Console Patch 3 Release?

[Believe]

Unlike most people in this thread, I DO blame @Ross personally.

If we had patch 3 when it was promised, or not promised, or sometime last winter, there would be no ISIL. There would be no Libyan Civil War. There would be no Ebola Crisis. There would be no 9/11.

fearsome tweak you @Ross.

 

[MattW]

Isn't going ham what's leading to all those stories about David Cameron?

 

[Mr Snrub]

Isn't going ham what's leading to all those stories about David Cameron?

That's now ruined my more literal interpretation which had me looking for mustard and bread. It was a tasty euphemism until you said that!

 

[Biggs]

Also I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the manner in which @Biggs especially dealt with my comments were uncalled for

You should always @ mention me for attention whilst claiming to be so offended by said attention. Always.

[HASHTAG]#TazzronMatters[/HASHTAG]

 

[Chief]

There would be no 9/11.

Is that the European or American version? Are you doing a really clever "Early September" thing?

 

[Believe]

That is meant as the 11th of September, correct.

And yes, yes I am.

Or, now I am anyways.

 

[tazzron]

You should always @ mention me for attention whilst claiming to be so offended by said attention. Always.

[HASHTAG]#TazzronMatters[/HASHTAG]

I'd rather have you be aware that I'm talking about you then risk saying anything 'behind your back', so to speak (in case you couldn't be bothered with this thread anymore).

 

[Biggs]

And yes, yes I am.

Or, now I am anyways.

^This guy gets it

 

[BigAntStudios]

My problem is with how long it is taking to deliver the promise of co-op. I'm almost certain that NO ONE thought it would take more than a year to fulfil a promise that they made. So I stand by my feeling that I made no mistake in thinking co-op would have been added to consoles earlier than this. This stance is anything but moronic.

To give me the choice between having only co-op vs all the extra improvements in patch 3 is unfair to say the least. All I'm saying is that they should have prioritised co-op more than they have.

I'll only say it one more time.

There was only ever going to be one more patch for the Consoles. We made a choice to add Co-Op and a lot of improvements/additions at the same time, otherwise you would have only received the promised Co-op and nothing else. Some of these improvements are only recent additions to the PC version and have taken time to implement, test and balance with the Steam community.

If we had just implemented the Co-op function for the consoles and left it at that I would have saved a load of $$$ and not had people complain about the timeframe but they would have no doubt complained along the lines of "why does Steam have this and that, etc... but Consoles do not, I feel ripped off" - and there would be a lot more of them than are complaining now for sure.

In any case, I decided to wear the timeframe because the outcome is better in the long term for all Console users.

 

[Biggs]

If we had just implemented the Co-op function for the consoles and left it at that I would have saved a load of $$$ and not had people complain about the timeframe but they would have no doubt complained along the lines of "why does Steam have this and that, etc... but Consoles do not, I feel ripped off" - and there would be a lot more of them than are complaining now for sure.

Hmmmmm, someone said something eerily similar like, pages ago...

If you chose to purchase an inferior version of the game that is not logically going to be supported as quick as the PC version, that's absolutely your prerogative but it's absolutely crazy to then go "well, I thought I would've got it sooner" when all the evidence, ALL the EVIDENCE supports that you might be lucky to get it at all, let alone at any speed because it's on a console and the EVIDENCE says that's bloody hard to get approvals on patches, and costs them money, time and they're going to test the shit outta it before releasing it.

...but I'm the crazy one. That's right, as you were....

Storm in a teacup.

 

[Axelad15]

Is it possible that there'll be an update that could allow us to add more teams to our career lists? I know you can add up to 21 in the English domestic competition (While I'm mentioning that do only 18 of them play FC cricket and the other three play P40?) but it'd be nicer to add more teams to the Aus domestic list.

 

[Biggs]

That's prolly very unlikely at this point.

 

[Mr Snrub]

Two eerily dissimilar quotes above, making two different points.

There's nothing about an "inferior version" in the first quote right out of the gate.

Nothing about saying anyone is "absolutely crazy" in the first post for a second point.

The first post doesn't make an erroneous statement whilst making reference to PC, that those wanting Patch 3 on console might believe they'd get it "sooner" than PC. No-one has said such a thing in this thread.

The first post doesn't make the point that we'd be lucky to get Patch 3, "at all".

The first post doesn't make three references to evidence rapidly, with two in all caps, in fact it makes no reference to evidence and just makes it's point. The person in Post one is actually someone who can supply evidence and often does, but doesn't seem to need to go on about it.

It's true that Patches are hard to get approvals, that it costs time and money and testing, but of those three things only the reference to money has any comparison. In post one it was about cost of adding features, in post two it's about how approvals for patches cost money.

Finally, it is not a question of who is "the crazy one". Not all others in this thread seem to feel the need to be a proponent of negativity or insulting behaviour to make their point.


It seems to me those who're merely saying "hey this is taking a long time, anyone else feel this way?", are far more on the defensive here than any remote "attack or hard time" that seems to being laid at their feet. In fact by far, the messages have been more full of praise for the game and defence of their points than anything else.

 

[blockerdave]

Two eerily dissimilar quotes above, making two different points.

There's nothing about an "inferior version" in the first quote right out of the gate.

Nothing about saying anyone is "absolutely crazy" in the first post for a second point.

The first post doesn't make an erroneous statement whilst making reference to PC, that those wanting Patch 3 on console might believe they'd get it "sooner" than PC. No-one has said such a thing in this thread.

The first post doesn't make the point that we'd be lucky to get Patch 3, "at all".

The first post doesn't make three references to evidence rapidly, with two in all caps, in fact it makes no reference to evidence and just makes it's point. The person in Post one is actually someone who can supply evidence and often does, but doesn't seem to need to go on about it.

It's true that Patches are hard to get approvals, that it costs time and money and testing, but of those three things only the reference to money has any comparison. In post one it was about cost of adding features, in post two it's about how approvals for patches cost money.

Finally, it is not a question of who is "the crazy one". Not all others in this thread seem to feel the need to be a proponent of negativity or insulting behaviour to make their point.


It seems to me those who're merely saying "hey this is taking a long time, anyone else feel this way?", are far more on the defensive here than any remote "attack or hard time" that seems to being laid at their feet. In fact by far, the messages have been more full of praise for the game and defence of their points than anything else.

Well I've said all along that the time taken is because of additional improvements...

 

[mazd]

What sucks is that it's all because of 1 territory that is left.