It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
"This week, we generated more than fifteen internal builds which allowed QA to confirm fixes and identify new critical bugs. Three of these builds were released to the Evocati for intensive testing. One persistent bug was a memory leak issue where the game (either on the client or server side) soaked up more and more system RAM until it crashed. The team has been squashing this bug whenever they find it, but with performance issues like this, there is rarely a single solution. As more mechanics and code are implemented, any one of them can cause the issue to return. The programmers have been working with the engineering team to develop new additions to the Debug system which will help identifying these issues sooner. There was also a consistent Serialized Variable crash that occurred when there were data mismatches in the game code between the client and server which caused a disconnection. The debugging work the engineering team is doing for the memory leak should also help resolve this issue as well.
The team’s been focusing on the comprehensive Shopping experience and resolving any issues related to shopping, kiosks or the economy. They’ve fixed a series of issues that ranged from spawning the player inside their bed (literally) to one bug that took out all of the items from all of the shops. "
He seems to have felt insulted and insulted me back, as it was misunderstood and I explained what I meant. That simple.Dizisma said:
You do not get to decide if you attacked/insulted someone.
You made a statement aimed at another poster, that poster felt that you attacked them, and insulted them, therefore, you did.
No amount of backtracking, or explaining by you will change that.
I didn't attack; if they perceived it as one attack as I explained it doesn't become my problem and suddenly justifies a rant of several personal insults. Again, I did not insult him. And even if he took it as one insult and insulted me back, he could have apologized after I explained what I meant, but none of that matters to you I see. I'd really appreciate you to drop this and move on.Cotic said:Then it is as he/she said, you are upset that someone attacked you after you attacked them, that's quite the irony. You instigated the issue by insulting their intelligence and now you are upset with the response you received, what exactly did you think was going to happen?
If you approached a family in the street and insulted their child would you act hurt and surprised when the father smacks you on the chin?
There's an old phrase that comes to mind, don't dish it out if you can't take it in return.
If you don't see a difference I can't help you, it's the difference of getting money to put back into attempting to make a great game vs getting money for profit and fill coffers.Redemp said:I don't see a difference, sure the "scheme" is different but it boils down to the same thing. Pubs will push milestones and fight bloat, while tacking on extra's like day one DLC, Lootboxes, gated content. The product typically ships in a window that's predictable. Do we lose some of the depth that constantly shifting milestones and increased funding provide, yes but as we've seen the goalposts consistently shift.
I also think that continual change orders and content bloat being regularly funded by additional add on's can be considered profit in the same vein. In one the product is stuck in a continually changing development cycle and exec's are enjoying that additional job security. ( When their add-on's are selling as in SC's case ) In the other the content is capped, done, and monetized - game ships and they move a portion of those profits to the next installment/game.
I just don't see a difference anymore ... at least with the much hated publisher cycle we knew we were getting a game before any money changed hands. /shrug