I don’t think you are going to get what you want. You’re time might be better served elsewhere
2 Likes
No offense meant Oakatusz, I don’t think we’re getting anything from Fatshark here. I would consider this topic largely buried.
Mark it down as another example of corporate malfeasance and move on without having to worry about anything from Fatshark, since you can safely assume bad faith from everything they do going forward.
7 Likes
Thank your for your input guys. I will probably still wait until their next communication or update, but if they miss that opportunity again, it is safe to say that Ragnarok101 is right and they can join the category of EA and Ubisoft. Then it will be safe to assume that they lied on purpose and ripped us off based on false marketing. Let’s see what their next step is.
Safe to say, that this company gave us the perfect receipts with their modus operandi to show people why they should avoid their next project. This was may first and last Fatshark purchase.
different approach but equally beneficial could be:
instead of dishing out another charge of free aquilas(inflation), get back to the initial 2100 a set no matter how"premium detailed" and include a weapon skin and trinket as default.
add a reskin option for stuff already there and coming, i mean come on, mods do this already and people obviously still buy skins, so whats the loss in revenue here?
(apart from those buying reskins, sure, but they’d buy anything else either way, dont need commercials to get alcoholics buy beer, do you?)
would restore some good faith and the income still as it originally was practised.
although i firmly believe price increases and testing the water was on the list even before the first designer drew a line for an artwork.
All the while the ingame, docket operated cosmetic shop sits abandoned since it’s introduction. It turns out it was just a stunt alongside the promises about emotes (none was added since their introduction lol) to do damage control when all the community was in uproar.
Since most of those 107.000 players left already, the new people who bought this game later on don’t know how bad it was - they only know the game since the class rework update which was made based on our feedback. Only us veterans know how horrible the state the game was on launch - we were the QA testers who paid Fatshark to test their icomplete mess at launch. Then they spat in our faces once again with the aquila debacle just for good measure. The fooled us good, I give them that.
But Fatshark does their best to push even us hopeful idealists, who stuck with them since launch, away. They don’t deserve one dime in the future considering how they abused the trust of their most loyal, earliest supporters.
3 Likes
As I mentioned in some thread, I think Fatshark may not have control over mtx even or they can’t change anything for a few years, some corpo stuff with Tencent involved probably.
Like 90% of DT problems are the same as in V1 and V2, classic Fatshark.
But mtx, I don’t know. Skins in V2 are cheap. And quality is overall better, no clipping problems.
Some, or even most of DT skins look like been made by outsource company or b-tier freelancers.
FS is just going to sit on it til it dies down.
The Steam playerbase isn’t large enough (most of it left) to make a stink.
I feel like the absence of the clipping problems are down to VT2 not having any variation in character model. If female Kruber, male Sienna or even short Saltzpyre were a thing, it could be a very different story 
At least, I don’t think the different classes produced any notable differences in character model, just the armor layers on top of that.
It doesn’t make the clipping any less annoying, especially when you’re paying for it, but they’re not like for like.
1 Like
Yeah, i get it that different height and face shapes could bring some cosmetics scaling problems or something. Clearly i don’t know how it works, but i just wonder is it so hard to fix it once and forever, rather then fix cosmetics everytime.
functionally impossible, thanks to the way the game engine’s models work. their only option is to greatly drag out QA testing on the models, which would just be making everything much more expensive since there’s a seperate team just doing the modeling for this
I have little idea how the modelling process works either, so I’m just taking a reasonable(?) guess as to why the level of quality differs, like the commissar’s jacket being completely out of proportion on female Veterans - it’s not really acceptable for the amount of times it happens on paid cosmetics, but it’s a problem VT2 (fortunately) never had.
Well, given the amount of unreleased cosmetics, you have to wonder if some of the time spent making additional cosmetics could’ve been used on ensuring what had already been made was of a higher quality. I don’t know how FS works when it comes to assessing the quality of cosmetics, so maybe team composition did not permit that… but we can still ask the question!
1 Like
not how it works, they give a team an outfit to make and then when the team is finished they give it a QC pass and either sign off on it or throw it back. from what we know they outsource the cosmetics work so even if they do end up having issues they didn’t spot at first there’s no way to be sure they’ll get the same team that worked on it to fix it.
depending on how they manage to contract these people getting a fix might be as expensive as a while other set so not-crippling problems are likely to get ignored until their in-house modeling team is able to fix it for them, and those guys already have a full-time job.
Even without greedy monetization Red Dead Online is already dead with cheating ruining everything.
Wrong.
Most of us who used to play Red Dead Online had more than 2000 gold and over a million dollars after purchasing every cosmetic, weapon, upgrade, and Outlaw Pass available.
That’s why Rockstar abandoned Red Dead Online: they screwed up for themselves when we could keep up weekly bonuses indefinitely, resulting in us earning more than 12 gold per day, every day through doing 9/9 - 7/7 dailies which didn’ttake longer than 30 mins with a Posse (join one on random).
So, the big issue with Red Dead Online was that we, the players, ran out of content fast and they couldn’t get money from us because we were so wealthy and bought every update for free via the gold we earned by playing the game.
Rockstar attempted to re-monotize the game later by adding another currency, the Blood Money update, which had its own currency, but it was too late, and they eventually discontinued support because they lost money by continuing to work on it.
2 Likes
Sounds like an almighty pain in the ass for all involved, really 
I just assumed it’d be all in-house unless I’m told otherwise - I wasn’t really aware of any outsourcing tbh!
As far as I know it was GTA VI that got RDO killed, not the lack of profitability. Even the quarterly report when they stopped supporting it, RDR2 was selling well. R* stated that they are shifting focus from RDO if I remember well.
1 Like
I think it was both.
They couldn’t figure out the SharkCard for Red Dead Online, and GTA V is their cash cow.
Just wait for how egregious the monetization of GTA VI will be! 
2 Likes
It is possible, yes. It is a shame that they killed RDO regardless.
With regards to GTA VI - Don’t you worry, I wouldn’t even touch that game with a 10 foot pole. R* is dead to me.
1 Like
Might as well put fs on that list now too. As there is little chance they can ever redeem themselves now.
5 Likes
Yep, I will wait until their next update/actual patch. If that fails to address the long standing concerns of this community, I will put them next to those trash companies and will never purchase another product from them.
6 Likes