Kxmode wrote on Jun 11, 2019, 16:45:

Cutter wrote on Jun 11, 2019, 11:35:
Oh right, EGS exclusive = hard pass.

September 2020, available on Steam... soft pass. I don't reward developers who engage in deception.

ldonyo wrote on Jan 25, 2019, 11:07:

Darks wrote on Jan 25, 2019, 10:58:

Clu32 wrote on Jan 25, 2019, 10:54:
did anyone even ask for this?

Nope, I think mainly we have been wanting more content added to the world and the option to host our own servers. None of this forced in pvp bullshit.

In fact, the exact opposite of this has been asked for; the ability to completely opt out of PvP. Instead, they've nerfed weapons and added ambush PvP, err "survival mode".

VaranDragon wrote on Jan 8, 2019, 16:50:

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jan 8, 2019, 12:42:

ItBurn wrote on Jan 8, 2019, 12:35:
Well if this is Win10 only, I guess I'm not playing it...

And not even DX12... lol

Yeah this is really weird. I mean a lot of people are still gaming on Win7 machines, so if it's not a DirectX 12 exclusive, what possible reason would they have to leave a good chunk of money on the table? Im guessing that Win10 machines are kind of more like consoles, so they are easier to support? (lol?)

Cutter wrote on Jan 4, 2019, 21:17:
All of these clowns need to shut up and let the courts decide. That's all that matters in the end. He said, she said, whatever.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 4, 2019, 21:43:
Holy crap, if before I just thought they are misaligned assholes now I think they are malicious fucktards. The entire last paragraph is straight out of some insane alternate reality novel. You couldn't make that shit up if you tried.

They apparently believe they have a copyright on gameplay expressions. Can't wait till a court tells them how the real world works because that's just absurd, if the court gave them a pass on that reasoning the entire games industry would end.

GothicWizard wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 23:01:
Paul and Fred needs to, as The Rock would say, know your role and shut your mouth. They clearly lost the IP. Get the fuck over it and move on. If SC meant so much to them then where was the next SC game from them before SD got involved? Yea.. exactly. Seems like they want to whine and cry about something they didn't seem to want to do anything with until someone else did.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 22:24:

Choobeastia wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 21:55:

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 21:14:
Setting aside the legal shenanigans, please remember Stardock is not EA or Activision. I do believe all the people involved in the project put their heart and soul into this game, and out of love for the original and not to please anonymous shareholders. I'm not calling it mercy money, but $20 is a decent price. Buying from Stardock's site means they keep 100% of the purchase, which they definitely need now.

Actually, I'm uncertain if Steam still takes a cut if Stardock is auto-generating keys. Anyone know?

Brad has a history of telling half-truths, and twisting the narrative to put himself in the best light, and make others look crazy. He also has a tendency to show up places to do so when he's mentioned, as though he spends his day googling himself to find out where to rush in with his special type of "truth."

While I do believe most people at Stardock are passionate about the projects they work on, and Brad may even be as well, I also believe that Stardock is poorly led and represented by him.

It isn't our responsibility to reward them for being passionate about what they do, it's his responsibility as CEO and the public face of their company to learn how to play nice, and keep quiet while the lawyers do their jobs. It's a shame the damage he is doing to his company, and the people who work for him, but I'm sure as heck not going to reward him for it.

Who said anything about "reward?"

Ford and Reiche issue the DMCA takedown against their product on Steam and GOG. So I'm not exactly sure how your last point relates to my suggestion of supporting an independent developer/publisher who isn't a publicly traded faceless corporate giant like EA and Activision. By the way, I started my comment with "Setting aside the legal shenanigans" to explicitly set aside ALL of what you're talking about because it's not relevant to the point of my original post.

Again, you keep using that word "reward." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 21:14:
Setting aside the legal shenanigans, please remember Stardock is not EA or Activision. I do believe all the people involved in the project put their heart and soul into this game, and out of love for the original and not to please anonymous shareholders. I'm not calling it mercy money, but $20 is a decent price. Buying from Stardock's site means they keep 100% of the purchase, which they definitely need now.

Actually, I'm uncertain if Steam still takes a cut if Stardock is auto-generating keys. Anyone know?

Gadzooks wrote on Nov 20, 2018, 23:10:

Choobeastia wrote on Nov 20, 2018, 18:40:

Osc8r wrote on Nov 20, 2018, 18:04:

Gadzooks wrote on Nov 20, 2018, 13:32:
The is the closest BF has felt to Call of Duty for me so far.

Despite all the new tactical and squad play elements, the ridiculous low Time To Kill sorta nullifies them all.

This ^.

Not sure how anyone enjoys competitive multiplayer in games where fights are over in a second flat.

Hopefully they adjust this for the BR version of they can keep it as well. May as well just stick with COD if you want than console gaming experience...

And lol at raytracing in it's current form, 4k makes a much bigger difference than 'cute reflections' (as someone here nailed it) and with a much lower performance hit to boot.

The time to kill actually helps the tactical and squad play. If the time to kill is too long, then your well laid plans only give you a slight benefit. But with the low time to kill, if you get the drop on someone, or have proper suppressing fire laid down, then you can work wonderfully as a squad. I've had more than a few instances where my laying down fire has allowed my team to move into an area, and use their shorter range weapons to clear it out.

At the same time, there are times when our plans don't work out, and someone else has planned better or is doing something that we had no plan for, resulting in us getting killed. Which is as it should be.

Actually helps??!? what?

Here are some of the reasons why a low TTK nullifies tactical gameplay elements

1. Attrition mode - No health regen: You die before you ever have to worry about no longer regenerating health

2. Attrition mode - less ammo: You die, often long before you ever run out of ammo (unless you are camping, which this game rewards)

3. Support Class - Give ammo: Pointless since most people die before running out of ammo

4. Medic Class - Give medpack: Again, most players are dead before this can be tossed at them

5. Hit direction - Most of the time you are dead before you can even tell what direction you got hit from. With the removal of squad spotting (a tactical element), not even being able to call out "Shooting from the east!" because you are dead removes squad tactical gameplay.


The ONLY tactical element (one thats even new) that benefits from the low Time To Kill, is the construct defenses mechanic. Build up defenses, bunker down, camp, and shoot anyone running who isnt behind cover.

Osc8r wrote on Nov 20, 2018, 18:04:

Gadzooks wrote on Nov 20, 2018, 13:32:
The is the closest BF has felt to Call of Duty for me so far.

Despite all the new tactical and squad play elements, the ridiculous low Time To Kill sorta nullifies them all.

This ^.

Not sure how anyone enjoys competitive multiplayer in games where fights are over in a second flat.

Hopefully they adjust this for the BR version of they can keep it as well. May as well just stick with COD if you want than console gaming experience...

And lol at raytracing in it's current form, 4k makes a much bigger difference than 'cute reflections' (as someone here nailed it) and with a much lower performance hit to boot.

DangerDog wrote on Nov 20, 2018, 14:02:
I guess we can already do a "Why did Battlefield V fail" write up.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 19:14:
You can try to Trump your way through discussions by telling lies endlessly one after another but nobody here has the patience for that and you'll just be ignored. You're not important.

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 18:31:
LOL!! Nice try.

BOTH French and Lessor were making all kinds of claims regarding the lawsuit, that it had no merits, that the CIG response was solid, that the MtD would succeed etc. If a case is bs, NONE of the claims will survive a MtD. So CLEARLY the judge found that Crytek's complaints DID have merit. And the MtD ruling says all there is to say about that.

Heck, even in his follow-up video, AFTER correcting (see link below) himself after I called him out on his bs on Twitter and on YT, French went and gave it 60/40 chance of success.

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=27.msg7228;topicseen#msg7228

https://twitter.com/UnsafestSpace/status/954463514793578496

http://www.dereksmart.com/forum/index.php?topic=127.msg7141;topicseen#msg7141

ps: My website forum has a search function. Try it!

pps: Yes, I watched all the videos about this that BOTH French and Lessor put out. Did you?

dsmart wrote on Sep 2, 2018, 15:01:
ps: Yeah, those are the same "experts" (that's why we have good, bad, and incompetent lawyers) who were saying the case was bs, Crytek had no case, it would be thrown out etc. And they know more about the law than a Federal judge. LOL!!

Then the MtD ruling came.

ps. Thanks for the Sun afternoon lols.