Well this is insulting

[Punisher_1]

So I dropped $50 for this game, anyone else?

So I get a notice early today that it is now on Steam for get this $31.49 with a 10% discount.........

I kind of thought I was going to get a $50 game but what I got was a boring early access to something we get to see all the bugs in. Don't get me wrong but the game has merit but is far from done. I do not feel at this point it ever was a $50 game or ever will be. At $35/31 it is still not there yet. Maybe $20/25.00 unless something really amazing comes out that we have not seen yet. 

Simply graphics are too basic and dated, game play is broken because the AI is dumb, control over ships is annoying, campaign mode is minimal. Simply nothing to really pull people in that are used to very graphically intensive games or MMOs and the like. Oh and no real replayability given no player versus player mode. Even in campain mode I see inconsistences and bug when starting the game.

The core of the game is solid, build your own ship....... I love this, I wish a certain other game has this core feature because it is far more dynamic in game play. 

The execution of everything else has quite a bit to be considered. I'm sure it "might" get there one day but maybe too late.  

[Littorio]

If you were "pulled in" and "used to very graphically intensive games or MMOs" then I would suggest you purchased the wrong thing and buyer beware. That said, the game has several issues, which I have elaborated on here at length and you can find. However, I am confident that further progress will be made. As for the lower Steam price, I have wondered about that myself. I have, and I presume you do too given the price tag, have a "Limited Edition." So to me, that means when the time comes, they owe us something more than the Steam plebs who got it for much less.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Littorio

[Punisher_1]

On 12/10/2021 at 9:26 PM, Littorio said:

If you were "pulled in" and "used to very graphically intensive games or MMOs" then I would suggest you purchased the wrong thing and buyer beware. That said, the game has several issues, which I have elaborated on here at length and you can find. However, I am confident that further progress will be made. As for the lower Steam price, I have wondered about that myself. I have, and I presume you do too given the price tag, have a "Limited Edition." So to me, that means when the time comes, they owe us something more than the Steam plebs who got it for much less.

 

Well Given the ability to make a game graphically pleasing should not be a challenge it should be the norm and that was my point. Seeing dated graphics in a new game is never a strong indication that much thought or effort was placed into the game on the initial look (what may generall draws in most players) . In the way for strategy games is it even slightly below par in some respects.

Given I have been gaming since you had to drop a quarter into a slot, pushing cartridge's into a Atari 2600 and typing in Dos commands to start a game I might have played and experienced a few games since then.  

I know the core of the game is providing a multitude of options for the player to build a ship but I also know that other people should be working on the player interface and how the game looks. This is not the point of my post. Simply I kind of feel dicked over, I guess the value was playing a game before others? 

 

[captinjoehenry]

I have heard that those who bought the game before it went on steam will get a free key.  But with steam limit on the amount of free keys that can be given out means it’ll take a while for everyone to get their key

[Littorio]

10 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

 

Well Given the ability to make a game graphically pleasing should not be a challenge it should be the norm and that was my point. Seeing dated graphics in a new game is never a strong indication that much thought or effort was placed into the game on the initial look (what may generall draws in most players) . In the way for strategy games is it even slightly below par in some respects.

Given I have been gaming since you had to drop a quarter into a slot, pushing cartridge's into a Atari 2600 and typing in Dos commands to start a game I might have played and experienced a few games since then.  

I know the core of the game is providing a multitude of options for the player to build a ship but I also know that other people should be working on the player interface and how the game looks. This is not the point of my post. Simply I kind of feel dicked over, I guess the value was playing a game before others? 

 

If there is a choice between high-fidelity graphics or gameplay features, I know I will choose the latter. The game looks fine as is. Could it be better? Sure, especially where damage models are concerned. But overall that's a sideshow, and comparing UA:D to any "modern MMO" or whatever is just ridiculous and doesn't help your argument. They are a very small team, so they likely don't have "other people working" on graphical things. I would rather they not get distracted and focus on game mechanics. Right now, the only visual things that are urgently needed are background related: weather and time of day.

[Punisher_1]

9 hours ago, Littorio said:

If there is a choice between high-fidelity graphics or gameplay features, I know I will choose the latter. The game looks fine as is. Could it be better? Sure, especially where damage models are concerned. But overall that's a sideshow, and comparing UA:D to any "modern MMO" or whatever is just ridiculous and doesn't help your argument. They are a very small team, so they likely don't have "other people working" on graphical things. I would rather they not get distracted and focus on game mechanics. Right now, the only visual things that are urgently needed are background related: weather and time of day.

I never compared it to modern MMO's just games made in the last few years. For $50 it lacks graphically. When trying to sell a game making is appealing to the masses with the basics of a graphically appealing interface is a good idea. Clearly the competitor in naval games surpases the look and feel of this game and they are not $50.00

[Littorio]

1 hour ago, Punisher_1 said:

I never compared it to modern MMO's just games made in the last few years. For $50 it lacks graphically. When trying to sell a game making is appealing to the masses with the basics of a graphically appealing interface is a good idea. Clearly the competitor in naval games surpases the look and feel of this game and they are not $50.00

Well if that's what you believe than that's your prerogative. Personally I don't very much care about the graphics. They look good enough for what they are supposed to be right now, and we have far bigger fish to fry as far as development and their limited manpower. But you do you.

[TheSublimeGoose]

6 hours ago, Punisher_1 said:

I never compared it to modern MMO's just games made in the last few years. For $50 it lacks graphically. When trying to sell a game making is appealing to the masses with the basics of a graphically appealing interface is a good idea. Clearly the competitor in naval games surpases the look and feel of this game and they are not $50.00

I think you'll find that the vast majority of people that enjoy these types of games don't care much about graphics. The game looks fine. If anything, I wish for me 'effects.' Particularly weather. But whatever.

Anyways, I think one way to look at the price tag is that we were paying for early access. Idk, I'm not going to lose sleep over 20 dollars. I imagine they'll give us something, anyways.

[MiWe]

My two cents....

Got into UA:D mid 2020 and i see the 50 bucks more like a kickstarter pledge. I like the game, i wanted to support the dev team in their work so i got the Limited Edition. On top of that i can influence the developement process via bug report or forum feedback.

Sure, the game still has issues and a long developement process, but i know what the covid chaos did to my field of work.... and i work for an hydraulics manufacturer with 10k employees, not some small dev team.

So far i enjoyed random battles and academy a lot and liked my first run at the campaign, KNOWING that it is a barebone mission generator atm.

Edited December 14, 2021 by MiWe

[Mike L]

I got the game in late 2019.  I think it was $50 ish.  I have gotten my money's worth on it, so no complaints about the price dropping.

[RedParadize]

Considering the number of hours I spent in the game its already well spent money.

[ThatZenoGuy]

It's 50 dollars because we got it way earlier than the steam release, I got this game in what feels like 2019 (probably early 2020?).

Now is 1 year of earlier than usual access worth 20 extra dollars tacked on? Dunno, maybe? Its up to personal opinion. Is the game worth 30-50 dollars? It's a niche product and that immediately boosts the price due to the wonderous thing known as supply and demand. Capitalism be like that for good or evil.

I don't regret my purchase as I've had quite a bit of fun with the game, beating it like...Twice. And at least they're still developing it.

[UnleashtheKraken]

They literally said that you paid more to play what was done right then with the preorders before it launched on Steam.  The lower price was to preorder, and not have access to playing the game, until it launched on steam.  This was directly in the text of the advertising for the 'pay more to play now'.  Where notice is given, in clear, plain language, there is no room to then complain when what was stated comes to be.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

4 hours ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

They literally said that you paid more to play what was done right then with the preorders before it launched on Steam.  The lower price was to preorder, and not have access to playing the game, until it launched on steam.  This was directly in the text of the advertising for the 'pay more to play now'.  Where notice is given, in clear, plain language, there is no room to then complain when what was stated comes to be.

 

I mean I'm not even angry at it, but I have to admit I can understand why some would have issues with the idea. I myself think it's a little scummy although I'll go along with it.

A lil empathy and all.

[UnleashtheKraken]

10 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

I mean I'm not even angry at it, but I have to admit I can understand why some would have issues with the idea. I myself think it's a little scummy although I'll go along with it.

A lil empathy and all.

Empathy where it's deserved.  Again.  The terms of what we were buying when we bought early access to play the game in its current state at time of purchase STATED that one could also pay less, and wait for general release.  There is nothing 'scummy' when the seller tells you EXACTLY what you are buying, and what will happen in the future.  Forearmed with the knowledge, any of us COULD have waited to purchase the game upon general release.  NO empathy for someone who thinks what the dev clearly stated shouldn't apply, or didn't read the terms.  Only pity.  If we were mislead, I'd be up in arms about it myself.  I read what was on offer, decided to buy in early and help the team out, and I have zero regrets that other people can now buy in at whatever price the dev decides.

Being mislead deserves empathy.  Being entitled deserves outright scorn.  No-one was mislead by the devs on this issue.

[ThatZenoGuy]

1 hour ago, UnleashtheKraken said:

Empathy where it's deserved.  Again.  The terms of what we were buying when we bought early access to play the game in its current state at time of purchase STATED that one could also pay less, and wait for general release.  There is nothing 'scummy' when the seller tells you EXACTLY what you are buying, and what will happen in the future.  Forearmed with the knowledge, any of us COULD have waited to purchase the game upon general release.  NO empathy for someone who thinks what the dev clearly stated shouldn't apply, or didn't read the terms.  Only pity.  If we were mislead, I'd be up in arms about it myself.  I read what was on offer, decided to buy in early and help the team out, and I have zero regrets that other people can now buy in at whatever price the dev decides.

Being mislead deserves empathy.  Being entitled deserves outright scorn.  No-one was mislead by the devs on this issue.

The phrase 'the customer is always right' exists for a reason, customers are by definition entitled to what they want, the whole point of the free market is people will buy what they want, when they want, and people will exist to sate this need.

I am not liking this anti-customer mindset you are beginning to show, you are a customer and not a paid shill, right? Trust me, you don't need to defend game-labs, they can defend themselves.

[UnleashtheKraken]

13 hours ago, ThatZenoGuy said:

The phrase 'the customer is always right' exists for a reason, customers are by definition entitled to what they want, the whole point of the free market is people will buy what they want, when they want, and people will exist to sate this need.

I am not liking this anti-customer mindset you are beginning to show, you are a customer and not a paid shill, right? Trust me, you don't need to defend game-labs, they can defend themselves.

The phrase 'the customer is always right' is not the full quote.  It is attributed to a hotelier who said, in full:  "The customer is always right...for the right price."  He meant that if a customer wanted an elephant delivered to their suite, he'd do it, and charge them every penny he could for the privilege.  Having worked in customer service for 20+ years, the customer is most often wrong when there's a disagreement, will try to scam the business for anything they can, and will take out their frustrations when what they want is unattainable/illegal/etc. on the employees who have no say in the matter if they want to keep their jobs.  So that attitude can go right down the toilet.

Now, in a situation where a vendor is selling something, on a free market say, they sell that thing for a price.  If additional features are offered, that often comes at a higher price.  So long as the price is clearly stated, and what each price tier includes is clearly stated, the customer can make an informed decision about what, if any, additions to the base purchase they wish to include.

The devs offered the game for pre-order and later access, at one price.  They offered IMMEDIATE access to the game before anyone else, at a higher price.  This was clearly stated.  The customer is fully entitled to choose to wait, and pay less, or pay more and play right the hockey sticks now.  They are NOT entitled to make the choice to pay more for immediate access, and then cry about it when the dev sells the game for less later on, HAVING STATED THIS WOULD HAPPEN ALL ALONG.

I'm not sure what part of 'no one was misled about anything' you think makes the devs the bad guys in this case.  I'm not white knighting, I'm pointing out a very poor fallacy in this whole argument you're making.  Where they fail, I'll happily point that out.  This isn't one of those times.

Lastly no, I'm not a paid shill, but thanks for the implication and just shying off a personal attack.

Edited December 21, 2021 by UnleashtheKraken

[RedOneAlpha]

Just some quick examples...

- I don´t think anybody who bought Rule the Waves bought it for It´s graphics. The same Is to be said about those of us who still play Jutland, or Distant Guns. Some value gameplay and system over graphics. Personally I play a lot of wargames (boardgame and PC), and these can be very expensive. I can safely say none have great graphics, just cardboard and paper! 

- Ready or Not has just been released on Steam. Before It´s release it was available for €35 for the standard version In EA, and €107,97 a supporter pack on there website...

Void Interactive:

https://voidinteractive.net/#pre-order

- WW3 was IIRC €25 on EA release three years ago and really never got finished. It´s going to be free in March. You can get a Beta Test pack now for €13.

It´s not all that bad with Games Lab and I like what they do. Just think that with those extra 10 they can add some more flags.

[Wowzery]

Personally with these types of games, I prefer they focus on gameplay instead of graphics.  great gameplay will have me coming back while great graphics fade quickly.

[Danelin Aruna]

I agree the graphics are secondary to me as well. I mean i play RtW 1/2 and love it. Gameplay is important, and i like the concept of this.