Name one live service game thats triple A you have even 500 hours in, and after that name a live service game that isn’t triple A or mainstream you have 500 hours in. I will wait
Maybe if Fatshark was a corporation that did not have a long history of missing deadlines, misrepresenting about release dates, or just plain failing to produce goods. However, considering Fatshark’s dismal past performance with all of these things, I firmly believe that it is realistic to assume nothing until May or June.
Most people understand that “In the coming months” is a very much a plural statement.
I mean, personally, I would be willing to wait 6 months of no updates if that’s what it took for them to change the item “progression” system. I mean, hell, I would probably wait years at this point since I am simply not playing the game at all.
I kinda feel you’re a bit of an apologist for Fatshark, Mayson. Always looking to defend the Devs - at least in the many posts of yours I’ve read in my time here.
If a developer says coming months, they don’t mean coming weeks. They mean coming months. That very much means ===== not until months.
But … and I will apologise to you in advance … maybe you’ll be proven right and something significant will land before 12th April 2024. High level vision strikes me as more than a quick patch here or there.
PS I’m a native speaker. Of English at least. Admittedly not Swedish.
I’m bored, my one friend has gotten his zealot to 30 and has gear adequate enough for those of us with more time to carry him in Damnation whenever, I have no incentive to play anymore since I can’t test builds. I use a browser plugin to check for Power Cycler and Surge blessings in the Melk shop, no such luck yet.
Fatshark wants players back, it needs to update.
What do you mean by this ?
My point is teling someone hur dur you clocked x hundred hour in it must be gud then is a utterly moronic take… Especially in the context of an Avarge AAA game playtime around is only 40 hour
comparing a multiplayer game playtime to an undefined genre supposed 40 hour avarge playtime its just stupid and pure cope
back the the ye old time 40 hour is a pinecale of a well made singleplayer game w multiple playthrough and multiplayer games had thousand of hour clocked in easily (cod2 multiplayer, cs1.6)
So if you want to compare someone DT playtime compared to other multiplayers title avarge playtime…
How is that a Moronic take? No one would spend 3,000 hours reading the dictionary and then afterwards proclaim it was a horrible time. He is implying if you spent that much time doing a leisurely activity, then you MUST enjoy it. The irony of calling that argument moronic…
“addictive and compulsive behavior doesn’t exist”
That statement doesnt mean “no content for months”.
#1 Sunk cost fallacy → thats why someone can spend hundreds of time in someting wich dose not like…
#2 Playtime infaltion → via farming material, shop camping, AFK-ing, grinding levels…
And a personal note i read a programing book called “tannenbaum” for multiple semester and i hated it every minute it, so what is your point ? You might be arguing buT It Was mAnDaAatOrY pYainG DT iS nOt well i paid money for the game hence the #1 point occurred…
Honestly, regardless of what they are cooking up, it’s a wait and see if the crafting gets messed with, otherwise there is no reason for me to even come back to the game. So if there is no new content, don’t care, until that nightmare system is fixed I’m not spending anymore time nor money on this project until then.
Sounds like some kind of roadmap, good.
Sunk cost fallacy context revolves around a situation like buying a house and deciding to stay there even though you don’t like it since you’ve already spent so much money on it. It is the idea that a human can end up in a situation they don’t want to be in due to financial constraints (among other more complex issues I also dont think apply here)
You playing a video game is no way correlates to any sunken cost, unless you really mean to tell me the 30 dollars you spent made you feel the impulse to spent 1600 hours playing? If so, that is not normal, you should honestly see a therapist about that, and I wouldn’t make a generalized argument out of it.
I acknowledge addictive and compulsive behavior exists, but I also don’t think that is a good argument in this situation, nor does it turn his argument into a moronic one
He loves the game and plays for 1600 hours. He definitely enjoys the game
He is hopelessly addicted to it and plays 1600 hours. He should get help for his behavior.
I don’t see how either argument ends with him not liking the product as one consequence is the opposite and the other (addiction) has nothing to do with disliking something and MAYBE has someone to do with liking it, at least initially.
Either way, I still don’t see his initial observation that doing something for 1600 hours and THEN saying you didn’t like it, doesn’t make sense…is wrong? Sounds like a reasonable thing to assume.
it doesn’t even need to be monetary value for sunk cost fallacy to apply…
“i’ve trained and played chess for 5 years and became quite good. i might have shot at winning a tournier, i should probably continue” → sunk cost based on skill/time
not to mention monetary value is purely subjective someone might not have enough to buy a new game in months, therefore feels like he has to like it, i grew up with little money and no
pocket money the result is playing a game endlessly regardless of it being to your liking.
(i admit that kids aren’t as picky but still)
It is, but Fatshark loves to ride that line though to be completely fair. It doesn’t equal, but it can infact also mean that if you go with the most pessimistic interpretation. Which usually is the correct one for Fatshark
Yes, that was my “among other more complex issues” part
I don’t think that applies to this situation but that’s not a big deal I guess
Sunk cost is by no means a purely financial concept, it’s a psychological concept and it can apply to sinking time into things aswell. If you spend 40 hours on a game and there’s severe grind infront of you for potentially another 1000 hours, you can make two decisions:
-
I’m good, I doubt it gets better from here
-
I already spent 40 hours, so might aswell keep going and “complete” things (this is sunk cost and this doesn’t always happen consciously)
This is pretty common in certain video game genres. Grindy endgame that “grips” people operates with sunk cost principles in mind pretty often. This certainly applies to Darktide.
Agreed. 
I’d say OP was a low-effort bait post, but it takes zero effort to bait people on this forum.
I genuinely don’t know how dense someone need to be this level of mental gymnastic, so i like to wrap up this segment whit 2 closing toughts on my part.
-
Smoking says hello (yes i know DT dose not cause lungcancer but it has some exploitative nature)
-
Gaming as an industry relative young so im not suprised if in the near ish future we get some legislation… We alredy had some like the Danish(?) loot box law… Who knows next 50 years in the future we got a “maximum playtime law” so devs need to determine how much time need to spend for certain in game thing to be achieved… So we can avoid future GaaS plague…
Currently we just mocking the industry by making fun of it, just remeber the meme back at battlefront 2 launch “x year need to be spend just to unlock dart vader for free” or the diablo immortals meme “hundred thousand of dollar spend just to get max level”.
currently we need spend god knows how much time in DT to get the item roll we want to play in a game we already paid for … it just not sane… just as insane like some smug “redditor” come along, and stating “you spent x amount of playtime it must be good then” …