Absolutely since I read the EA disclaimer and understood I was buying a game that was still a work in progress and not complete for that price. Had I only wanted a complete game for that price I would have waited until it was finished like any other healthy well adjusted individual.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Had i known development was going to be this slow for the single-player experience, i wouldn't have bought Bannerlord.
- Thread starter Pickingupmyteeth
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Absolutely since I read the EA disclaimer and understood I was buying a game that was still a work in progress and not complete for that price. Had I only wanted a complete game for that price I would have waited until it was finished like any other healthy well adjusted individual.
But they lie in their EA disclaimer, check my qoutes on the last page.
They are still claiming "that some perks/skills" are not working. But it´s more than 50% even now! One example!
If they would have been honest they would have said:
"Only 15% perk/skills work and we´re reworking them in the next 12 months, maybe. Also don´t expect the stuff we´ve shown years ago in dev blogs or at the Gamescon to be in the game. We are also trying to get the AI to work. Expect a lot of placeholders, this game is really unfinished."
Their EA disclaimer sells this game as nearly finished. At least it is better than 5 months ago, but still far away from enjoyable without mods.
This is my first game I paid that much money for a technical alpha because of the EA description. And I wasn´t able to see that 70+% are just placeholders in 2 hours when I bought it, so no Steam refund for me.
That´s what they achieved, getting money from guys like me. Just check the Steam forums.
And of course TW themselves will never offer a refund for this. Because then 75% of all buyers want a refund. Nobody wants to play a technical alpha for the full price of a AAA price title.
If you demand a AAA price, deliver AAA quality. But TW demands a AAA price and delivers a techincal alpha and relies on moddders to fix their game for free.
They are still claiming "that some perks/skills" are not working. But it´s more than 50% even now! One example!
If they would have been honest they would have said:
"Only 15% perk/skills work and we´re reworking them in the next 12 months, maybe. Also don´t expect the stuff we´ve shown years ago in dev blogs or at the Gamescon to be in the game. We are also trying to get the AI to work. Expect a lot of placeholders, this game is really unfinished."
Their EA disclaimer sells this game as nearly finished. At least it is better than 5 months ago, but still far away from enjoyable without mods.
This is my first game I paid that much money for a technical alpha because of the EA description. And I wasn´t able to see that 70+% are just placeholders in 2 hours when I bought it, so no Steam refund for me.
That´s what they achieved, getting money from guys like me. Just check the Steam forums.
And of course TW themselves will never offer a refund for this. Because then 75% of all buyers want a refund. Nobody wants to play a technical alpha for the full price of a AAA price title.
If you demand a AAA price, deliver AAA quality. But TW demands a AAA price and delivers a techincal alpha and relies on moddders to fix their game for free.
Last edited:
Just going to point out this is the first big update Mutiplayer has gotten since EA came out....
Edit(Some of these problems we been complaining about for over a year) Also There is SP devs and then there is MP devs
Edit(Some of these problems we been complaining about for over a year) Also There is SP devs and then there is MP devs
Timmortal
Knight at Arms
SO whats your sourse for 75% wants a refund? that does not match the positive score the game has on steam where over 75% of most recent reviews are positive. Also what are you talking about AAA price, the game was about 40 euro a AAA goes at 60 euro, thats a pretty big difference, thats like saying the Earth is mostly covered by landmass. They delivered an early access, stop that "technical alpha" **** ea can be everything from prealpha to late beta, but all the alphas i have tried were far from fully working games, often with huge chuncks completely unplayable or locked off.
No, that's how *you* read it. But when you take that sentence in context with the rest of the disclaimer it is clear the game was not finished. And forums are a horrible place to draw "general opinions" from as people are more likely to voice displeasure with a product than pleasure when they have to put forth effort to do so (a similar thing used to happen with user reviews but most mediums have made it much simpler and people don't view it as much of a hassle anymore).
The problem you are having is you had your own idea of what EA was and generated an expectation. Now you're sitting here cherry picking single sentences and other irrelevant points (like the price) trying to place the blame on TW while the majority of users got what they expected and are perfectly ok with their purchase. I personally expected much worse. The only complaint I have is that they waited until right after releasing the EA to do the refactor but again, it's a work in progress and some unfortunate bumps in the road are to be expected. Now that they are done with the refactor we should see more regular updates, including introducing new content as the older content gets ironed out.
I sympathize with OP.
I think there are a lot of people who bought the game thinking it was 85%-90% finished, then discovered that it was more like 60-70% finished. And they would not have bought the game if they knew that beforehand.
That is the problem with Early Access. If the game company only tells consumers that the game is unfinished, but don't CLEARLY disclose how unfinished it is, then it can lead to this result.
It is not enough to just put a EA disclaimer. A 25% finished EA game is far more risky than a 50% finished game, and a 90% finished EA game is not very risky at all. People have the right to know exactly what kind of EA they are getting into before they buy the game.
Otherwise, what is to prevent companies from abusing the EA system? They can put out a 10% finished game, slap a EA sticker on it, and advertise it as 90% finished. And then, when people complain, just say "We told you the game was unfinished, it is in EA!"
I think there are a lot of people who bought the game thinking it was 85%-90% finished, then discovered that it was more like 60-70% finished. And they would not have bought the game if they knew that beforehand.
That is the problem with Early Access. If the game company only tells consumers that the game is unfinished, but don't CLEARLY disclose how unfinished it is, then it can lead to this result.
It is not enough to just put a EA disclaimer. A 25% finished EA game is far more risky than a 50% finished game, and a 90% finished EA game is not very risky at all. People have the right to know exactly what kind of EA they are getting into before they buy the game.
Otherwise, what is to prevent companies from abusing the EA system? They can put out a 10% finished game, slap a EA sticker on it, and advertise it as 90% finished. And then, when people complain, just say "We told you the game was unfinished, it is in EA!"
Timmortal
Knight at Arms
how much of a percentage does perks count as 0.002 or 10% what about scenes? 50% or 5%? do we do % by how many bytes it is or how many lines of codes it takes? a % tag would mean absolutely nothing as people value different things, for an explorere varied scenes will matter far more than for most other people and for a min maxer perks will mean far more than for instance dialogue and quests. and for some MP is everything but i would not have noticed if it was complely missing as i gave up on it after seeing how much they were whining in every chat they could find.
If you don't want an unfinished game, don't buy EA. A developer cannot be expected to know exactly how an EA will turn out, as it is still a work in progress and will be constantly changing. A developer might plan on implementing a feature and it turns out to be incompatible with other features and has to be removed. Or maybe the EA community or the developers themselves come up with a really good idea and a new feature get's implemented. All of these things make EA uncertain beyond being able to give a "completion ratio." Buying an EA title during EA is accepting there is a significant amount of uncertainty in it.
The percentages are only to illustrate the idea of completeness, I am not advocating for companies to give a precise percentage completion in their ads. That is, I am not saying they should literally say "this game is 60% complete." The point is, they should try to be as transparent as possible. Give the best portrayal of how complete the game is, to the best of their ability.
But you do get where I am coming from, right? The idea that it would be unfair if companies could make a barely finished game, slap a EA sticker on, and market it as close to finished?
I'm not saying that it is. I'm posing a hypothetical. The point is to illustrate that the EA practice can become unethical if companies aren't held accountable. It is what could happen.
Ok I see what you're saying now.
But I don't agree. I think part of the risk of buying an EA title is that the developer might abandon it or never improve beyond it's EA state. I'm pretty sure that point is even stipulated in Steam's description (not the developer's) of EA.
But I don't agree. I think part of the risk of buying an EA title is that the developer might abandon it or never improve beyond it's EA state. I'm pretty sure that point is even stipulated in Steam's description (not the developer's) of EA.
Habut
Sergeant
Sorry but this "I was deceived by Early Access description" argument is dumb as fck. First of all you can literally look up any gameplay video or something to see if the game is good, how finished it is really, how polished it is etc. Bannerlord isn't a story driven game so there is literally no downside of watching a gameplay video.
Aside from that there is a refund option up to certain amount of day after purchase/hours of playtime as well.
If you are mad that the game isn't as finished as you'd expected then you can complain about that as much as you want. Just don't make this dumb "They didn't give an accurate description" bull****. They clearly aren't gonna prepare a 25 page report on what is missing in detail and keep it updated throughout the EA period. Even if they did that no one would read it and they'd still come here and complain anyway.
Aside from that there is a refund option up to certain amount of day after purchase/hours of playtime as well.
If you are mad that the game isn't as finished as you'd expected then you can complain about that as much as you want. Just don't make this dumb "They didn't give an accurate description" bull****. They clearly aren't gonna prepare a 25 page report on what is missing in detail and keep it updated throughout the EA period. Even if they did that no one would read it and they'd still come here and complain anyway.
Right, so let me ask this: under the current rules of EA, could an unethical company make a barely finished game, slap an EA sticker on, and advertise it as however they want? In your opinion, is there a limit to what they can put in their advertising?
I would add if you are going to complain it isn't as finished as you want, make sure you have suggestions on how to improve it. Don't just say "booo it's not finished enough." Be constructive.
Timmortal
Knight at Arms
So long as they are not directly lying they can do whatever acording to the law, but a company will quickly loose support, except Bathesda for some reason. Like if Bethesda had released Bannerlord, they would have released it in a worse state than we got, but with only 5 differend sword skins 5 different armor skins and no capes, then they would have demanded 60 euros for it, and released it as a finished titel and people would have hailed it for its modding capability.
As long as they are marking it as EA they are advertising it as an unfinished product with an uncertain future and the onus is on the buyer about whether to buy it or not. Obviously they can not be putting "this game is finished" in an EA description as that is completely contrary to the EA system. But otherwise yes, they can put whatever they want.
Sure 75% are positive, mine was too first. You need 10+ hours to notice this is a technical alpha. I don´t have a source.
But if TW starts offering a refund a lot of buyers would accept it.
But TW was smart, place a lot of placeholders into the game, make people think this game has depth because of this. No way to notice this within the first 2 hours. And look at most of the reviews:
"It´s finally harvesting season!"
"I´ll drink from your skull!"
Last edited:
It sounds like you're unhappy which sucks but if you're going to get in an ea then you should plan on the long haul 1-2 years. I personally think the warning TW put on the Steam page is an accurate description of the state of the game. I also think that this ea is more for diehard fans and people that know they'll be playing the game for years to come. If you feel you've been duped talk to a lawyer, because no one here can give you all the answers.
No they lied and are still lying on their EA description. Or is it accurate that some perks are not working instead of 50%+ of them are not working?
Damn, you fanboys make it work out for TW. But any human beeing with a brain won´t never buy again a game from TW.
