Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Well that didnt last long.

124

Comments

  • rodarinrodarin Member RarePosts: 2,452
    I never said it was a bad game. My sole contention is that people arent playing it, at least online. As I said in other posts I dont believe Steam numbers. If two or three sites show 12-15K people online playing it and Steam consistently shows 40-50 that means 30-40K people are playing an online game by themselves. Thats 60-70% of the overall population playing an online game solo. Even Ark is less than 50% playing it alone.

    Its also a comparison of those sites showing the clear diminishing of population over time. I gave the link to one of them, a fairly accurate one IMO. And if you click the charts you will see the pattern.

    I never said if it was good or bad. 

    I simply try(ied) to figure out WHY the populations have left already after 8 or 9 days. Even with more units being sold.

    If you look at one site and accept their numbers and they have shown a consistent pattern of fewer and fewer people logging in then its clear, at least to me. Even Steam numbers (I dont believe because I think they manipulate them to sell more units) show the numbers decreasing since their peak a week ago. Their numbers are just (slightly) twice the numbers the site I linked show. They peaked at around 36K last week at their all time high, yesterday they peaked at 18000 for the same time period. Steam shows around 53K and yesterday they show 40K at that peak. So 36K compared to 53K (Site A compared to Steam); then 18K to 40K. So either one site is under reporting (unlikely); one is over reporting (plausible); or fewer people over all are playing (verified by both sites) and the ones that are still playing are playing on their own machines rather than playing online(plausible).

    Mods will make or break it, just like it did with ARK. Ark showed similar patterns. Fewer numbers actually. But once again they were the 'innovator' (at least their mod makers were), so they were able to break out of a pattern.

    The BIG difference with Ark though was it was a complete ghost before it actually released(to Steam). NO ONE, knew about it. This site didnt say a thing about ARK, even as it was blowing up they didnt say anything. It didnt even get its own forum for almost a year. CE a month before it was release was getting covered here on a daily (sometimes twice a day) at this site, and it has had its own forum for longer than that. Just saying.
  • DMKanoDMKano Member LegendaryPosts: 21,215
    rodarin said:
    I never said it was a bad game. My sole contention is that people arent playing it, at least online. As I said in other posts I dont believe Steam numbers. If two or three sites show 12-15K people online playing it and Steam consistently shows 40-50 that means 30-40K people are playing an online game by themselves. Thats 60-70% of the overall population playing an online game solo. Even Ark is less than 50% playing it alone.

    Its also a comparison of those sites showing the clear diminishing of population over time. I gave the link to one of them, a fairly accurate one IMO. And if you click the charts you will see the pattern.

    I never said if it was good or bad. 

    I simply try(ied) to figure out WHY the populations have left already after 8 or 9 days. Even with more units being sold.

    If you look at one site and accept their numbers and they have shown a consistent pattern of fewer and fewer people logging in then its clear, at least to me. Even Steam numbers (I dont believe because I think they manipulate them to sell more units) show the numbers decreasing since their peak a week ago. Their numbers are just (slightly) twice the numbers the site I linked show. They peaked at around 36K last week at their all time high, yesterday they peaked at 18000 for the same time period. Steam shows around 53K and yesterday they show 40K at that peak. So 36K compared to 53K (Site A compared to Steam); then 18K to 40K. So either one site is under reporting (unlikely); one is over reporting (plausible); or fewer people over all are playing (verified by both sites) and the ones that are still playing are playing on their own machines rather than playing online(plausible).

    Mods will make or break it, just like it did with ARK. Ark showed similar patterns. Fewer numbers actually. But once again they were the 'innovator' (at least their mod makers were), so they were able to break out of a pattern.

    The BIG difference with Ark though was it was a complete ghost before it actually released(to Steam). NO ONE, knew about it. This site didnt say a thing about ARK, even as it was blowing up they didnt say anything. It didnt even get its own forum for almost a year. CE a month before it was release was getting covered here on a daily (sometimes twice a day) at this site, and it has had its own forum for longer than that. Just saying.

    I can give you some insider insight on Steam and their numbers - 

    1. Steam does not manipulate numbers "to sell more copies" 
    2. People don't understand HOW steam reports numbers as in what steam considers "players online"

    Steam doesn't actually KNOW if you are playing the game or just sitting inside the "game launcher" - especially true for games that have their own launchers - so you click on play through steam - and then have to log in again into the game via launcher - steam doesn't know if you are actually just sitting on the launcher or are in game playing - it will report the client as "playing that game", when in fact you could just have the game launcher up and never actually play.

    So this is why steam's numbers can be a LOT higher than what players in game actually are.


  • TealaTeala Member RarePosts: 7,627
    I blame YouTube and Keralis for me going ahead and buying it.  :p  Wasn't sure how good the game would be since it is a FunCom release.  Then I started watching a few videos of people playing it - mainly Keralis on YouTube.  It's his fault I went ahead and bought it.   Now I am happily playing it on our own dedicated server.  Kinda reminds me of Skyrim - except now I can play with my friends!  Stupid Bethesda should have made Skyrim co-op!
  • AethaerynAethaeryn Member RarePosts: 3,011
    I am going to say it is "because" of early access.  I pick up some games. . play for a bit and then wait for major updates and continue this until release were I play it through fully.  I have resisted buying it though.  It seems every time I break down and get something it is on Humble Bundle shortly after  ;)

    Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!

  • rodarinrodarin Member RarePosts: 2,452
    Well for the guys left playing it, there arent that many thats for sure. Hopefully that puff piece they made about making their money back guilts them into making the game better. But the peaks now (for online) are under 14K per day now. Yesterday it was about 12250 today it didnt break 12000. Even Steams manipulated numbers are dropping,  around 38K yesterday. I doubt they break 35K today.

    Yeah I watch Moon or Timmac fumble around with it and try and play it but its still a broken mess and even these guys cant make it good. And if Moon is playing it you know he is getting paid because he played and streamed some of the worst piece of crap games ever made on a regular bases. Games that had 50 times more people watching him play than even OWNED them let alone played them.
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    rodarin said:
    Well for the guys left playing it, there arent that many thats for sure. Hopefully that puff piece they made about making their money back guilts them into making the game better. But the peaks now (for online) are under 14K per day now. Yesterday it was about 12250 today it didnt break 12000. Even Steams manipulated numbers are dropping,  around 38K yesterday. I doubt they break 35K today.

    Yeah I watch Moon or Timmac fumble around with it and try and play it but its still a broken mess and even these guys cant make it good. And if Moon is playing it you know he is getting paid because he played and streamed some of the worst piece of crap games ever made on a regular bases. Games that had 50 times more people watching him play than even OWNED them let alone played them.

    LMAO, I laugh at posts like this. Unfortunately you are compartmentalizing the game. What you're actually seeing is a natural fall-off that's seen with most games. It literally happens with every game that's out there. I remember when people said the same thing of H1Z1 when it was posting stupid numbers when it first launched. SHOCKER!!! It's still in the top 25 on steamcharts. Let's say it's numbers are 12000. Do you feel that's bad? In comparison to what? 

    Now, if we use REAL numbers like through Steamcharts, we see that number is actually quite a bit higher. I can respect that you don't feel Steam's numbers are real, but how you feel that some third party site who can't even seem to use proper English on their site is a more reliable source eludes me. 

    Either way, the numbers are falling, we can agree on that. However, the question is about context. The numbers are falling..... so what? Here's a fucking CRAZY thought, do you think it might be possible that more people would play a game within the first week of it's release than would do so on an ongoing basis? I'm not sure why you're surprised. I'm actually surprised they've maintained the user base they have, only because we know it's EA and it's going to be buggy. Here's something to blow your mind, nearly every single player who bought the game played it in the first week. So just try to comprehend how 400,000 players all playing the game on a daily basis would inflate concurrent player numbers. Do you really believe that it's reasonable for them to maintain those types of concurrent numbers? We're talking about nearly 10% of their user base being online at all times, lol. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • rodarinrodarin Member RarePosts: 2,452
    So the 'natural' fall of of a buy to play game, not one with a subscription over a 2 week period is over 50%?

    GOOD games or ones that are released (even in 'early access') retain peoples attention fairly well. Problem is the sample size of games that are actually good is so small they almost dont register. So its difficult to get a baseline.

    BAD (and broken) games get released on an almost daily basis. Obviously many are unknown but a few, this one included, get a complete media campaign. This site really didnt cover this game all that much until the last month right before it dropped. Maybe because they knew it was a turd. Who knows, but the 3 or 4 weeks right up before it came out there was a full scale blitz here for it. Why?

    Its a carbon copy of Ark. So everything after that matters. Because it will always be compared to Ark, just like Ark was going to be compared to Rust. Thats how it goes. The next game (lucky for them) will be compared to Conan Exiles.

    They sell 400k units , and even if you look at the most complimentary numbers that Steam can invent theyre getting less than 30K (~28K yesterday) concurrent players(and thats down from around 38K the day before, so they had 10K less people counted yesterday than Monday). That includes private games and anyone logged in (apparently) since the average play time for players is 22hrs 45 mins; the more relevant numbers are the ONLINE population and that is probably not going to hit 10K today, it is in a total freefall since release. And youre wrong about 10% of their owners being online all the time, but thats why Steam numbers are crap just like I outlined with them claiming people are playing nearly 23hrs a day...


    To me this is the more relevant one





    So by ANY tracking system (whom all have their issues and arent accurate) the game is bleeding players who are logging in. But as a comparison of those same sources compared within themselves then the numbers do have meaning. If Steamcharts or steamspy or whatever has them down to 15K at this time next week then what? If they do their 'updates' and patches and people still dont come back, even if there is a recognizable improvement then what?

    Another over hyped piece of crap that made 8 figures in sales but did absolutely nothing to improve the landscape of online gaming, and probably helps degenerate the hope that it will ever change. AT least with anecdotal evidence would suggest that.

    Its a paradox. To improve they need to make money, or that would be the logical presumption. If they dont make money they more than likely 'fail' if they do make money then that leads to the trust that they will use that money to fix the problems. That isnt always the case nor is it another logical presumption that the more money they make the better the game will be or faster it will get better. Star Citizen perfect example there.
  • hikaru77hikaru77 Member UncommonPosts: 1,118
    rodarin said:
    So the 'natural' fall of of a buy to play game, not one with a subscription over a 2 week period is over 50%?

    GOOD games or ones that are released (even in 'early access') retain peoples attention fairly well. Problem is the sample size of games that are actually good is so small they almost dont register. So its difficult to get a baseline.

    BAD (and broken) games get released on an almost daily basis. Obviously many are unknown but a few, this one included, get a complete media campaign. This site really didnt cover this game all that much until the last month right before it dropped. Maybe because they knew it was a turd. Who knows, but the 3 or 4 weeks right up before it came out there was a full scale blitz here for it. Why?

    Its a carbon copy of Ark. So everything after that matters. Because it will always be compared to Ark, just like Ark was going to be compared to Rust. Thats how it goes. The next game (lucky for them) will be compared to Conan Exiles.

    They sell 400k units , and even if you look at the most complimentary numbers that Steam can invent theyre getting less than 30K (~28K yesterday) concurrent players(and thats down from around 38K the day before, so they had 10K less people counted yesterday than Monday). That includes private games and anyone logged in (apparently) since the average play time for players is 22hrs 45 mins; the more relevant numbers are the ONLINE population and that is probably not going to hit 10K today, it is in a total freefall since release. And youre wrong about 10% of their owners being online all the time, but thats why Steam numbers are crap just like I outlined with them claiming people are playing nearly 23hrs a day...


    To me this is the more relevant one





    So by ANY tracking system (whom all have their issues and arent accurate) the game is bleeding players who are logging in. But as a comparison of those same sources compared within themselves then the numbers do have meaning. If Steamcharts or steamspy or whatever has them down to 15K at this time next week then what? If they do their 'updates' and patches and people still dont come back, even if there is a recognizable improvement then what?

    Another over hyped piece of crap that made 8 figures in sales but did absolutely nothing to improve the landscape of online gaming, and probably helps degenerate the hope that it will ever change. AT least with anecdotal evidence would suggest that.

    Its a paradox. To improve they need to make money, or that would be the logical presumption. If they dont make money they more than likely 'fail' if they do make money then that leads to the trust that they will use that money to fix the problems. That isnt always the case nor is it another logical presumption that the more money they make the better the game will be or faster it will get better. Star Citizen perfect example there.
    lol. Get a life? maybe?. The game is doing great, you dont have to worry about that, is B2P and on EA, it wont be longer than a year, by the way, no ilke ARK (as an example) still on an endless EA and selling DLC. Pretty much everyone playing the game know is a BETA and how it works. Concurrent players numbers at this point is just irrelevant. 


  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,092
    edited February 2017
    rodarin said:


    To me this is the more relevant one






    "meh" I think you are reading too much into it.

    It's an early access game, many people buy them just to try them out and then revisit them as they get more content.

    As far as my play goes, I haven't logged in for a few days. why? Is it because I don't like the game? Quite the opposite. I found I was spending too much time in the game and was neglecting other things so will compartmentalize my play to days where I have less to do.

    As it stood the playing the game led to me going to bed too late for weeknight play.





  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,386
    Why are so bent on trying to prove this game is doing badly? What is your investment in this ?
    image
  • SirAgravaineSirAgravaine Member RarePosts: 518
    rodarin said:
    Talk about a flame out.

    This game is probably the end for Funcom. 

    While they get touted for already making their money back (which from looking at the game and its quality shouldnt have taken more than a few hundred units sold to accomplish), the REAL metric is how many people are playing it? People buy every new game that comes along and when its green lit on Steam and has name recognition a lot more people buy a title than 'should'.

    There have been obvious issues, some will claim outside Funcoms control. But not really since they made those decisions in the first place. But that can be debated. The server issue being the most obvious. But that has been worked around, not exactly 'fixed' but definitely better than it was. Not ot mention that server hosting for private servers (where the vast majority of players who played were playing) werent having nearly the issues the official servers were, and some hosts had zero issues.

    Now on its face Conan should have been awesome. But with Ark and Rust and Arma III and all the other 'sand box' games it is a very weak knock off. It took people about 2 days to see that.

    Now we can debate numbers all we want and people will cite STEAM as 'official' but even they cant manipulate the numbers enough to make this game look like it has any staying power. I dont think they ever peaked above 60K, which includes solos and all servers and any logging in through stream which AFAIK is 100% of the ownership.. The source I use had the highest peak ONLINE at around 33600, that was last Saturday. That was also when around 250K or so units had been sold (with an obvious margin of error) since then the units sold has risen to around 340K. But peak numbers have declined all week. Yesterday the peak was around 35K on Steam and 19K on the source I use to see online players. Again we can debate the numbers all we want but the graph on that site shows a clear pattern, its dropping.

    https://topconanservers.com/stats#

    Click on the 7 Day option.

    Today they might peak higher since its a weekend, but last night was Friday night and they couldnt hit 20K so not sure if a Sat night will be all that different but we will see.

    Steam stats show that people are playing an average of 10 hours a day. So the ones that are playing it are playing the crap out of it. But that more than likely means once their burn out point comes it will come faster.

    Now I am not solely targeting Conan itself but the idea it perpetuates. Where developers (indie or 'known') think they can just put out a basic cut and paste job of something they have seen and hope they can catch the same lightening in a bottle. Especially if they add some 'unique' mechanic to it. Developers have gotten lazy and desperate I think. Not daring to spend money and hoping that if they do by some miracle make something people will stick with they will make some profits and also make enough to update the game. 

    Now with all this being said the thing that saved ARK is now in Conan, namely the mod kit. We will see if the free developing and enhancements the mod makers do with it can help Conan like it helped Ark. Possible but to many people who are burnt out on ARK as well its just more of the same thing.

    There will of course be a tournament of some kind once they fix the major bugs, that is assuming they CAN fix those bugs, which is also out of the 'how can we appease players for longer than 2 days' handbook.

    But right now this game to me looks to be in serious trouble and its longevity, at least getting anything more than rudimentary patches here and there is dicey.

    ARK has sold nearly 5 million copies AND a DLC. Not to mention all the free content mod makers have done, along with hiring some of the better ones to be official team members. As well as 'borrowing' some of the better mod principles and ideas and adding them to the game officially(in some cases unsuccessfully)And that game still has issues, at least on the developmental side. But they have been fairly regular with the official patches and additions which has also obviously help retain or bring back players. But it shows just what you have to do to simply maintain. Once that game officially releases and the updates arent nearly as regular that will be the true test of its longevity.

    I think that is what Conan was hoping for to seize those players. Problem is they released this game too early and too buggy and by the time the disenfranchised Ark players were ready to move to a new game this one will be dead.

    Time will tell and its all relative at least short term. And the fans will say "I am having fun". Which is all well and good but without players and without revenue there is no new additions and without new additions the fun factor goes away quickly, even if youre hardcore RP, and even with a rabid mod community. It all eventually stagnates.
    Who cares who is playing the game, regarding the game's 'success'? If the # of units sold continues to climb, that game is a 'success'. Stop measuring games based on your own asinine idea of what success means.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,464
    Yeah you can NEVER count Steam numbers because it counts you as playing even when you are not,it does that to me all the time.I have several games,it says you have recently played so many hours and i am like lmao ,i have never stepped foot in that game yet.

    None the less,i feel far too many worry about the popularity contest,if you like a game ,just play it and don't worry about he  numbers,well until you don't see anyone but yourself lol.

    Personally i would not expect much more for this game,all developers lie through their teeth,these games are nothing more than a business and we should always remember that.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    rodarin said:
    So the 'natural' fall of of a buy to play game, not one with a subscription over a 2 week period is over 50%?

    GOOD games or ones that are released (even in 'early access') retain peoples attention fairly well. Problem is the sample size of games that are actually good is so small they almost dont register. So its difficult to get a baseline.

    BAD (and broken) games get released on an almost daily basis. Obviously many are unknown but a few, this one included, get a complete media campaign. This site really didnt cover this game all that much until the last month right before it dropped. Maybe because they knew it was a turd. Who knows, but the 3 or 4 weeks right up before it came out there was a full scale blitz here for it. Why?

    Its a carbon copy of Ark. So everything after that matters. Because it will always be compared to Ark, just like Ark was going to be compared to Rust. Thats how it goes. The next game (lucky for them) will be compared to Conan Exiles.

    They sell 400k units , and even if you look at the most complimentary numbers that Steam can invent theyre getting less than 30K (~28K yesterday) concurrent players(and thats down from around 38K the day before, so they had 10K less people counted yesterday than Monday). That includes private games and anyone logged in (apparently) since the average play time for players is 22hrs 45 mins; the more relevant numbers are the ONLINE population and that is probably not going to hit 10K today, it is in a total freefall since release. And youre wrong about 10% of their owners being online all the time, but thats why Steam numbers are crap just like I outlined with them claiming people are playing nearly 23hrs a day...


    To me this is the more relevant one





    So by ANY tracking system (whom all have their issues and arent accurate) the game is bleeding players who are logging in. But as a comparison of those same sources compared within themselves then the numbers do have meaning. If Steamcharts or steamspy or whatever has them down to 15K at this time next week then what? If they do their 'updates' and patches and people still dont come back, even if there is a recognizable improvement then what?

    Another over hyped piece of crap that made 8 figures in sales but did absolutely nothing to improve the landscape of online gaming, and probably helps degenerate the hope that it will ever change. AT least with anecdotal evidence would suggest that.

    Its a paradox. To improve they need to make money, or that would be the logical presumption. If they dont make money they more than likely 'fail' if they do make money then that leads to the trust that they will use that money to fix the problems. That isnt always the case nor is it another logical presumption that the more money they make the better the game will be or faster it will get better. Star Citizen perfect example there.

    Lol, yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Grab your books because you're about to get schooled. 

    First of all, Ark is a horrible example. Apart from it being a similar genre, Ark sold SLOWLY!!!! In their first 2 weeks, Ark averaged 28 concurrent users. 28!!!!!! After that, though, they pretty much flattened out. However, if you look at something like Fallout 4 or GTA V they sold tons of copies out of the gate, which led to concurrent user rates which were simply unsustainable. Yes, they had drop-off rates of over 50% week-over-week for the first couple weeks they were released. So I suppose that means these are horrible games? Shit, we can even use Rust as an example. It actually sold relatively quickly (not as quick as Conan Exiles though), but suffered a similar downward trend following the first month of release (probably due to bugs, etc). Is Rust still averaging 11K users? Nope! It actually sees a resurge once it begins to get more polished. 

    Essentially, if you look at trends of games with similar sales you will see similar drop-off curves. Why? The genre doesn't really make a difference, the concurrent players is directly proportional to the sales and freshness of the title. People will play it more frequently at release and that will taper off weekly thereafter. I don't know why that's so difficult to understand. Also, the fact that we're talking about an EA titles makes it all the more likely that someone will simply put it away and wait for more updates before continuing. 

    Essentially, if we were holding Ark to the same standard, then the daily concurrent players of Ark represents 1.5% of their sales. If we were to compare that to Conan: Exiles, then even if we were to take your fake numbers into consideration, they are seeing 3% of their entire user base log in on a daily basis. If we take that over a 2 week period, Ark has seen 18% of their users log in over the past 2 weeks, Conan: Exiles has seen 97% of their users log in during the last 2 week period. So, if we're comparing apples to apples, this is the reality. That is not sustainable. Effectively, you're comparing a game with, literally, over 10 times the sales and comparing the concurrent numbers literally, as though it should be keeping pace with it. It's like saying that I weigh the same as Usain Bolt, therefore I should be able to run as fast as him. Honestly, you're ability to analyze data is hilariously misguided. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • ElidienElidien Member RarePosts: 1,385
    So an early access game is losing players while it is having server issues and riddled with bugs?

    NEWS AT 11!

    Okay, sarcasm, aside, I do not see the issue or concern. The game is in early access and it does have bugs - some bigger than others. I have played since launch and had issues. I did not login for 3 days because of a bug with the save password feature on our server.

    In addition, official servers went down; a major server provided had a major hardware failure (to the point we changed providers and got a refund); new official servers are being rolled out slowly and I think parts of the world are still waiting.

    So in other words early access is early access. Regardless of what players think it is, with Conan, it is clear that its unfinished and you are reminded of that every time you login.

    And also, why does it matter? If its fun, play it. If not, move on and don't. It does not matter how many players or how many it sells. Games should care more about if its fun or not than all the other data out there.
  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Member RarePosts: 1,247

    Early Access Game

    Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.

    Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development



  • LoudWisperLoudWisper Member UncommonPosts: 75
    ok if your writing this post then you probably wanted it to fail but I regress.


    I do enjoy the game but it does have a lot of issue.  I do not play online server, my family i plays locally.  Well I am not sure if its on the list of servers.  

    Also this is for everyone.  We really need to start being careful here with computer gaming.  It seems games that were probably not going to make it to release and were slated to be canceled are now being sold to us as Alpha's.  This can only be bad for us as players.  Yes I know this allows small indi companies to create games but like any market it cannot sub stain everyone who want to make a product.  Unless we allow it to produce more and more incomplete games and we keep funding them, not remembering what a polished finished game looks like.  

    Thank You for your time  
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,004
    edited February 2017

    Early Access Game

    Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.

    Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development



    I object to the product being sold in such a state, good thing "EA" isn't a trend in the auto industry. ;)

    "It doesn't stop very well, but we'll fix that by "release."

    I wonder if disclaimers would work for them?

    :p

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Kyleran said:

    Early Access Game

    Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.

    Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development



    I object to the product being sold in such a state, good thing "EA" isn't a trend in the auto industry. ;)

    "It doesn't stop very well, but we'll fix that by "release."

    I wonder if disclaimers would work for them?

    :p

    I'll bet it would if they sold the cars for half price! :awesome:

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • rodarinrodarin Member RarePosts: 2,452
    meh comments in this now is why these guys can release garbage over and over again and no one cares. Also why Roberts has raked in tens of millions of dollars and hasnt shown shit for it but a few fake videos and trailers of stuff that will never make it into the game. And ultimately why the MMO industry will never ever release anything half way decent going forward.

    Unless Bethesda makes a new ES game or they release another Guild Wars or something.
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    rodarin said:
    meh comments in this now is why these guys can release garbage over and over again and no one cares. Also why Roberts has raked in tens of millions of dollars and hasnt shown shit for it but a few fake videos and trailers of stuff that will never make it into the game. And ultimately why the MMO industry will never ever release anything half way decent going forward.

    Unless Bethesda makes a new ES game or they release another Guild Wars or something.

    Lol, yeah...... so this is pretty much your "I'm taking my ball and going home!!!!" statement? It's totally fine to say that the stats you used were wrong and that the number of people playing isn't tied to quality at all, because it really isn't. Also, I find it funny that you put Bethesda on a pedestal considering they've essentially made a career out of shipping broken games. The only difference is that people have come to expect it and bask in the hilariousness that are Bethesda bugs. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    rodarin said:
    meh comments in this now is why these guys can release garbage over and over again and no one cares. Also why Roberts has raked in tens of millions of dollars and hasnt shown shit for it but a few fake videos and trailers of stuff that will never make it into the game. And ultimately why the MMO industry will never ever release anything half way decent going forward.

    Unless Bethesda makes a new ES game or they release another Guild Wars or something.
    As if "garbage" is a universal opinion.. I really enjoyed Dreamfall, as well as The Longest Journey, I enjoyed AOC (warts and all) I have fun with CE. What i've seen of TSW seems decent enough. 

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • RaassRaass Member UncommonPosts: 24
    I like the game, sure it could get better, and with time it will. Soon as they see an issue they hope on it. The game has been very fun. I looked at the amount of servers online and running it was 4866, yes 4866 servers people are paying to keep up just to play this game. So, if you want to try the game, do so see for yourself. The game cost 20-50 bucks. But you get solo and internet to try. I watched videos before I bought it. and yes I play the hell out of it, because its fun as shit.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,157
    CrazKanuk said:
    rodarin said:
    meh comments in this now is why these guys can release garbage over and over again and no one cares. Also why Roberts has raked in tens of millions of dollars and hasnt shown shit for it but a few fake videos and trailers of stuff that will never make it into the game. And ultimately why the MMO industry will never ever release anything half way decent going forward.

    Unless Bethesda makes a new ES game or they release another Guild Wars or something.

    Lol, yeah...... so this is pretty much your "I'm taking my ball and going home!!!!" statement? It's totally fine to say that the stats you used were wrong and that the number of people playing isn't tied to quality at all, because it really isn't. Also, I find it funny that you put Bethesda on a pedestal considering they've essentially made a career out of shipping broken games. The only difference is that people have come to expect it and bask in the hilariousness that are Bethesda bugs. 
    QFT

    I believe Fallout New Vegas was an "Early Access" product but the term didn't exist yet ;)

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • TealaTeala Member RarePosts: 7,627
    All I have to say if this is the state of their Alpha - imagine what this game will be like once it is fully released!  Holy cow Batman, this EA game plays better than most games that have all ready been released!  We're having a blast in it.  Cannot wait to see what the modding community will do with this game.  One of the best games I've played this year and last!  If FunCom can keep the patches and updates coming this game will become a classic and people will be playing it like Skyrim for years and years to come. 
  • thisoldman70thisoldman70 Member UncommonPosts: 2
    @rodarin  plenty of other games out there to play if you don't like this one.. 
Sign In or Register to comment.