Jobs Support Register

Why the silence [Reviews & Roadmap]?

+

Shabman

User
#1
I was just wondering if we would at some point get some sort of official statement addressing some of the players' concerns, or anything in the general direction of an introspective review of the HC release, talking about its reception etc etc.

Also, how come there are no new reviews for HC? From what I can see, whichever publication reviewed Gwent did so when it was still in beta. I've never seen a release with no reviews before. What gives? Is it because they're using this month as a sort of post-beta beta, and when the console version drops they're gonna push forward the marketing train?
 

Shabman

User
#3
Thanks for pointing that out. However, that is not what I'm asking.

I'm asking about an official post-release statement addressing fans, the state of the game, etc..

As for the reviews for the new Gwent, it seems GameSpot has one. I imagine all the other ones are coming with the console version?
 

bojerbela

User
#4
Thanks for pointing that out. However, that is not what I'm asking.

I'm asking about an official post-release statement addressing fans, the state of the game, etc..

As for the reviews for the new Gwent, it seems GameSpot has one. I imagine all the other ones are coming with the console version?
As I read in the "Ask a Dev" tread, a roadmap is coming soon.
 

Shabman

User
#9
I don't understand what the point of the Ask a Dev thread is if only a few handpicked questions get answered. Presumably someone (Burza?) is paid to do things like this. So it would be nice if all questions would be answered.

Mine was quite simply ignored, even though it was right next to another one that was answered in full detail, card by card.

Anyways, I don't think ratings from beta should stand once a product is fully released. They should wipe that clean and start again. Especially considering the fact that the game is totally different from what it was in beta, so customer reviews from back then would not necessarily apply to what we have now.
 

Ataxiate

User
#10
Silence..nothing to say to this game anymore. Play 2 matches and get sicked of it. Bad design, bad feeling of everything. :(
I felt this way after the midwinter update. What did I do? I stopped playing gwent. You can always play other games or do other things with your time. I actually like homecoming and think it's an improvement. It's not perfect, but it was released in a alpha-like state, so give CDPR time to balance it.
 

Shabman

User
#12
Ok sure.

But then don't act like there's an actual conversation going on.

If our contributions are limited to "add some provision points here, nerf this leader, change this card", and all big decisions about where this game is headed are taken with zero regards to player input (2 rows, point range changes, hand limit, etc etc etc.), then we are in effect nothing but numbers. Little human units whose only purpose is to make the devs' game viable.

I can't say this is something new. This is how it was back in the days of classic gaming. Game developer and publisher release a game, and you as a player have the following choices:

- buy it and play it
- buy it and don't play it
- don't buy it don't play it
- somehow get a copy of it and play it

But I thought we were in the 21st century now, and everybody has something to say, and everyone participates and bla bla bla. Nothing has really changed has it?

But if this is the dynamic we are in, then do not take people's money while the game is still in development. That is just hypocritical. "Come play for free, but by all means do spend your money if you wish, but also keep in mind that the fun you're having is totally inconsequential, and if our marketing department decides to take this game somewhere totally different, we're not liable in any way."

If you take people's money in development, listen to them. If you want to make your own game and only give us the choice whether we want to play it or not, fine - but stick to your own damn money.

Respect goes both ways. I am under no obligation to respect anyone who does not respect me. I can if I wish to, but I don't have to.

P.S.: This is not fully addressed to you Riven-Twain, as you are a moderator, and are merely pointing out a technicality.
 

Riven-Twain

Moderator
#13
I am under no obligation to respect anyone who does not respect me. I can if I wish to, but I don't have to.
As another technicality -- but an important one -- by participating here on the Forums, users are, in fact, obliged to respect CDPR's rules.

Likewise, regarding the Betas, including real money transactions, by participating -- and continuing to participate -- players consented to abide by a contract made with CDPR. This contract had certain conditions, all of which were laid out in the User Agreement (the agreement from the Betas). The most relevant of these conditions were Sections 4.1.7, 4.1.10, 7.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.7, and 13.1. (I encourage those who are curious to read them.) Yes, only a handful of people ever fully read agreements, however, it can be valuable to know what conditions they contain, especially when real money is involved.

Basically, players were invited to test Gwent. There were no promises that anything would not be changed or removed at CDPR's sole discretion. Feedback was voluntary, and would be selectively implemented at CDPR's discretion. Virtual goods remained the property of CDPR, and, by playing Gwent, users accepted the definition of these goods, as well as the terms governing their use, and the limitations on refunds. The agreement is fairly clear on these points. It states that things could and would change, that long-term purchases with real money were basically non-refundable, and that the final state and features of Gwent would be left up to the Studio.

I realise this has been very frustrating for many people, and they would prefer that CDPR had taken a different approach; however, the terms of participation were made available from the start, for those who bothered to read them.

Setting these technicalities to one side, though, most criticism and complaints seem to stem from a fundamental perception of what CDPR should have done, rather than what they were empowered to do with their own product. Did they make the best choices? That's a matter of opinion, but the conditions remain.
 

Shabman

User
#14
As another technicality -- but an important one -- by participating here on the Forums, users are, in fact, obliged to respect CDPR's rules.

Likewise, regarding the Betas, including real money transactions, by participating -- and continuing to participate -- players consented to abide by a contract made with CDPR. This contract had certain conditions, all of which were laid out in the User Agreement (the agreement from the Betas). The most relevant of these conditions were Sections 4.1.7, 4.1.10, 7.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.7, and 13.1. (I encourage those who are curious to read them.) Yes, only a handful of people ever fully read agreements, however, it can be valuable to know what conditions they contain, especially when real money is involved.

Basically, players were invited to test Gwent. There were no promises that anything would not be changed or removed at CDPR's sole discretion. Feedback was voluntary, and would be selectively implemented at CDPR's discretion. Virtual goods remained the property of CDPR, and, by playing Gwent, users accepted the definition of these goods, as well as the terms governing their use, and the limitations on refunds. The agreement is fairly clear on these points. It states that things could and would change, that long-term purchases with real money were basically non-refundable, and that the final state and features of Gwent would be left up to the Studio.

I realise this has been very frustrating for many people, and they would prefer that CDPR had taken a different approach; however, the terms of participation were made available from the start, for those who bothered to read them.

Setting these technicalities to one side, though, most criticism and complaints seem to stem from a fundamental perception of what CDPR should have done, rather than what they were empowered to do with their own product. Did they make the best choices? That's a matter of opinion, but the conditions remain.
Unfortunately, I think we are simply talking over each other at this point. And this conversation is a perfect metaphor for the conversation between CDPR and its fans.

You are simply referencing agreements at me in response to a well-justified expression of my feelings. How are we supposed to communicate when I talk about A and you tell me about B?

I am well aware that legally CDPR did nothing wrong. Of course game devs protect themselves in every possible way. I've seen much, much worse with the crowdfunding of certain games - and those devs got off with no stress too.

However, just because something is legal does not make it ethical nor morally right. If they are empowered to do whatever they want with their own product, they should not ask for any money until that product is finished. That is called being morally sound. If they are not open to game-changing input from the players whose time and money they solicit, they should test the game themselves and use their own money exclusively.

Sure, they are "empowered" to do whatever they want, and legally they have the right. However, that does not make it less of an a**hole move. And thankfully, we also are empowered to not play this trashy version of the game and stop spending our money on it.
 

jgolden234

User
#15
Unfortunately, I think we are simply talking over each other at this point. And this conversation is a perfect metaphor for the conversation between CDPR and its fans.

You are simply referencing agreements at me in response to a well-justified expression of my feelings. How are we supposed to communicate when I talk about A and you tell me about B?

I am well aware that legally CDPR did nothing wrong. Of course game devs protect themselves in every possible way. I've seen much, much worse with the crowdfunding of certain games - and those devs got off with no stress too.

However, just because something is legal does not make it ethical nor morally right. If they are empowered to do whatever they want with their own product, they should not ask for any money until that product is finished. That is called being morally sound. If they are not open to game-changing input from the players whose time and money they solicit, they should test the game themselves and use their own money exclusively.

Sure, they are "empowered" to do whatever they want, and legally they have the right. However, that does not make it less of an a**hole move. And thankfully, we also are empowered to not play this trashy version of the game and stop spending our money on it.
I see your frustration and understand how other players are feeling betrayed.

My only thought is as a community we have not always asked for the same things. One person says greatswords is a nightmare, another says it is fine and we need engine decks. I don't know what (if anything) cdpr chooses to listen to and take into account, but I do know they receive conflicting requests. I can't imagine how hard it is to try to make everyone happy.

And I do believe they listen to us at least a little bit. The community was fairly united in hatred of artifacts and they gave a hot fix(not perfect, but something), so maybe you will see more of what you want. 😀
 

Pruny

User
#18
cdpr never was good at this, they droped anouncement for HC without comunity vote
i dont even like burzas new skinny makeover, before they had 3people on streams
i need a memory hack to erase my gwent beta knowledge, feelsbadman :cry:
ripppppppppppppp
 
Last edited:

Shmakkles

User
#19
Homecoming was never about Gwent. It was about Online Thronebreaker. I wouldn't expect any statement on the subject if I were you, CDPR made a conscious decision and the consequences will soon unfold.
 

Shabman

User
#20
I see your frustration and understand how other players are feeling betrayed.

My only thought is as a community we have not always asked for the same things. One person says greatswords is a nightmare, another says it is fine and we need engine decks. I don't know what (if anything) cdpr chooses to listen to and take into account, but I do know they receive conflicting requests. I can't imagine how hard it is to try to make everyone happy.

And I do believe they listen to us at least a little bit. The community was fairly united in hatred of artifacts and they gave a hot fix(not perfect, but something), so maybe you will see more of what you want. 😀
I wholeheartedly agree with you that in matters of balance, there will always be quarrels. It's just not gonna happen that everyone is going to be satisfied. And that's OK. Some archetypes will be weaker, some stronger, but some players will also be more skilled than others - and some will be so inventive they'll come up with totally new decks - so if the game is even halfway decent, it tends to even out. But if this is our role to play, pointing out little maintenance balance changes every month or so, then they aren't really paying attention are they?

When they announced 2 rows, the backlash was MASSIVE - and anyone who does their research will find this to be true. When the game came out, a large amount of fans said it's broken, it doesn't play like it's supposed to, deck-building is restrictive because of provisions, and all kinds of stuff that many, many people were in agreement about. Yet CDPR continues to act as if it's business as usual, everything is fine, we're releasing the next update, we've got this Skirmish thing going on, console players are getting HC soon, hurray hurray. All is well.

And that is far from the truth. Negative reviews keep pouring in, I'm quite sure they player count is very low - not just in terms of their expectations, but even in comparison with beta Gwent, and yet they keep pretending they're going in the right direction. There are no plans to bring back 3 rows, there are no plans to bring back anything resembling beta Gwent - basically there are no plans to admit they've made a mistake and act on it, like mature people are supposed to.

I hope you're right, I hope we get more of what we like - and I do believe in CDPR still, although their handling of this game has been very disappointing.

But right now, I think there's a need for a conversation. You cannot take people's money and then give them the silent treatment.