?_?
I mean, by all technicalities, this game wouldn't need patches to actually work come launch as far as we're aware. It would be missing some down-the-road options, but its shipping with everything as advertised. If you don't think that justifies 60$ or 40Euro, or if you think the game was rushed to completion, then that's your prerogative as a consumer to say "No", but no one is shipping you an incomplete "Not as Advertised" game.
In fact no game that they have launched in as of so far has actually needed patching to function as advertised as far as I am aware.
The only person in need of joining the Olympics is you, really.
There's certainly a disconnect here. Is launching a game with too few content just fine so long as we "advertise it"?
I mean you said as much pretty directly with the bolded section. We can only call the game "incomplete" if it's "not as advertised".
It should be pretty obvious that in terms of software engineering that makes absolutely no sense. "Oh I told my client the only functionality is a log-in screen, but that's OK, it's not feature incomplete because I was transparent about that".
How do you know that though? I'm sure you might find one or 2 people in this topic defending that have double standards, but many of us actually wouldn't have a problem with it no matter the company. For me I want to see how meaty and fun the gameplay looks for the Single Player before I start making judgement on the games content being worth the asking price. Sure they only have 6 maps right now at launch, but they do plan to expand later, it's really short and lacking for a multiplayer mode, but many forget that this game has a single player mode, and what they showed looked to be an actual game and not just some random mutliplayer match against bots like some other games have done. It's just that we truly don't know if this game is worth the price or not til we know more about the single player. It's a shame they've pretty much focused all the marketing on the multiplayer, cause the time they did show the single player looked great.
I think the game looks amazing and I'm looking forward to it. I'm incidentally not buying it day 1 due to simply not having the time to play it, but had I actually had the freetime I would've definitely not bought it at launch after learning this.
I think people can choose to do whatever they want with their money. If they want to play any game with any amount of content at any price it's fine by me, because their anticipation of a title and excitement of playing it as soon as possible factors into that "is it worth it?" question.
My true issue is the fact that, for all intents and purposes, this is a game that isn't launching in the way that Nintendo is envisioning, and people are defending it. It's one thing to be OK with it, but it's another to defend it and be adamant about it by applying nonsense logic. There's no way that I'll be convinced that a game is "feature complete" so long as it's advertised about how little content it has, no matter how little content it has (as I mentioned, the ability to choose your team in a friend's game is coming later i a patch). Some of this functionality and content promised later is so basic it just can't be called finished.
Again, no problem with buying unfinished games. Early Access and Kickstarter are famous for a reason. But let's call a spade a spade here instead of bending backwards and insisting otherwise just to make ourselves feel better.
OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP WITH THE CONDESCENDING "I'M SUPERIOR TO YOU" ATTITUDE AND GET OFF YOUR FUCKING HIGH HORSE!
We are talking about the worth of a video game at launch. Now, it may come to you as a shock but people have different values of what they will pay for an individual product than others. It's basic economics. There is no universal standard for an individual person. A person who wouldn't even look at a certain game that costs $60 might possibly by a game at around $50. Conversely, a person might have been willing to spend more than $90 for the same product. This number this "potential revenue" varies from specific person to specific game. For instance, I bought TF2 at launch despite its barebones launch because I thought it was worth it. Conversely I have yet to buy the Arkham games because they don't appeal to me despite the dearth of content each game in that series has. But, now matter what we think of the quality of the launch, the game is finished at launch. It is ready to be sold in stores according to the whims of developers. That, by the very definition, is a finished product.
The difference between you and me isn't that I'm some dull brained idiot who will suck the cock out of Iwata any day while you are such a beautiful specimen that God himself would not block your path but rather that you and I have a different opinion on what this game is worth. I think the game is worth at launch the full price. I think that everything described is designed to guarantee that randoms will always be ready at launch. I think the Single Player stuff we saw at the beginning already fully justifies the $60 price tag. You apparently don't think the game is worth the mud on the soles of your feet. And that's perfectly fine. You aren't entitled to get the game. You're not entitled to like the game. The fact that you act like anyone who does want the game at launch is somehow mentally handicapped IS more insulting and is what I take the most offense from. Not the fact that you don't want this game.
And as for you going on about "other games", you're once again assuming "what I think isn't worth my time isn't worth anybody's time and fuck all that think otherwise". Some people thought that Arkham Knight's $40 Season Pass was completely worth it. Some people clearly thought otherwise. Some people think Killer Instict at launch was worth it. Others don't. People have different opinions on what price they should pay for a game. That doesn't suddenly demean the people who would buy it at the more expensive price.
I addressed some of what you're saying in my answer to Hugstable.
You can buy any game that's in any state of finished or unfinished. That's not and hasn't been an issue with gaming since last generation and especially not since Early Access or Kickstarter.
My issues with people in this thread are mainly from what I mentioned above. No, a game is NOT magically feature complete simply because the dev says so. No multiplayer game can ever be called complete without incredibly basic features like getting to choose your own team. You don't
need to defend this. All you need to say is "I'm going to buy it because I really want to play the game on day 1", and there's nothing I or anyone else can say otherwise. I'm not judging people who buy the game anyway because they want to play it right away and have a good time on day 1. That doesn't make you an "Iwata cock sucker" or whatever (and I never implied that you did). I'm judging people who, in addition to buying the game right away, are performing every bit of double standards, mental gymnastics, and specious reasoning they have to call the game something it isn't simply because it somehow bothers them if they didn't.
It's about calling a spade a spade and not making excuses for something that doesn't need to be made excuses for. You can buy and play and love the game without defending the lack of features and content that are industry standard and will come at a later time.