Bannerlord is mis-advertised by the devs on Steam (yes, even taking into account Early Access)

Users who are viewing this thread

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
Bugg obscur yes
i bought six workshop and they disppear all
i was form a kingdom and convince 3lord to join me
one -44 in relationship one 0 in relationship and a other 12 in relationship
i bring the lord 0 and 12 with me and they change of faction automatic without reason but the -44 stay faithful to me wtf
if that not some obscur bugg what is it?

60$ for a funny game but so buggy
then don`t say me that a thing of feature!

I can make a bet all of those were features. You simply didn't know anything about them, and then proceeded to blame the game about it.
 

ste636

Sergeant at Arms
Yep I know. Worked in retail in the past and people always see whatever fits their situation :smile:
I guess you were an employee where you worked, if you owned the company you would know that this level of "Early Access" in a normal situation wold be unacceptable and you would have lots of returns AND possibly claims with the consumer associations.
Assuming off course you would have respect for your clients, pride in your work and care for quality.
Otherwise, this level is good enough...
 

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
I guess you were an employee where you worked, if you owned the company you would know that this level of "Early Access" in a normal situation wold be unacceptable ...

Clearly a proof you've got no idea what you're talking about. You even play other "early access" in Steam?

I've seen games in early alpha (or rather, at a mock-up proof of concept level) coming out in early access and staying that state for years. Not to mention, "this level"?

What is "this level" exactly? Just a lot of empty rhetoric hellbent on dissing on the developers without any strong basis, and a chockful of personal anecdotes that do not match other people, and can be easily provided with counter examples.

What we have here is a game that has most of the combat system finished and solid. At its current state, it is at least on the level of what Warband was. The extra depth of strategy and management is not here yet. So, just what exactly is "unacceptable" about this on what standards? Do you have any other examples of early access games and their current state to compare?

NOTHING. Just rhetoric full of sh**.


...and you would have lots of returns AND possibly claims with the consumer associations.

Cite an example please, then. Since you seem to have expert knowledge on evaluating "what level is acceptable" in terms of early access, what's the most comparable case in this situation?

H1Z1?


Assuming off course you would have respect for your clients, pride in your work and care for quality.
Otherwise, this level is good enough...

Customer is not the king. Some customers are just clueless d***hebags. That's the reality of life.

Black consumerism.
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
I guess you were an employee where you worked, if you owned the company you would know that this level of "Early Access" in a normal situation wold be unacceptable and you would have lots of returns AND possibly claims with the consumer associations.
Assuming off course you would have respect for your clients, pride in your work and care for quality.
Otherwise, this level is good enough...

This is a standard steam EA statement and it's in all EA games that are available on Steam. If You want to accuse anyone about being disappointed in the state of the game then accuse the platform that clearly defends them with that statement and allows to sell games that don't met Your expectations.

As for normal world situation. Unfortunately we live in a world where You need to read what You buy cause otherwise it's Your fault that You bought something that's not satisfying for You.

Of course there's some countries that have better law for consumers but most of them don't and even the ones that do have such laws always have backdoors in them for whoever wants to use them.

I just don't agree with the situation where somone is clearly informed that what he buys may not meet his expectations and he still complain that he's been cheated using only the part of informations he got that fits he's narrative.
 

R4MPZY

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
You are delusional, the game is stable and playable as stated, most of the crashes that get reported now is because they use mods but blame vanilla game.

I even saw a negative review from someone in my steam list how he is complaining about the regular crashes he is having since the new patch, i asked him do you use mods?

Him; yes why?


As for the features and core mechanics that are missing has nothing to do with "stable", because it is stated literally a few lines further what is missing and incomplete.
 

Koshkasa

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
No, this is the real mis-advertising:

"Play the game the way you want to play it! Plot your own path to power in a dynamic sandbox adventure where no two playthroughs are the same."

Who are you kidding TW?
And that's wrong how, exactly? There's the most efficient path of looter slapping and caravan spam, of course, but you're not being obliged to take it. It's like sitting in a corner of a giant sandbox with a thousand different plastic tools and using the exact same pink scoop to build the exact same sand castle over and over again. You're really the one limiting yourself to that comfort zone (and blaming the sandbox for imposing limitations somehow).

(yeah, some of the plastic tools are just placeholders and handles, and half of the sandbox is gravel, but there's still plenty of room not to constrict yourself willingly to one way of playing the game)


"See the availability of goods ebb and flow in a simulated feudal economy, where the price of everything from incense to warhorses fluctuates with supply and demand. Turn anarchy to your advantage by being the first to bring grain to a starving town after a siege or reopening a bandit-plagued caravan route."

YEAH HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT THE DECADE PAHAHAHAHAHA

While the "demand" part is kinda obscure right now, the prices do fluctuate depending on supply and demand, both are simulated (although the balance between them isn't always obvious) and being the first to bring grain to a starving town after a siege really is "turning anarchy to your advantage". If you would explain how exactly that sentence is wrong, I'd appreciate it.

People expecting a verbosely incomplete game to be complete anyway bug me sometimes.
 

pyerr

Squire
about original post... Man, I also criticize this game, and sometimes whine like little bi*ch, but to bring " potential legal issues " into conversation is pushing a bit too much.
This game is more like long term investment.
 

ste636

Sergeant at Arms
This is a standard steam EA statement and it's in all EA games that are available on Steam. If You want to accuse anyone about being disappointed in the state of the game then accuse the platform that clearly defends them with that statement and allows to sell games that don't met Your expectations.

As for normal world situation. Unfortunately we live in a world where You need to read what You buy cause otherwise it's Your fault that You bought something that's not satisfying for You.

Of course there's some countries that have better law for consumers but most of them don't and even the ones that do have such laws always have backdoors in them for whoever wants to use them.

I just don't agree with the situation where somone is clearly informed that what he buys may not meet his expectations and he still complain that he's been cheated using only the part of informations he got that fits he's narrative.

When I heard they were going to publish an EA I could not believe, but as I respected TW big time, I was skeptical, but hoped for the best having a certain level of expectations..
Turns out they are going the Bethesda way AND, like Bethesda, they are backed up by flocks of fans who will blindly buy and defend anything thrown at them.

I am not saying I was cheated, I say that TW behaved in an extremely unprofessional way, maybe your quality and professionalism standards are much lower then mine, but I gave them good money and they did not deliver and "EA" with just "obscure bugs" to find...they delivered a broken skeleton of a game and this is a smack in the face to the old timers.
 

Bannerdog

Recruit
Depends on your idea of the term 'stable'. I have played MANY much more unstable early access games than Bannerlord...some of which have been literally unplayable ... as in I couldn't even launch the game or I couldn't play for 30 minutes without crashing to desktop.

So your benchmark for a game being "very much stable and playable with only obscure bugs" is simply being able to launch it or play it for 30 minutes without crashing? Thanks for your contribution to the world of common sense.

It's certainly a bit more 'early' then I expected it to be but I don't think there was false advertising.
If they say it is very much stable and playable and you may encounter "obscure bugs"... and this is not the reality for many people... then yes, objectively speaking, that is mis-advertising by definition. It's no different in principle to selling a car as: "runs perfectly fine but you may run into some minor electrical issues" and then having the motor cut out every 50 miles.

Description from Steam Bannerlord site about EA:

Early Access Game
Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.

Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development.

As You can see there's info it may lack content etc.
I already linked and quoted the important part about "very much stable and playable with only obscure bugs"... the quote you linked about "not complete" is irrelevant to the statement I directly quoted.
Yep I know. Worked in retail in the past and people always see whatever fits their situation :smile:
Wow, you worked in... retail? Impressive.
I can make a bet all of those were features. You simply didn't know anything about them, and then proceeded to blame the game about it.
Ahh yes of course... the blame is of course on the consumer and their own ignorance. Gotta love white knighting.

People expecting a verbosely incomplete game to be complete anyway bug me sometimes.
No-one expects it to be complete. It's obvious that it is not complete.

When I heard they were going to publish an EA I could not believe, but as I respected TW big time, I was skeptical, but hoped for the best having a certain level of expectations..
Turns out they are going the Bethesda way AND, like Bethesda, they are backed up by flocks of fans who will blindly buy and defend anything thrown at them.

I am not saying I was cheated, I say that TW behaved in an extremely unprofessional way, maybe your quality and professionalism standards are much lower then mine, but I gave them good money and they did not deliver and "EA" with just "obscure bugs" to find...they delivered a broken skeleton of a game and this is a smack in the face to the old timers.

This is basically the accurate summary of the situation from a mature adult able to look at a franchise he loves objectively and with common sense.
 
So your benchmark for a game being "very much stable and playable " is simply being able to launch it or play it for 30 minutes without crashing? Thanks for your contribution to the world of common sense.


If they say it is very much stable and playable and you may encounter "obscure bugs"... and this is not the reality for many people... then yes, objectively speaking, that is mis-advertising by definition. It's no different in principle to selling a car as: "runs perfectly fine but you may run into some minor electrical issues" and then having the motor cut out every 50 miles.


I already linked and quoted the important part about "very much stable and playable"... the quote you linked about "not complete" is irrelevant to the statement I directly quoted.

Wow, you worked in... retail? Impressive.

Ahh yes of course... the blame is on the consumer and their ognorance. Gotta love irrational white knighting.


No-one expects it to be complete. It's obvious that it is not complete.



This is basically the accurate summary of the situation from a mature adult able to look at a franchise he loves objectively and with common sense.
No that is not my benchmark.

I judge each game release on its individual merits, because they're all different with different strengths and weaknesses. I guess, if I do have an 'EA benchmark' as you say, then it's just to ask "is it playable? does it run ok for me? and is it fun so far?"

For me, Bannerlord stands up relatively well to those simple questions right now.

I was just pointing out that Bannerlord, by comparison to many games, is quite a smooth early access experience.

Anyway, you're clearly getting defensive , choosing to be sarcastic to people who were sincere to you... and starting to go 'ad hominem' on folk. Being that this is a busy internet forum, trust me, that won't end well for you. In any case, I never allow myself to sink down and do the same. But I will just say that, actually, you're starting to make yourself look silly - So, I'll just happily chuckle... and let you get on with doing that. However, you'd do well to remember that your idea of 'common sense' is not necessarily the definitive one. (Plenty of people, even just here in this thread, seem to think that you're sense is anything but common 😉).

Good luck, son.
 
Last edited:

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
I already linked and quoted the important part about "very much stable and playable"... the quote you linked about "not complete" is irrelevant to the statement I directly quoted.

Actually quoting single statement from description and telling that this is "important" part is stupid. Either whole description is important or none of it.

Wow, you worked in... retail? Impressive.

Personal attack. Yep that's so adult on your side. Seems like You never worked or never had other experience than as a customer.

This is basically the accurate summary of the situation from a grown adult with common sense.

This part is another proof that people don't bother to read whole information about what they buy or they can't understand the meaning of what's written.
 

Koshkasa

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I am not saying I was cheated, I say that TW behaved in an extremely unprofessional way, maybe your quality and professionalism standards are much lower then mine, but I gave them good money and they did not deliver and "EA" with just "obscure bugs" to find...they delivered a broken skeleton of a game and this is a smack in the face to the old timers.

Could you please specify what exactly TW did that caused you to believe that it was "behaving in an extremely unprofessional way"? The EA release itself? The EA release being full price? The EA release not being a 100% complete experience? The EA release having bugs?

Wow, you worked in... retail? Impressive.

If that is an attempt to discredit your own point of view, you've succeeded. Why you bothered to do so is beyond me.
 

dykjozo

Squire
WBVC
Not sure if it was like this at launch day, but at steam store page you have explanation from devs what you get for your money. Yes, it was very buggy and unbalanced at start, crashed few times, but had my fun for 125 hour of play over 2 playthroughs. As someone already pointed out, most crashes these days come from mods, it is nice that community patches stuff for now as I could not play this game without some mods like patrols for villages after I was awarded with city that had all kinds of bandits respawning all the time). I bet there are more modders than devs tho at this moment. But can't imagine devs to download all the mods created and fix game so the mods won't crash the game...
I don't have much money to spend, but I bough the game anyways to show support to the devs, even though I don't have time to play it often, but I played warband for countless hours, native and mods. Still read all patchnotes and It clearly shows how much work they have done the past month.

Tl:grin:R You have been warned on the steam page, so stop cry kid :grin:
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Well, they are known for having bad PR... Doesn't surprise me, and I knew what I was signing for, in fact I've never even read Steam disclaimers, didn't need to...

Thing is, legally speaking, the OP is correct, no matter how Try-Hard White-Knighting you people do, it's false advertisement. There are no "subjective" interpretations of that, it's in fact unstable, for some more than others, but doesn't matter. Also the bugs are not in any way shape of form "obscure", they are in fact core gameplay issues, one of those being the missing perk functionalities, that's not obscure, it's quite blatant, talking about those perks I still can't get my head around as to why they've not fixed those yet, but then again, no matter.

So to sum up what I think, I'd say TW is in the wrong on this, that the game is actually playable (but unstable and really bugged), on the other hand those disclaimers exclude the "Beta" strain, if you are playing 1.3 beta, for instance, you are under a different disclaimer spectrum, and cannot, by any means, demand a refund... If that's the case, it's your own damn stupidity (OP). If not, if you're playing the main one, then you are correct to demand a refund, though I know you won't. So, TW has a nightmarish PR, proven time and time again since 2015, they also lie a lot in their own announcements, again really old news, been like that for almost a decade, that's why I find the whole try-hard white-knighting quite irritating, just stop that, let the guy complain, he's in his own right, and if we disagree we simply have to not ask for a refund, surprising? Shouldn't be...
 
Things like this are always going to be in the realm of semantic debate. EA is not a protected term with a tight definition. There are no regulations to define what's an "obscure" bug versus a game-breaking one.

Honestly, when it comes to EA games, don't be an idiot. Watch a youtube video. Read a review. This is 2020, there's 8 billion people on youtube giving game reviews the second they come out. Get a sense of the level of EA and decide for yourself if its worth it.

For me? I can be ruthlessly critical of this game, but it was still worth the buy. For my friend who's less of a diehard? It won't be worth the buy until its more complete/polished. Exercise some critical thinking and don't be a lemming that needs to be spoon fed.
 

mrtats

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNW
Well, they are known for having bad PR... Doesn't surprise me, and I knew what I was signing for, in fact I've never even read Steam disclaimers, didn't need to...

Thing is, legally speaking, the OP is correct, no matter how Try-Hard White-Knighting you people do, it's false advertisement. There are no "subjective" interpretations of that, it's in fact unstable, for some more than others, but doesn't matter. Also the bugs are not in any way shape of form "obscure", they are in fact core gameplay issues, one of those being the missing perk functionalities, that's not obscure, it's quite blatant, talking about those perks I still can't get my head around as to why they've not fixed those yet, but then again, no matter.
Missing perk functionalities is not a bug, they are not implemented. A feature not being implemented is not a bug.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Missing perk functionalities is not a bug, they are not implemented. A feature not being implemented is not a bug.
423313937_9cbe3ab766_z.jpg
 

shadyroluo

Recruit
Well, they are known for having bad PR... Doesn't surprise me, and I knew what I was signing for, in fact I've never even read Steam disclaimers, didn't need to...

Thing is, legally speaking, the OP is correct, no matter how Try-Hard White-Knighting you people do, it's false advertisement. There are no "subjective" interpretations of that, it's in fact unstable, for some more than others, but doesn't matter. Also the bugs are not in any way shape of form "obscure", they are in fact core gameplay issues, one of those being the missing perk functionalities, that's not obscure, it's quite blatant, talking about those perks I still can't get my head around as to why they've not fixed those yet, but then again, no matter.

So to sum up what I think, I'd say TW is in the wrong on this, that the game is actually playable (but unstable and really bugged), on the other hand those disclaimers exclude the "Beta" strain, if you are playing 1.3 beta, for instance, you are under a different disclaimer spectrum, and cannot, by any means, demand a refund... If that's the case, it's your own damn stupidity (OP). If not, if you're playing the main one, then you are correct to demand a refund, though I know you won't. So, TW has a nightmarish PR, proven time and time again since 2015, they also lie a lot in their own announcements, again really old news, been like that for almost a decade, that's why I find the whole try-hard white-knighting quite irritating, just stop that, let the guy complain, he's in his own right, and if we disagree we simply have to not ask for a refund, surprising? Shouldn't be...

Well said my friend, OP is entitled to his opinion, and all you people who think the game is fine is entitled to your opinions. But if you bring this to a personal level since the game you hold near and dear is being criticized, you ought to show some more respect to your fellow gamers. I also find it baffling how people compare this game to other less developed EA games and think that justifies it in any means. Sure, this game is probably better than a lot of EA games, doesn't mean this game is all fine and dandy, the OP doesn't like the current state of the game, and he can careless what other EA games are like, he bought it, so he is entitled to expressing his dissatisfaction.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Well, they are known for having bad PR... Doesn't surprise me, and I knew what I was signing for, in fact I've never even read Steam disclaimers, didn't need to...

Thing is, legally speaking, the OP is correct, no matter how Try-Hard White-Knighting you people do, it's false advertisement. There are no "subjective" interpretations of that, it's in fact unstable, for some more than others, but doesn't matter. Also the bugs are not in any way shape of form "obscure", they are in fact core gameplay issues, one of those being the missing perk functionalities, that's not obscure, it's quite blatant, talking about those perks I still can't get my head around as to why they've not fixed those yet, but then again, no matter.

So to sum up what I think, I'd say TW is in the wrong on this, that the game is actually playable (but unstable and really bugged), on the other hand those disclaimers exclude the "Beta" strain, if you are playing 1.3 beta, for instance, you are under a different disclaimer spectrum, and cannot, by any means, demand a refund... If that's the case, it's your own damn stupidity (OP). If not, if you're playing the main one, then you are correct to demand a refund, though I know you won't. So, TW has a nightmarish PR, proven time and time again since 2015, they also lie a lot in their own announcements, again really old news, been like that for almost a decade, that's why I find the whole try-hard white-knighting quite irritating, just stop that, let the guy complain, he's in his own right, and if we disagree we simply have to not ask for a refund, surprising? Shouldn't be...

I was also expecting more from this game, but the way I see threads like this one are completely pointless and only serve to spread negativity and start fights within the community. If OP really feels this strongly about the issue they should just go ahead and sue Taleworlds. I don't what is the point of coming here to make yet another inflammatory thread, it's not like they don't know that people are unhappy. And it's not like they aren't working around the clock to try and fix things.

I would also like to reinforce the point that anyone who is using mods and/or using old saves with new patches has to no ground to complain about any crash they get, especially in the beta line. People pushing for save game compatibility are only slowing the development down, and I don't even understand why TW is trying to cater to them.
 
Top Bottom