RIP Warband on consoles

[CoolMB]

I understand you guys are a busy bunch at Taleworlds, and I always try to see the other side of things before complaining, but do you guys even care about the success of Warband on consoles?

Seems like everyone at Taleworlds is pretty content with letting this game die on consoles. It's a damn shame, cus it's a lot of fun when the servers are populated. Guess this whole charade was a cash grab after all.

 

[callahan9119]

I'm pretty sure most people don't buy mount and blade for multiplayer. I never touched native multiplayer, it was dull as ****. Crpg was great, but that was a small number who played that.

What are they supposed to do...spend a million dollars advertising for a near decade old game that costs 20 bucks? Redirect resources away from Bannerlord to do whatever you guys want them to do to magically make multiplayer super popular? Because that's what it would take...magic.

I bought the xbox one version on release day and it's the only game I've played since then.

 

[CoolMB]

I'm pretty sure most people don't buy mount and blade for multiplayer. I never touched native multiplayer, it was dull as ****. Crpg was great, but that was a small number who played that.

I had to stop reading after this.

 

[Axurimas]

I actually agree with Callahan. Singleplayer in M&B was very fun and relaxing.

 

[zobicus]

Thirded.

 

[callahan9119]

I'm pretty sure most people don't buy mount and blade for multiplayer. I never touched native multiplayer, it was dull as ****. Crpg was great, but that was a small number who played that.

I had to stop reading after this.

I can live with that. It doesn't make anything that follows any less true.

I wish for your guys sake it was super popular and all your multiplayer dreams and desires would be realized. I'd like some mods and a button layout and menu system that wasn't half assed and or just plain idiotic.

But I'm pretty sure it's a case of we can wish in one hand and **** in the other and see which one fills first.

 

[CoolMB]

I'm sorry, but I guess the console community is much more misinformed than I thought. To be honest, your statement about Native Multiplayer is just completely wrong. Warband became such a success literally because of its multiplayer. The reason it is still played today on the PC is, once again, literally because of its multiplayer. Your opinion that it is dull, while you are entitled to that opinion, is shared by a very small minority, such as the two gentlemen who posted on this thread as well.

 

[captain lust]

I'm sorry, but I guess the console community is much more misinformed than I thought. To be honest, your statement about Native Multiplayer is just completely wrong. Warband became such a success literally because of its multiplayer. The reason it is still played today on the PC is, once again, literally because of its multiplayer. Your opinion that it is dull, while you are entitled to that opinion, is shared by a very small minority, such as the two gentlemen who posted on this thread as well.

If you compare Steam stats to the multiplayer population of Warband, I don't think that's the case. I also don't think threads like this are particularly constructive in any case.

One issue is that Warband lacks matchmaking, which is a staple for most console games nowadays. I think it's hard to convince an audience to use a server list. The problem for us is that we want to keep each version equal and most of our resources are focused on developing Bannerlord. I don't think you have any foundation to describe Warband's console release as a cash grab. It was worked on for a long time, polished and is a full port of the game, which was working well at release. We are also continuing to work on it and release patches, to support those who purchased the game.

 

[Orion]

If you compare Steam stats to the multiplayer population of Warband, I don't think that's the case. I also don't think threads like this are particularly constructive in any case.

隐藏

Warband is and has always been first and foremost a singleplayer game. Even at the height of MP's popularity there were likely equal or greater numbers of players in SP. Threads like this do indeed blow, since they amount to nothing more than whining about a lack of patches. You've been around long enough to know that patches are slow in coming from TW, Letholdus. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it's not out of the ordinary here.

 

[callahan9119]

I'm sorry, but I guess the console community is much more misinformed than I thought. To be honest, your statement about Native Multiplayer is just completely wrong. Warband became such a success literally because of its multiplayer. The reason it is still played today on the PC is, once again, literally because of its multiplayer. Your opinion that it is dull, while you are entitled to that opinion, is shared by a very small minority, such as the two gentlemen who posted on this thread as well.

I created my account here the same time as you. You don't have some special inside knowledge I'm not privy to. Mount and blade has been so durable because of mods, single player mods like Floris, diplomacy, pendor, geko etc.

Crpg was great and I wasted more time playing that than I care to remember. Native multiplayer was fun for a bit but quickly got old. Oh well, I have an opinion.

Making histrionic posts on the taleworlds boards  probably won't help you.

 

[Yozzer]

A little off topic as this refers to the Nvidia Sheild K1

I consider myself firstly a PC freak, and have played countless hours of Warband single player, but I recently bought the Nvidia Shiekd K1 as I was treating my wife and I to a well deserved long holiday.
I would miss my PC, and wanted something small I could play games on. I especially wanted Warband which was released but buggy, (I have played enough buggy mods not to have been bothered too much by bugs).

Anyway, I find it amazing that the Warband version released for the Nvidia Shield worked but was yet it was left to die. It is no longer available saying it was not compatible with the K1, though I feel sure it could have been made so.
There must be millions of PC people who would like to have a working version of Warband, well, at least 1 

I will always be a PC person, but there must be a big market for a mobile version of the greatest game ever  , and once released, there should be a commitment there imho.

 

[callahan9119]

I would like to add (since the community manager evidently pays some attention to this board) that it is pretty obnoxious how the mount and blade Twitter is nothing but retweeting glowing praise of the game and only answering fawning fanboi questions. Maybe that's all a twitter feed should be....I don't know. If it is, then it's pretty pointless to follow it.

You guys said a patch was in the works for console well over a month ago and there has been nothing as far as updated information.

I don't wanna make a whole new thread about this (the twitter thing). I'll just put it here and add to the airing of grievances.

 

[SavageImperator]

I'm sorry, but I guess the console community is much more misinformed than I thought. To be honest, your statement about Native Multiplayer is just completely wrong. Warband became such a success literally because of its multiplayer. The reason it is still played today on the PC is, once again, literally because of its multiplayer. Your opinion that it is dull, while you are entitled to that opinion, is shared by a very small minority, such as the two gentlemen who posted on this thread as well.

If you compare Steam stats to the multiplayer population of Warband, I don't think that's the case. I also don't think threads like this are particularly constructive in any case.

One issue is that Warband lacks matchmaking, which is a staple for most console games nowadays. I think it's hard to convince an audience to use a server list. The problem for us is that we want to keep each version equal and most of our resources are focused on developing Bannerlord. I don't think you have any foundation to describe Warband's console release as a cash grab. It was worked on for a long time, polished and is a full port of the game, which was working well at release. We are also continuing to work on it and release patches, to support those who purchased the game.

Not trying to be a smart a**, but there has not been a patch released or patches. November is over now and still no word for us people who are waiting on some news.

 

[CoolMB]

I'm sorry, but I guess the console community is much more misinformed than I thought. To be honest, your statement about Native Multiplayer is just completely wrong. Warband became such a success literally because of its multiplayer. The reason it is still played today on the PC is, once again, literally because of its multiplayer. Your opinion that it is dull, while you are entitled to that opinion, is shared by a very small minority, such as the two gentlemen who posted on this thread as well.

If you compare Steam stats to the multiplayer population of Warband, I don't think that's the case. I also don't think threads like this are particularly constructive in any case.

One issue is that Warband lacks matchmaking, which is a staple for most console games nowadays. I think it's hard to convince an audience to use a server list. The problem for us is that we want to keep each version equal and most of our resources are focused on developing Bannerlord. I don't think you have any foundation to describe Warband's console release as a cash grab. It was worked on for a long time, polished and is a full port of the game, which was working well at release. We are also continuing to work on it and release patches, to support those who purchased the game.

I have immense respect for what you guys do, don't get me wrong. Also, I don't care much about the patch, I just feel that it's clear that Warband on consoles is not a priority. This is completely justified because you have plenty to do already with Bannerlord. But if you already have a ton of work on your plates, I don't quite understand why you would release this port if you know that you won't be able to provide full support for it. If the answer is that this game is more of a test to see how the game does on consoles, as a precursor to Bannerlord, then it makes sense. However, if it is a test, then why would you have people pay $20 for the game? Furthermore, do you honestly think (and this is not a rhetorical question) that this $20 version of the game on XBOX has the same value of the $20 PC version? To be honest, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement that this version is a polished, full port of the game. I believe it is a full port of the game's initial, day-of release on PC way back when, but to call it a polished, full port of the PC version in its current standing is a bit of stretch.

 

[captain lust]

Not trying to be a smart a**, but there has not been a patch released or patches. November is over now and still no word for us people who are waiting on some news.

We did release a patch early on I believe and the next one is on its way. Unfortunately, releasing a patch to consoles is not like releasing patches on Steam. You are required to wait a certain amount of time and receive approval before releasing the patch. With Steam, you have full control.

It's not a lack of support from us it's simply the result of working on a different platform with different requirements. You're not ever going to have the exact same version of a game on two different platforms.

We worked to add nice features to the console versions, including higher res textures and improved rendering. We also spent a lot of time on the UI and in game controls, adding additional options to guarantee a good experience on controllers, which the game wasn't originally designed for. This was tested by our own QA team, and myself, and our partners. Changes were added based on feedback, such as speeding up the world map gradually with the analogue trigger.

As I've said, I believe that to sustain an active multiplayer population on consoles would require *more* work than PC, simply because that user based is used to a more streamlined experience, something like matchmaking in a lobby. It's not because the game is incomplete but simply there are a different set of expectations. We're working to find the best compromises but it's not our fault that players on the consoles don't want to play the game under the same conditions that our PC players are willing to and I don't think it's completely fair to take that out on us.

game and only answering fawning fanboi questions. Maybe that's all a twitter feed should be....I don't know. If it is, then it's pretty pointless to follow it.

The only questions we get that we ignore are those we've answered, or explained why we can't presently answer multiple times already.

 

[CL0VER0]

Would it be possible on upcoming patches to adjust the equipment menu on MP? It's a bit difficult to navigate box by box and would be much easier with a free moving courser, I think this may have been brought up in the past but I'm not sure. One of the biggest problems with it is when something pops up on the screen while changing equipment (such as poll has been rejected or something) it completely stops you from editing anything else in your equipment. You have to leave the menu and go back in to start off from where you left off and if you arent quick enough in doing so it throws you into the game with gear you didn't want. Plus for some reason as archer and trying to equip gloves you click on your hand space and instinctively go over to the side to click the gloves and click the A button (on Xbox) but for some reason when you click on your empty hand space it brings you back to the top of the menu, and then once you instinctively go right and hit A because that's the way it works if you're not an archer, it brings you to reset to default and end up clicking that on mistake and have to end up resetting you're loadout which can be burdensome...

Just throwing that out there

 

[Cyndro]

If you want decent competitive MP I wouldn't really be looking at the console version at all. The controller just isn't suited to it, and servers won't go above 64. Furthermore the real meat of Warband's multiplayer (Napoleonic Wars, PW, cRPG/Mercs etc) are not going to make it on console. Even the hardware of the consoles themselves aren't suited to big Warband battles, due to their crappy CPUs. For this reason and many others I'm also doubtful Bannerlord will ever make it to console.

I wouldn't have had your hopes too high in the first place, OP.  You are completely right to believe the multiplayer on console Warband is utter crap, but what do you expect the devs to do? If you believe the port is a cash grab (which it probably is) it's not like you should really expect them to do much. I mean in its current state the multiplayer is completely broken, the menus are completely glitched and never work, and the servers themselves are awful and have like a 200ms+ delay (even though they report like 30ping). I think that should tell you something about how high of a priority the console port is to Taleworlds.

My advice is to go play the far superior PC version.

 

[William Bone]

Thanks for another mustard-race reply, Mr Cyndro. Actually the ping is about 30-40 on console servers. Now go back to your pc, smile and farewell.

 

[Cyndro]

Thanks for another mustard-race reply, Mr Cyndro. Actually the ping is about 30-40 on console servers. Now go back to your pc, smile and farewell.

Hmm. Nobody brought up console fanboyism before you. Anyhow I am on my PC right now, posting this. Do you use your PS4 to browse or something ? That would be pretty funny.

But anyway you might want to improve your reading comprehension. I did say the game reports a 30-40ping range, but the actual delay is well into the 200ms+ range. Either that, or my connection is ****. If that were the case however, I would also experience this on PC, and on other PS4 games, which I don't. Even if we remove the connection issues, the MP menus are still a broken mess that lock-up every time a server message appears. If the devs even tested the MP once, they would've noticed this. It's obvious they don't care about it much, but I don't mind.

 

[William Bone]

Thanks for another mustard-race reply, Mr Cyndro. Actually the ping is about 30-40 on console servers. Now go back to your pc, smile and farewell.

Hmm. Nobody brought up console fanboyism before you. Anyhow I am on my PC right now, posting this. Do you use your PS4 to browse or something ? That would be pretty funny.

But anyway you might want to improve your reading comprehension. I did say the game reports a 30-40ping range, but the actual delay is well into the 200ms+ range.

And it is not, plain and simple. I've played more than one hundred games online and the ping reported on the matchmaking screen is pretty accurate. So my dear mustard-troll, while i'm typing from my PS4 just double check your connection and do some research on the web cause you don't have a clue about the HUGE amount of lag in the 200ms+ range.