Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.
Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.
Wbillshoaf wrote:Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.
Well.... Yea. But....back when people were "given" access to help by reporting bugs, sure, good point.
But now that people are "paying" for access - paying years in advance - a certain level of performance can be expected. Especially after those years of development.
The old fashion 'beta' is no longer. It is now just releasing early while still full of bugs to generate more revenue.
"Testers" expect problems.
"Investors" expect to see evidence their investment was put to good use. "Testers" shouldn't complain about bugs. "Investors" have every right to question if their investment was wisely used.
So yea, there are going to be complaints when performance is crappy with a still buggy 'release' - even if it is given a label meant to provide an excuse for those bugs.
Hopefully the developers understand that, since they are the ones asking for 'investors' not 'testers.'
Arrakis wrote:We will stabilize everything. We are constantly working on fixes.
Joecool56 wrote:Wbillshoaf wrote:Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.
Well.... Yea. But....back when people were "given" access to help by reporting bugs, sure, good point.
But now that people are "paying" for access - paying years in advance - a certain level of performance can be expected. Especially after those years of development.
The old fashion 'beta' is no longer. It is now just releasing early while still full of bugs to generate more revenue.
"Testers" expect problems.
"Investors" expect to see evidence their investment was put to good use. "Testers" shouldn't complain about bugs. "Investors" have every right to question if their investment was wisely used.
So yea, there are going to be complaints when performance is crappy with a still buggy 'release' - even if it is given a label meant to provide an excuse for those bugs.
Hopefully the developers understand that, since they are the ones asking for 'investors' not 'testers.'
I'm so glad I did not PAY for early access...to test a game for the devs
SO GLAD
Wbillshoaf wrote:Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.
Well.... Yea. But....back when people were "given" access to help by reporting bugs, sure, good point.
But now that people are "paying" for access - paying years in advance - a certain level of performance can be expected. Especially after those years of development.
The old fashion 'beta' is no longer. It is now just releasing early while still full of bugs to generate more revenue.
"Testers" expect problems.
"Investors" expect to see evidence their investment was put to good use. "Testers" shouldn't complain about bugs. "Investors" have every right to question if their investment was wisely used.
So yea, there are going to be complaints when performance is crappy with a still buggy 'release' - even if it is given a label meant to provide an excuse for those bugs.
Hopefully the developers understand that, since they are the ones asking for 'investors' not 'testers.'
Wbillshoaf wrote:Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.Jonesr wrote:Good thing its still "beta". I'm sure the dev's are working their asses off trying to get shit working. It's a shame people are so ignorant.
Well.... Yea. But....back when people were "given" access to help by reporting bugs, sure, good point.
But now that people are "paying" for access - paying years in advance - a certain level of performance can be expected. Especially after those years of development.
The old fashion 'beta' is no longer. It is now just releasing early while still full of bugs to generate more revenue.
"Testers" expect problems.
"Investors" expect to see evidence their investment was put to good use. "Testers" shouldn't complain about bugs. "Investors" have every right to question if their investment was wisely used.
So yea, there are going to be complaints when performance is crappy with a still buggy 'release' - even if it is given a label meant to provide an excuse for those bugs.
Hopefully the developers understand that, since they are the ones asking for 'investors' not 'testers.'