169
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
169 points (98.3% liked)
Games
32536 readers
463 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Dude, imagine you buy a brand new car for a 5 person family and then as you arrive to drive it off the lot you find out its only got the two front seats... Launches like this are completely unacceptable.
Yes, because that's exactly the same thing.
It was literally a few hours later that they added the dedicated servers and people could play online.
...but not before launch? The game launched and they weren't there? So they released a game and there were only three servers available? Hours later they added a bunch of servers? AFTER LAUNCH? Is there another way I can phrase this so you realise how stupid it is that you're defending it?
Game has online problems for the first few hours after launch. This has never happened before in the history of video games. ๐
Wasn't Helldivers 2 almost impossible to play for the first month? Yet there wasn't much anger about that. This has a problem for a few hours and it's the worst thing that has ever happened. ๐
I recall there being plenty of talk about Helldivers servers. About a month's worth. Meanwhile I haven't seen a single person say this is the worst thing that's ever happened or that it's never happened before with other games, just that releasing a multiplayer game and only having three servers available is absurd. That and the apparently poor port at least on Switch detailed in another comment.
Believe it or not, shit happening before doesn't change anything. Shit's still shit. And we all already know the only actual obstacle to ensuring a smooth multiplayer launch (assuming a competently made game, of course) is paying for enough servers to handle the initial surge. They just prefer not to spend that money and present a poor experience to customers who buy the game at launch instead, because fuck them right.
No.
Not *A * multiplayer game. A multiplayer STAR WARS game. And not just any multiplayer Star Wars game - no, the single best received Star Wars game of its kind in the last two decades, coupled with its prequel.. And they estimated around 200 people to play it at launch.
Like.
What.
Do you know if you start up the game now, there's plenty of servers and it, you know, works?
Are you really so impatient that a problem for the first few hours gets you this het up?
I don't own the game. It's not a problem for me at all. It's a principle, and a reflection of a publisher's greed and disrespect towards its customers.
Do you know that people bought the game, downloaded it, installed it, sat to play it, and couldn't because the publisher didn't want to pay for the required servers for their most loyal customers to do so?
Sure, it's good that there are servers now, but that's the minimum I expect and I expect them there at launch. You know, so people who have paid money to play their game actually can. Far be it for me to think an online multiplayer game should have servers to play online multiplayer in when it's available to buy.
Brilliant. Someone who doesn't even own the game pontificating like an expert on it. ๐
"Couldn't play the game". There's literally a bunch of single player content in the game. It's not online-only.
Believe it or not it's possible to gather information about things without directly experiencing it and I tend to do this with new games. I also already have the originals on steam.
Yes and it's a multiplayer classic that they couldn't play multiplayer in. It doesn't ruin the game, it didn't destroy the experience permanently, it's not the end of the world, but it's shit and only happened because of the publisher's greed. No clue why you feel the need to defend it really.
[Edit] I also haven't said a single word that even implies I'm an expert on it. I mentioned bugginess that I said I saw in a comment and talked about servers being unavailable. What level of star wars battlefront expert do you think I need to be to discuss specific star wars battlefront things like...bugs and servers?
I wouldn't be defending the game if it was actually as broken as is being made out.
It's vastly overblown.
But all people have said is that it's buggy on switch (with screenshot proof) and that there weren't enough servers for hours after launch. Is it you that's overblowing it?
The article linked at the top literally calls it a "disaster".
That's a fair point. Though the actual people I've seen talking about it have said it's buggy as well though, more than a few have refunded.