Duty comes out most players will be like "wow this is amazing" but then after a few days they play it and say "this isn't as good as I thought"; thus first impressions do not always last. Same can be the case with Rapid Assault. Sure it's fun to pick up and play at first because it's pretty similar to WW2online. You have the same weapons and game mechanics that you understand and already enjoy in the main game but you've got new pretty enviornments and a different objective. Great. However, how many times are you going to play the 'Dog Green' sceneriao (or any other)? Will your gameplay be varied or linear? Does the amount of development time really justify the small replayibility value?
"Well on the forums and the comments on the frontpage article CRS said they really liked it"
The forums are heavily moderated and anything negative will get closed or deleted so what is left is a rather inactive forum with only positives. Likewise, comments on their articles are moderated. Only comments that are positive are allowed so there appears to be a 'ground roots' support for CRS. Nice in theory but internet users are more savvy these days so if a decision such as raising subscription fee's only gets positive and neutraol comments it's odvious something is fishy: http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/index.php/component/content/article/25-promotions-a-offers/12339-new-pricing-schedule-2012-activated
Interestingly I dropped into the TS at the end of the RA session and heard XOOM asking players (so he can do some 'testimonials for marketing') to email him what they liked and to report any bugs only. What about asking players what they didn't like? The opinions of the players is what important at the end of the day. The developers might like it but if no players like it who is going to play? This is a big contrast to one of their competitors, Hereos and Generals who repeately emphaise to players "help us make the game you want to play" (odviously to attract players who have become disillusihioned with CRS) while the CRS attitude of "If you don't like our development decisions the leave." Though I will admit they have become more welcoming, the post 2012 attitude is "Please come back, leaving is not the way to give us a message, but we're not going to change".
"Rapid Assault allows CRS to work on new features for the campaign game"
These 'features' they can develop anyway without having to make a completely different game. You don't need a side show shooter to develop RPATS, a new persona (Americans), land mines, new tanks, airplanes, buildings etc. Likewise CRS have contradicted themselves many a time by saying they are severely limited on what they can add to the current engine. Thus they are undertaking expansionary development for an engine that can't take anything new. Sure they can save a few megabytes by cutting the code down but we will get even instability, more CTD's and the server having to be reset more often as it is post 1.34.
Many subscribers don't want to talk publicly about CRS they either no it's fruitless, left years ago or have invested so many years of recreation time and money into the game and don't want to say anything which could bring the end of it. These people will pay more and more just so it won't end because then they're loyalty and investments will all be in vain. We can mostly agree we love the concept of the game but we are disillusioned with the developers and by supporting them blindingly
CRS is like an alcoholic. You can be nice and keep giving them the alcohol, comfort them and tell them their ok as they slowly die OR you can step up, tell them to wise up, force them to stop their old ways and turn themselves around because they will only ever get better if they change their ways