Where is Drive for the Pennant?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Walter Alston

Guys, don't forget that when Perfect Team was introduced it was also supposed to debut "three weeks after launch" but it ended up arriving (with much fanfare and ballyhoo) sometime around mid-November.

How could that be if, as many say, PT is the only priority?

[AdequateRandomGaming]

Originally Posted by Sweed

How could that be if, as many say, PT is the only priority?

I know where you're coming from with this, but PT was nowhere as pay to win in the first couple years as it is now under the tutelage of that other company and was seen as a fun side mode to the base game that could generate extra monies for the developers instead of the cash cow it is treated as now.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by AdequateRandomGaming

I know where you're coming from with this, but PT was nowhere as pay to win in the first couple years as it is now under the tutelage of that other company and was seen as a fun side mode to the base game that could generate extra monies for the developers instead of the cash cow it is treated as now.

I'd counter that was always the plan, new company or no new company.
FWIW I never saw it as a "fun side mode" as I have, from the start, no interest in PT in any way shape or form. I did see it, again from the start, as a money making venture that taps into a huge market of users that like that type of game. There is nothing wrong with that, and I'm certainly not going to criticize a man for how he legally makes a living. I'm happy for everyone on the team, good for them.

[Pelican]

Would it be bad to say I really don't care about this? I admit to being mildly amused by all of the back-and-forth posturing over the timing of a feature none of us are likely to ever use. I know I should care a bit about a feature that might attract the casual fan who wants a quick fix, because increased sales means funds to support the more intricate features I (we) enjoy and expect. But honestly I would be pissed if the devs had dropped everything to work on this, rather that fine-tuning and enhancing 25 and trying to respond to issues and complaints and attacks.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Would it be bad to say I really don't care about this? I admit to being mildly amused by all of the back-and-forth posturing over the timing of a feature none of us are likely to ever use. I know I should care a bit about a feature that might attract the casual fan who wants a quick fix, because increased sales means funds to support the more intricate features I (we) enjoy and expect. But honestly I would be pissed if the devs had dropped everything to work on this, rather that fine-tuning and enhancing 25 and trying to respond to issues and complaints and attacks.

What you SHOULD care about is the honesty and integrity of the statements and promises a company makes to its patrons, particularly when part of a marketing / promotional campaign. For example, the international domestic leagues were never my bag, but I nevertheless register the emotions of those who did enjoy that feature—some even having long-term saves with a real “world’s game” atmosphere. Having these investments of time and interest surreptitiously gutted as readily-conveyed sacrifices in what was effectively an expedient corporate solution . . . well, I’m amazed how dismissive some reaction was on this forum to understandable expressions of dissatisfaction

***To be clear, not being privy to the legal particulars of this licensing contract suit. The manner in which it was handled, however, lacked transparency and certainly did not impart the feeling that much of an effort was made by OOTPD to “go to bat” for its customers (themselves often loyal long-term supporters of the franchise and its creators).***

[Pelican]

As a lawyer, I would have to caution that, in the world of commerce, it is critical to distinguish between binding commitments - as in a contract; but also in a product sale context, such as where troubleshooting and bug fixes are to be expected - versus expressions of intent or aspirational goals or estimates. One can and should be held to the former, including product follow-up. While it's possible to be disappointed when the latter are not fulfilled, such representations are not legally binding, and it is unreasonable to seek to enforce them, or to punish those making the statements.

Of course, it's natural to be disappointed in a delay of a feature to which one was looking forward with anticipation. I get that, even if I don't share it. But my disappointment would be greatly tempered by the explanation that a limited stable of talent has instead been devoted to far more urgent issues affecting a broader swath of customers (all of us). I accept the explanation that resources had to be committed to improving the current product and to responding to our questions and complaints. That is clearly Job #1.

There was no deception here. It's obviously a "reach exceeds grasp" situation, on the heels of a prediction that was overly ambitious or optimistic. That's all. Human beings have a tendency to set ambitious goals as motivation. Sometimes we fall short.

Nor do I see any "lack of transparency" in "we're trying to get this out" and "we won't be able to have it ready as soon as we had hoped". And a series of 66 (and counting) builds is pretty clear documentation of the remedial and enhancement work going on in the meantime. I know more about this company than any firm I have dealt with as a consumer ever - with the possible exception of my local co-op grocery CSA. OOTP is transparent, engaged, responsive; but not perfect, no.

So no, this is not a matter of "honesty and integrity", or anything so melodramatic. It's only something as mundane as workload and "the best-laid plans". Not optimal, for those eagerly awaiting this feature. Some might prefer a focus on a narrow feature, over improvement of the game engine everybody uses. Make the argument, but don't shoot the messenger. I would say the priorities were in the right place, under the circumstances. Could communication have been sooner or better? Maybe, but time in the forums is not time at the workbench. I'd much rather have the dev staff "in the lab" than prowling these forums.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by AdequateRandomGaming

I know where you're coming from with this, but PT was nowhere as pay to win in the first couple years as it is now under the tutelage of that other company and was seen as a fun side mode to the base game that could generate extra monies for the developers instead of the cash cow it is treated as now.

PT was always designed to be P2W and be a cash cow and was expected to take a few years. Some features you have to ease your suckers into.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Pelican

As a lawyer, I would have to caution that, in the world of commerce, it is critical to distinguish between binding commitments - as in a contract; but also in a product sale context, such as where troubleshooting and bug fixes are to be expected - versus expressions of intent or aspirational goals or estimates. One can and should be held to the former, including product follow-up. While it's possible to be disappointed when the latter are not fulfilled, such representations are not legally binding, and it is unreasonable to seek to enforce them, or to punish those making the statements.

Of course, it's natural to be disappointed in a delay of a feature to which one was looking forward with anticipation. I get that, even if I don't share it. But my disappointment would be greatly tempered by the explanation that a limited stable of talent has instead been devoted to far more urgent issues affecting a broader swath of customers (all of us). I accept the explanation that resources had to be committed to improving the current product and to responding to our questions and complaints. That is clearly Job #1.

There was no deception here. It's obviously a "reach exceeds grasp" situation, on the heels of a prediction that was overly ambitious or optimistic. That's all. Human beings have a tendency to set ambitious goals as motivation. Sometimes we fall short.

Nor do I see any "lack of transparency" in "we're trying to get this out" and "we won't be able to have it ready as soon as we had hoped". And a series of 66 (and counting) builds is pretty clear documentation of the remedial and enhancement work going on in the meantime. I know more about this company than any firm I have dealt with as a consumer ever - with the possible exception of my local co-op grocery CSA. OOTP is transparent, engaged, responsive; but not perfect, no.

So no, this is not a matter of "honesty and integrity", or anything so melodramatic. It's only something as mundane as workload and "the best-laid plans". Not optimal, for those eagerly awaiting this feature. Some might prefer a focus on a narrow feature, over improvement of the game engine everybody uses. Make the argument, but don't shoot the messenger. I would say the priorities were in the right place, under the circumstances. Could communication have been sooner or better? Maybe, but time in the forums is not time at the workbench. I'd much rather have the dev staff "in the lab" than prowling these forums.

I’m not going to debate the matter. When I read the promotional material, I thought, “It might be interesting, but at this point I don’t attach any credibility to their words. Maybe it’ll be delivered within a reasonable interpretation of ‘soon’, but I am going to regard it as meaningless.” To say later that they planned on implementing it shortly after release is either insulting or clueless lack of self-awareness. Every year, MONTHS of patching an undercooked initial release SOP, and it is obvious that no effort was devoted to having a different outcome this year. Either they used deceptive language in the marketing, or they are fooling themselves by thinking that was a realistic timeline. Long story short, you can choose your own interpretation. As for me, I am not disappointed. The official words inspire zero expectations from me, and the company has predictably “satisfied” every one of them.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by jcard

I’m not going to debate the matter.

"Debate" = A formal discussion of a particular topic in which opposing arguments are put forward. For example, the paragraph that follows the statement above.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Pelican

"Debate" = A formal discussion of a particular topic in which opposing arguments are put forward. For example, the paragraph that follows the statement above.

Not to ruin your “Gotcha!” moment, but I was aware of what I was doing. What I guess I needed to spell out was that I was just taking the opportunity to try to clarify my own thinking—I was explaining why I have reached my conclusions that hold for me, NOT advocating that interpretation over another for anyone else. Whether lawyers or otherwise in the real world, in this courtroom we each have the privilege of serving as judge of the matter and rendering a verdict that is authoritative and binding for pursed and only ourself. I know I lose sight of that at times. This was not one of them.

[Ty Cobb]

Pelican, some men simply want to watch the world burn.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by AdequateRandomGaming

I know where you're coming from with this, but PT was nowhere as pay to win in the first couple years as it is now under the tutelage of that other company and was seen as a fun side mode to the base game that could generate extra monies for the developers instead of the cash cow it is treated as now.

Uhm. That's just 100% wrong.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Oh, and on topic, Matt and Will are now focusing on this new mode, so it should be done soon. First we wanted to make sure the game is super stable and more important tweaks / features got our attention first. Please don't forget, we're still a very small team Thanks for the patience!