(XB1/PS4) Virtual Cursor Feedback Megathread

[(PSN)FurryZenJustice]

@TwoWolves

According to their website, DE has about 200 people working for them. Loaded cost (including everything, not just salary) would put their annual operating cost at around ~50M USD give or take. It's ballpark for the purposes of discussion. Given 2 million active players, that's about $25 per person. Which is reasonable except that each player doesn't actually spend $25 a year. Many spend nothing at all. 5% of the player base is actually paying typically in a F2P. That's an average of $500 per year for each paying player. Again rough numbers for argument.

What is your alternative to fashion frame for players to buy with their $500? If it's P2W it's going to suppress non-payers. And if it's all shortcuts you're eliminating content for your heaviest players.

As to visuals eating up server memory -- it's minimal. All those textures are loaded up on the client. It's not like the server ever renders those textures or models. It just sends a code as to what people are wearing. It's probably equivalent to less than 1 second of location/action data that the clients have to send each other to function. As to visuals eating up the client's memory. It's only a cost you pay when it's needed. Otherwise the models and skins stay inert on the hard drive. It may increase the cost of the initial download or more patches, but even those can be mitigated by only downloading skins when they are first encountered. If you want a non-customizable game that's graphically dull I'm sure there are lots of options.

So I come back to the question of: "What funding streams do you feel are appropriate for DE?" What alternative would you suggest that won't:

• introduce P2W
• segment the player base based on content packs
• remove content from people paying money
• introduce gambling elements
• dissipate after a short period of time
• create greater disparity between new players and old
• isn't a loss leader as publicity for another project (e.g. re-make of Wasteland 1 in prep for Wasteland 2)

If you have an answer, I'd love to hear it. The industry is having a horrible time trying to figure this one out itself. It's a difficult problem to solve. I mean that sincerely. Great ideas can come from anywhere and I'm not assuming you don't have an answer. I'm just wondering what it is.

[TwoWolves]

Cosmetics should be demonetized or removed. The money being used to develop that content could be better used to offer better content, and yeah, sorry, but content packs are the only way to go--if they're done correctly and priced correctly. For example. You have how many of these 5%-ers who are "power players" for lack of a better term. You better damn well believe they're p2w players. They're not spending that much on cosmetics; they're buying frames, primes, weapons, and everything else they can. You want a better model? I got one.

A way to make money off content packages and ensure that everyone has access to them at some point no matter what while making fantastic amounts of money and generating a lot of positive energy in the gaming community towards DE would be to release them on a tight schedule of 12-18 months. First 12 months, it's a paid package for these 5% people that just absolutely have to have everything right now and can't wait. Then in another 12 months, it gets released as a premium currency package, predicated on the premium currency being earnable in game per the Neverwinter model, but which can also still be bought outright (as can the premium currency). And 12 months after that, it becomes a patch and gets released free.

That gives DE 24 solid months of earnings. If you extend this to an 18 month schedule, that gives them 36 months of solid earnings, and then all the free players get to enjoy it, too, but rather than risk appearing greedy, it might be wiser stick to the 12 month schedule. Everyone is happy. Yeah, DE may take a slight hit in the immediate profits, but the positive feelings this will generate in the gaming community cannot be bought by money and will end up making DE a lot more in the long term because people will be able to choose when they want to get the content packages.

Then, to ensure that people can try them before they buy them (and allow friends to still play together without fussing with who owns what--you don't want to split the community), allow people who already have the content packages to invite those who don't to do group sorties and whatnot, and charge a very light premium currency per run through that content (until you die or finish that mission)--the same currency that can be earned in game through hard grinding and effort. Make people earn it and they'll not only want it more, they'll value it more when they have it. Also a win-win because then they'll go online to these forums and brag about how much fun it was. Yeah, they didn't get the end rewards because they didn't own the content package, but that makes them want to go out and get that package so they can get that reward. Yes, there will be a small percentage of obsessive/compulsives who farm the premium currency, but it shouldn't be hard to monitor that and introduce level caps if necessary. 

That positive emotion is what will continue to draw people to the game; Gopher pointed this out in his Fallout 4 videos about that Creation Club mess (which was similar in many ways to this current mess), and he specifically showed that will bring in more fans who want to buy more content packages. So long as they are quality (and I haven't really seen a decline in the environment visuals but I pay no attention to the story line), that cycle will continue, giving DE more money to throw at devs working on the UI/UX which will result in a better interface, negating problems like the ones outlined in this thread.

 

[(PSN)The_Wyatt]

2 hours ago, (PS4)FurryZenJustice said:

...but as someone in the industry...

As someone else in the industry, I appreciate DE's drive and creativity immensely-- Plaudits where they're due; I don't think I have never been so excited for a game update as I am for Fortuna and Railjack.

That said, I remain baffled that anyone thought the virtual cursor was fit for release to the public.

Remember: this UI change came out of the blue as a point release right before a major content update and changed almost every menu interaction in the entire game. (Specifically, it changed them from snappy and reliable to sluggish and unreliable.)

They pushed out a tiny patch in a hurry, but it didn't fix the most important things and was limited in what it could do.

And then U23 came... though purported to have fixes, very little changed.  Except 5% of the game screens were replaced with alpha versions from the upcoming major UI refresh.

So while it's cute that you spent so many words waxing poetic about how hard our job is and how special we all are for working on software (please stop, there's nothing magical about it), I'm going to continue asking questions because this shouldn't happen in a healthy dev process.

"Why were unfinished things merged to master?"

"Why wasn't control parity maintained even in the new code?"

"Why does list scrolling with the d-pad not work at all?"

"Why did QA sign off on this?"

"Why did the UX team decide this was okay?"

"Why were so many breaking changes conflated into the client in a point release to the point that they can't even roll it back?"

[(PSN)The_Wyatt]

Double post? These days?

Edited July 10, 2018 by (PS4)The_Wyatt
Whoops

[TwoWolves]

35 minutes ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

Double post? These days?

lol Thanks for the levity. Only thing missing is Alfred E. Neuman's face.

And there you have it, folks, from an industry insider himself. Right out of the helminth's mouth. I stand vindicated. Corporate greed lead to a lack of oversight because all they saw at TennoCon was dollar signs. Well, there'$ no more dollar $ign$ here becau$e their greed i$ going to lead to an ero$ion of their fan ba$e. They rushed out the product, much the way Bethesda always seems to rush theirs at the last moment. When are there going to be some dev CEOs willing to stand up and say enough? Quality over quantity, and if it isn't ready, be honest with the fans and explain why. When you do that, something magical happens--are you paying attention, DE? 

People suddenly go bat-sh*t crazy and want it even more. 

One thing I learned slinging Kirby vacs pretty quickly was that one, you could get more people to buy by refusing to tell them the price until you were ready (meaning, tease us with the final product), and two, you can get away with saying a lot of crazy stuff if you keep smiling while you say it. "Oh, look at this mattress! I guess we know the husband sleeps here! Haha! Don't worry, the Kirby will make it wife-approved in less than five minutes." Bam. Change that around so you're talking to the people investing in the game. "Yeah, we screwed up and haha, we took the guy responsible out back..." and then provide some humorous video of a goat walking out into the parking lot or something. Then get the point across plainly and explain the technicalities of what happened, what you plan to do to fix it, how long it will take. You start trying to hide the truth from the community and we can smell it a mile away.

When the content packs come out, price them cheap to put them in the reach of everyone. No more than $40. That's for the first 12 month interval. Next twelve month interval, make it available through the premium currency, too. After that, it's released as a patch for free.

You're welcome, DE. When I show up for a job to push a broom in the office, you'd better hire me.

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by TwoWolves

[(PSN)The_Wyatt]

10 hours ago, TwoWolves said:

Corporate greed

Now hold up. Despite what you may think, that's not what I was implying in the slightest and I don't appreciate you using my post to further harp on this point.

"Something in the dev process is unhealthy and that makes me sad and concerned" does not imply "they're greedy".

Think what you will, but don't put words in my mouth, please.

[TwoWolves]

Right, because corporate never puts pressure on the devs from the top down, right? That would never happen, no. 

And corporate greed is what I am implying because I am not implying malice, that's for sure. TennCon comes around and Oh, let's get this pushed out in time for TennoCon, even though it isn't ready! Hmm...sure feels like corporate greed pushing the agenda...

"Why were unfinished things merged to master?"

"Why wasn't control parity maintained even in the new code?"

"Why does list scrolling with the d-pad not work at all?"

"Why did QA sign off on this?"

"Why did the UX team decide this was okay?"

"Why were so many breaking changes conflated into the client in a point release to the point that they can't even roll it back?"

Sure sounds like a lot of basic QC questions went unanswered before pushing out yet another craptacular chapter in the Warframe saga. Hell, it sounds like not only did they go unasked, they went unanswered, too. The only time that happens is when they're trying to meet a deadline. The only time they're being pushed to meet a deadline is when corporate says they have to, to meet some unreasonable due date (like TennoCon) so that they can show off and pull even more customers in.

Everything comes down to money. And since they decided to go the exploitative route rather than fix things before proceeding any further, they're going to have less of it coming in when their player base begins to erode.

And I'm still waiting to hear what you think, @(PS4)FurryZenJustice, of my idea for how to improve the situation. I gave a perfectly reasonable strategy for improving the game while generating more money and content and keeping everyone happy, and suddenly, it's crickets.

Edited July 11, 2018 by TwoWolves

[(PSN)FurryZenJustice]

52 minutes ago, TwoWolves said:

And I'm still waiting to hear what you think, @(PS4)FurryZenJustice, of my idea for how to improve the situation.

I've read it and I'm pondering it. I will update this when I have something to say, but I definitely have some areas I think I need clarification on. Soon (TM)!

[(PSN)FurryZenJustice]

15 hours ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

Remember: this UI change came out of the blue as a point release right before a major content update and changed almost every menu interaction in the entire game. (Specifically, it changed them from snappy and reliable to sluggish and unreliable.)

I'm guessing that DE doesn't have A/B testing capabilities setup in their development process. That would have found some issues, but it;s also the kind of thing that might be poo-pooed by the cert process (not sure). As to it being a point release, I'm not sure that there's ever been a correlation between how they assign version numbers to what they decide to merge. Versioning used to be major.minor.fix.build (or something similar) where major versions indicating breaking changes. Well evergreen software doesn't have that, so who knows what the process is for determining version numbers. In summary, I think the focusing on the point-ness of the release number is a red herring to the larger issue.

15 hours ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

They pushed out a tiny patch in a hurry, but it didn't fix the most important things and was limited in what it could do.

They did push it out in a hurry. I figured that it was what they could fix and easily port to the main branch that had Sacrifice turned on without a ton of merge changes. And they did actually fix a lot more things in the Sacrifice build. E.g. you can d-pad navigate to `Leave Squad` and `Show Profile` now. But those fixes would have been on fundamentally different code than the pre-Sacrifice branch so we ended up having to wait. I also noted that they fixed the Drone/Extractor selection, which again, ended up being changed. It looks like they're put their effort into addressing issues in the new UI screens.

15 hours ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

Except 5% of the game screens were replaced with alpha versions from the upcoming major UI refresh.

Alpha is a little harsh. Though Beta I'll accept with no argument. 🙂

15 hours ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

So while it's cute that you spent so many words waxing poetic about how hard our job is and how special we all are for working on software (please stop, there's nothing magical about it

You're right -- there are lots of tough jobs. So I was listening to this really sweeping dramatic music and I think it pushed me towards waxing a little more poetic than usual. Got lost in the moment.

15 hours ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

"Why were unfinished things merged to master?"

"Why wasn't control parity maintained even in the new code?"

"Why does list scrolling with the d-pad not work at all?"

 "Why did QA sign off on this?"

 "Why did the UX team decide this was okay?"

"Why were so many breaking changes conflated into the client in a point release to the point that they can't even roll it back?"

Unfinished things get merged to master all the time, but usually behind a flag to enable experimental features. I think the problem is there wasn't a good way to hide this behind a flag. They shouldn't have done the merge early. That was their big mistake and I think everything else kind of flowed from that. I think if you look back, you'll see that I'm pretty consistent in saying that DE made a mistake.

To your second question, I don't think they ever had control parity. They've mentioned that as part of their development process the console team would "re-implement" large parts of the UI after each release. They're working towards control parity, but they didn't have it before and they don't have it now.

As to d-pad list scrolling. I've thought about it for awhile. It's actually a really hard problem to tackle, generically, without having the concept of keyboard focus, which they removed in an effort to consolidate around the cursor. I don't think they thought about that one sufficiently before testing it. I think they got the idea that the virtual cursor would be the primary way of interaction. Again a huge mistake, but one I can imagine someone making.

In terms of QA signing off. I would guess that they have separate QA teams. The PC one signed off because it basically works on PC and then when they handed it off to console, they were screwed because there wasn't enough time to fix it. This is a total guess, but I've seen it before with PC vs. Mac products.

I think the UX team signed off because it was their brainchild. I'm presuming that DE like most game developers don't have a dedicated usability team -- just a "guy" or "gal" who knows a bit. I'm guessing again that their UX teams lean much more heavily towards the graphics side of things they they do the usability, accessibility, or informatics side of thing. Because if they had an usability/informatics person they would have never removed all the data that they did from screens only to hide it because a hover effect.

To your last point, I'm not sure. Again the point-ness of the release I think is a red herring. But it does seem like a lot of the UI code was built on a new framework which mean that it took the new virtual controller and interaction scheme as a dependency.

I know that my guessing isn't going to suffice for anyone. It is the basis from where I'm working mentally when I write and respond to people. That they made a few major mistakes early on and then everything else flowed from that. And frankly I don't think we're going to get an answer to most of our questions, which is appropriate. Because to do so is to point fingers at individuals rather than the team itself. In my experience a good team dynamic requires that the team succeeds or fails as a whole.

[(XBOX)Xx Sonic 04 xX]

I have drift on my controller but as my h as it seems most people dislike this I feel like this should be something you can toggle on and off

[(PSN)Hiero_Glyph]

@(PS4)FurryZenJustice

At this point I don't think the console community wants answers, I think we want a roadmap for when QoL features will be restored because right now it feels like they are ignoring our needs (just as I said they would with Sacrifice and Tennocon coming right after the cursor UI update).

Besides, even in the last update DE insists on removing button shortcuts despite explicitly being told this was a no-no for consoles with the arsenal. Now we don't have a shortcut for matchmaking (public, friends, invute, solo). It's an example of 'stupid is as stupid does' and they have their own agenda and will not compromise it even when they know it is wrong.

Edited July 11, 2018 by (PS4)Hiero_Glyph

[(PSN)FurryZenJustice]

2 minutes ago, (PS4)Hiero_Glyph said:

even in the last update DE insists on removing button shortcuts

I missed this. What button shortcuts did they remove?

[(PSN)The_Wyatt]

9 minutes ago, (PS4)FurryZenJustice said:

I missed this. What button shortcuts did they remove?

Off the top of my head, R2 to sell current selection in the inventory and Triangle to change matchmaking in star chart are both missing from the current patch (the latter causes a pretty silly camera bug because it centres the view on the cursor (which is out in the middle of nowhere) when you pick one).  R2 to view Warframe abilities in the arsenal is now contextually tied to the frame submenu, too-- I'm pretty sure it wasn't previously.

[(PSN)FurryZenJustice]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

Off the top of my head, R2 to sell current selection in the inventory

This one I was familiar with. This should probably be added back unless they plan on using R2 more generically.

4 minutes ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

Triangle to change matchmaking in star chart

Yeah I noticed that one too. Though sometimes I got annoyed by that shortcut personally as it conflicted with "Leave Squad" and "Vote No". Instead you can d-pad navigate from the options menu which isn't ideal. Personally, I didn't switch modes that much, but I can understand how some might.

5 minutes ago, (PS4)The_Wyatt said:

2 to view Warframe abilities in the arsenal is now contextually tied to the frame submenu, too-- I'm pretty sure it wasn't previously.

Hmm, I remember it being specific to Warframe selection. And if it wasn't I feel it should be. Either way, I can see the logic behind how it currently stands.

[(PSN)Hiero_Glyph]

As I said, at this point we're not going back so it would be nice to know where we are heading.

The main feature I want is an option to default the cursor to the top/first item on every menu instead of being in the last position it was used. This would help so much and by making it optional as it would not detract from those that prefer it the way it is. The priority should be making the dpad entirely self-sufficient and giving players control over how the UI is changed with options.

Edited July 11, 2018 by (PS4)Hiero_Glyph

[(PSN)FurryZenJustice]

4 minutes ago, (PS4)Hiero_Glyph said:

As I said, at this point we're not going back so it would be nice to know where we are heading.

The main feature I want is an option to default the cursor to the top/first item on every menu instead of being in the last position it was used. This would help so much and by making it optional as it would not detract from those that prefer it the way it is. The priority should be making the dpad entirely self-sufficient and giving players control over how the UI is changed.

Well d-pad navigation works on the main system events on the star chart. It also scrolls. If I had to take a wild guess, I imagine it was actually one big control before and what's why d-pad navigation didn't work.

I imagine that they'll be replacing existing screens slowly, but surely and when they do, they'll be adding d-pad scrolling as they release each one. Frankly, we're not going to get answers anytime soon. They'd be stupid to start committing to anything at this point. We'll probably see the Warframe mod equip screen next as they've already leaked mock-ups for it. After that who knows, but I'm expecting one to two major screens each "release", but not for a little while as they, hopefully, grab as much feedback as they can before moving forward again.

[(PSN)Elvenbane]

25 minutes ago, (PS4)FurryZenJustice said:

I imagine that they'll be replacing existing screens slowly, but surely and when they do, they'll be adding d-pad scrolling as they release each one. Frankly, we're not going to get answers anytime soon. They'd be stupid to start committing to anything at this point.

They don't need to commit to anything, it would just be nice to hear what they intend and where they are headed (just like anything else mentioned in devstreams). For example, at this point I don't think they do intend to support d-pad scrolling in menus like the arsenal/inventory as much as I'd wish otherwise.

If we don't know what they think is complete and what's still work in progress...how on earth can we provided any reasonable feedback/suggestions? This thread no longer serves any purpose.

[(PSN)Zeylon]

Downloaded the update after not playing awhile, and had a friend that was asking about the game.  Got frustrated with the cursor immediately... then googled "How to disable cursor Warframe PS4".... and here I am.

This is the most cumbersome UI change I've seen to date for Warframe, and it made me immediately not want to play the game.  I shut it off, told my friend we should play something else instead.  Maybe this'll get fixed in a few months.  On that note, did you ever fix the issue you introduced where you get a time-out for not killing enemies often enough while running Spy Missions solo?  The cursor annoyed me too much to even check on that.

My feedback would be to revert the changes, and not shoehorn a floaty cursor into a game you play with a controller.  I assume PC uses a cursor, but unless you're giving us the crossplay you promised at launch now - I see no reason other than sadism to add one to our version.

 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

It seems that a lot of the pre-sacrifice problems still exist. The new UI also broke some other stuff. 

I thought initially that I'd seen a quick way to leave the group using hotkey, but maybe that was in-mission not post mission where a lot of people use the feature. 

I'm not really seeing much benefit to the virtual cursor over the system we had before, even with the new UI, and still feel like it was a generally bad idea. 

[(XBOX)ManicZanic]

22 hours ago, TwoWolves said:

And corporate greed is what I am implying because I am not implying malice, that's for sure. TennCon comes around and Oh, let's get this pushed out in time for TennoCon, even though it isn't ready! Hmm...sure feels like corporate greed pushing the agenda...

2

@TwoWolves

You can't claim corporate greed for the shart show that was the sacrifice release and the UI change that came before it for one reason... There was no charge for this update.

If they charged 20 bucks for the update and it was this poorly thought out and tested I would agree with you but it was a free update that was released weeks(for PC) and days(for console) before Tennocon. Tennocon tickets were already sold prior to either update so they couldn't be grabbing at your wallet to force you to buy Tennocon tickets with either of these updates.

Now if you want to claim anything negative against DE you would have a valid argument claiming incompetence and alienation against their console player base since DE has consistently ignored any and all requests made by the console players focusing on making sure their PC players have a decent UI experience while completely disregarding the cries for help from of their console players but you cant claim corporate greed.

At some point, DE has to make money to pay their employees. They could either charge for updates(which is the epitome of corporate greed), incorporate loot crates(which is a predatory tactic used by EA and others to cause their players to become addicted to paying more for the game than the game is worth), put all weapons behind a required paywall and make the game pay to win (which everyone complains about any game being at some point), or they could continue putting their cosmetics behind a voluntary paywall where instead of charging direct money for they charge a tradable in-game currency so even if you don't want to spend cash you can still get the cosmetics. The only thing I have ever seen in the game that seems like a cash grab is prime access and DE even gives you a way to not spend money to get the items in the prime access packs (save a few cosmetics that just allow you to show off that you supported the game at some point).

People constantly complain that DE just wants your money but face it if DE didn't take anyone's money there wouldn't be a DE and we wouldn't be able to play Warframe. They monetize their game in the fairest way possible relying on what is essentially donations from people who want to support the game and promote an in-game economy if you don't want to support the game then don't you have that choice and DE doesn't hold that choice against you in any way.

DE needs to make a LOT of improvements in their RND and QC departments for console not in the way they monetize their work.

[TwoWolves]

Corporate greed in that their forecasting was for TennoCon: "OMG! We're going to make so much more money after TennoCon!"

Otherwise, what possible excuse could they have for not delaying the UI fix and Sacrifice before TennoCon? Who cares if fans are pissed that something didn't come out at TennoCon--if you explain it to them, generally, gamers will understand that you're trying to make sure what you put out is the absolute best. Happened how many times with Fallout 4 and their content packs?

Yeah, I get that DE has to make money. I presented a pretty good plan for them to do so by changing their in-game currency system and the way in which they release content (not updates with patches and fixes). I've yet to see anyone give me an argument about why it's a bad idea if done correctly. I even made a thread about it called A Better Revenue Stream For DE. 

In DE's defense, yes, they have a fairly democratic system in place that is pretty fair. However, I like Neverwinter's currency system better because it allows you to, through slow grinding and long play, earn premium currency in-game. The only way DE will be able to make improvements to their R&D and QC departments is by making more money--it takes money to hire more devs and pay the devs they have currently to work overtime.

[(PSN)xarienne]

First of all:  Props. The Sacrifice Quest was excellent and very well done (looking forward to re-playing it at some point) and the upcoming expansions announced at TennoCon look awe-some.

 

Feedback on the current UI situation:

• Cursor: For those of us who only use a controller to play games on console, the Cursor remains cumbersome and, therefore, frustrating. If there is not a way to permit us to turn the cursor off, please optimize it to quickly, automatically and consistently travel to the top of a menu and/or to snap to nodes correctly (currently the hit-box on selecting planets/nodes is off--way off).
• Cursor:  Also, if we're not permitted to turn off the Cursor, please let us customize its size. It is currently way too big.
• Font:  The font size for the text overlay in the Inventory and the Sell menus/etc. is much too small. For Accessibility purposes, the text size should be customizable (and/or just plain larger by default).
• Shortcuts: Please stop removing shortcuts and reinstate the ones you have removed. Shortcuts help optimize the controller/console experience.
• Shortcuts: Please stop changing shortcuts. When you've trained your community to use a particular shortcut to accomplish something, you do not introduce an update that changes the button used to something else. That's bad form.
• Non-Working/Buggy Shortcuts: Sometimes the R1/L1 shortcuts don't work. Other times they do. Please correct this.
• D-Pad: Please re-optimize its use. You've brought back some of its functionality, the rest needs to return as well. (Having to use both the D-Pad and a joystick to scroll through inventory is not ideal. Scrolling using just the D-Pad is faster. Please bring it back.)
• Squad Information: Please ASAP return the ability to press 'Options' to instantly see who is in your Squad and what they are running. There is rarely time in mission to have to hover over each Squadmates' icon (making use of the cumbersome cursor to do so).
• Shortcut to Change from Public/Friends/etc.:  Please reinstate the shortcut to quickly change this mode.
• Mission Loadouts from Starchart: Please ASAP return the hover information about our individual loadouts. With so many weapons and frames to level/love, we cannot be expected to instantly recall which loadout has which weapon/etc.
• Arsenal: Remove All Mods: Please add a confirmation dialogue to the "Remove All" function. Many a build has been lost due to the introduction of this. Although it is ultimately nice to have, the way it is currently implemented is causing players to lose their builds.
• Arsenal: Installing Mods: We used to be able to click on the spot you want to place a mod and then travel to the mod in your collection and click on it, and the mod would automatically install in the spot that you had previously clicked. This was faster and user-friendly. Please return this function.

That's all I can think of at the moment. 

Thank you.

 

[(XBOX)ManicZanic]

1 hour ago, TwoWolves said:

Corporate greed in that their forecasting was for TennoCon: "OMG! We're going to make so much more money after TennoCon!"

@TwoWolves

This was ambition, not greed. If they said here's the new Venus map and next quest in line followed by BTW it will only cost you 5 dollars to access Venus and 3.50 to run the new quest when it comes out, that would be greed, but they didn't. They said like always these updates are free. 

What you suggested in your A Better Revenue Stream For DE is more corporate greed than anything else that exists in the game. Charging for updates and preventing progression unless you pay for the ability to progress is greed beyond compare. you would alienate your player base and have people on mass quit the game stagnating the revenue pool. It wouldn't be the  "I can't afford that! I'm only 13 years old!" players that leave. It would be the if I'm going to pay 40 GD dollars for a content pack I'm going to spend my money on something else that would also leave. and for a currently free to play game you would see tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of players leave on mass crippling the company and shutting down the game. I'll post a more detailed response on that forum later this afternoon once I've had time to truly review and ponder the recommendations you put forth.

They made a poor decision that was detrimental to the player experience for console players with the UI update but they had already planned to release information on the quest that would be following the sacrifice that if released before update 23 would horribly spoil the ending of the sacrifice. They rushed the release and didn't do as far as I can tell ANY QC testing on the UI change and yet they knew it was going to be a nightmare and would receive a TON of backlash from the player base.

Should they have postponed the sacrifice update? No. Not unless the sacrifice was as broken as the UI update.

Should they have postponed the UI update? Definitely.

Is wanting to show off what you have planned for the future corporate greed? Only if those future plans come with a price tag.

Is charging money for small updates or map packs corporate greed? Yes, it is the definition of corporate greed. squeezing every last dime out of your players only making updates because you can make a quick 40 bucks is the definition of greed.

 

[(PSN)FurryZenJustice]

1 hour ago, (XB1)ManicZanic said:

Should they have postponed the sacrifice update? No. Not unless the sacrifice was as broken as the UI update.

Should they have postponed the UI update? Definitely.

This presumes they were on separate branches. If they weren't, then they would have had to delay them both. It's entirely possible the new Sacrifice UI was built on top of the new UI framework and would have had to be reworked onto the older framework to function. Again, we don't know if they were intertwined, but I could easily see one being built on top of the other. 

[(XBOX)ManicZanic]

5 minutes ago, (PS4)FurryZenJustice said:

This presumes they were on separate branches. If they weren't, then they would have had to delay them both. It's entirely possible the new Sacrifice UI was built on top of the new UI framework and would have had to be reworked onto the older framework to function. Again, we don't know if they were intertwined, but I could easily see one being built on top of the other. 

 

Agreed although I did not see anything in the quest that would have required any change to the interface. There is that one point and click portion (that I won't get into for spoiler reasons and I don't want to have to put a tag on my posts) but it is camera locked and should be (because i am not involved with development and cant say anything definitive) independent of the rest of the typical UI interface.

Either way, all we can do is make presumptions since they have not released any information on the reasons behind the UI change. They have only said this is how it is, get used to it, we won't revert anything. How much differently do you think console players would have taken to this update if they had said during their last live stream we are making this UI change because it is necessary for the next quest and we need feedback to make improvements to the interface so we can improve on what must be changed. If they did that you wouldn't see 78 pages of console players complaining about the interface. Of course, you would get a few that still complain but you wouldn't get the people who go off on tangents of how horrible DE is as a company and everything they do sucks. You would get more criticism of the interface how it functions and what people want to see improved.

Unfortunately, the people who just want to complain about everything DE does is driving out the constructive criticism and burying it beneath all the BS. This may also be one of the reasons no member from DE has responded to this forum since day one yet it is still alive and fuming.