But this was such an edge case, removing assets resulting in the unavailability of said assets in game, that this interruption simply couldn't have been for foreseen.
They couldn't foresee issues created by removing assets, in a game that is supposed to support user mods, which can be added/removed at any time? Really?
The explanation I've seen is that they wanted to pull the DLC as soon as possible, since it was - literally - the worst-rated product on Steam. I'm 99% sure the bean counters responsible for all of the terrible decisions (release the game, no matter what state! Release the DLC, no matter the amount of content!) pulled the lever on this one again - no chance they'll see any responsibility with themselves.
surely this is satire no?
You're probably right, especially considering this sentence:
It's difficult to see in advance that removing game assets from the game will result in the unavailability of said assets in game.
I've seen this kind of defense meant honestly before, so I'm not 100% sure, but by god - I hope you're right.
This is but their legit response was "dunno, that wasn't supposed to happen but it kinda did, maybe don't do anything now, we'll try to fix it sometimes", so this is not that far:
Wooooooooooooooosh
God, I hope so!
Wait, but if they pulled the game from Steam shouldn't the owners still keep the game (DLC in this case) on their libraries?
They refunded people, which probably removed the DLC from their libraries. People who bought the ultimate edition kept it.
That can happen? I wasn't aware developers could literally remove a game from your Steam library, if so that's really shitty and scummy.
Well, they refunded it, so people got their money back. But it sucks that it breaks peoples save files.
I guess, but so the owner chose to get a refund, right? If so then that's to be expected, if that's the case then I don't see what the fuzz is about. Unless the refund was forced onto the customer.
The refund was forced. Players didn't choose it.
Well then my opinion stands, that's pretty shitty. The choice to refund should ultimately lie with the customer not with the company.
I think the refund would have been right to do from the company side once everything was prepared - it wouldn't be right for them to keep any money from customers after the content has been integrated into the base game. But only once they are sure nothing will break due to the refund.
Not everything needs a change management procedure, calm down there Satan.
But…but software development absolutely does
You can keep your grubby ITIL process far away from me.
Truth be told, i don’t have an ounce of care in me about this community council. I want them to make a product that was advertised, because so far it’s just a scam of colossal orders of magnitude (ha)
This is just gold 🤣
God, how can someone be so blind?
They couldn't foresee issues created by removing assets, in a game that is supposed to support user mods, which can be added/removed at any time? Really?
The explanation I've seen is that they wanted to pull the DLC as soon as possible, since it was - literally - the worst-rated product on Steam. I'm 99% sure the bean counters responsible for all of the terrible decisions (release the game, no matter what state! Release the DLC, no matter the amount of content!) pulled the lever on this one again - no chance they'll see any responsibility with themselves.
surely this is satire no?
You're probably right, especially considering this sentence:
I've seen this kind of defense meant honestly before, so I'm not 100% sure, but by god - I hope you're right.
This is but their legit response was "dunno, that wasn't supposed to happen but it kinda did, maybe don't do anything now, we'll try to fix it sometimes", so this is not that far:
Wooooooooooooooosh
God, I hope so!
Wait, but if they pulled the game from Steam shouldn't the owners still keep the game (DLC in this case) on their libraries?
They refunded people, which probably removed the DLC from their libraries. People who bought the ultimate edition kept it.
That can happen? I wasn't aware developers could literally remove a game from your Steam library, if so that's really shitty and scummy.
Well, they refunded it, so people got their money back. But it sucks that it breaks peoples save files.
I guess, but so the owner chose to get a refund, right? If so then that's to be expected, if that's the case then I don't see what the fuzz is about. Unless the refund was forced onto the customer.
The refund was forced. Players didn't choose it.
Well then my opinion stands, that's pretty shitty. The choice to refund should ultimately lie with the customer not with the company.
I think the refund would have been right to do from the company side once everything was prepared - it wouldn't be right for them to keep any money from customers after the content has been integrated into the base game. But only once they are sure nothing will break due to the refund.
Not everything needs a change management procedure, calm down there Satan.
But…but software development absolutely does
You can keep your grubby ITIL process far away from me.
Truth be told, i don’t have an ounce of care in me about this community council. I want them to make a product that was advertised, because so far it’s just a scam of colossal orders of magnitude (ha)