[ut3] Official release date

[Sir Brizz]

I'm not going to say Epic shouldn't have done things differently. I 
can't really comment on the Linux binaries, I don't know what is holding 
them up. It's highly probable that whatever it is was intended to be 
resolved at the end of 2007, not in 2009.

There are lots of things to complain about with UT3, IMO, but 
complaining because you paid money for something that didn't have what 
you wanted at the time of purchase find very little sympathy from me. 
I've not bought games before because they weren't going to have X or Y 
feature until the first patch, and then bought them after that patch 
came out. I don't really believe in buying things altruistically.

Brizz

On 2/9/09 1:30 PM, B1tchkilla wrote:
> Well, I had always defended epic and the patch support they still 
> deliver is indeed good.
>
> BUT: Someone told the demo was called beta demo because it was not a 
> demo of the final version since it contained known bugs that would be 
> eliminated for the final of the full version.
>
> Another thing is that I've been at the german fansite day and the 
> version we had played there still had some bugs which we had 
> discovered and told them. We were told these are known already and 
> would be removed for the final.
>
> So when we held our box of UT3 in our hands and put it into the drive 
> we soon realized that the version was exactly the same (we had written 
> down the version number there). Why would you release the game if you 
> knew it had some severe bugs causing big problems?
> Of course software will never be perfect upon it's initial release but 
> someone even found within their files that they knew of many many bugs 
> and had that on their todo list.
>
> Yes, the game would still have had bugs but no they haven't kept their 
> promise "when it's done".
> What they delivered is "when it's almost done" and that is what so 
> many people were angry about and caused the community to be smaller 
> than it could have been. v1.3 is what the final should have been like. 
> The fact they had to rush the dedicated server hours before german 
> users had the game in their hands shows the game had NOT been ready. 
> And the linux server still took some time. I even know of providers 
> who had to drive to their data center installing Windows XP on many of 
> their linux boxes just to be able to host servers. It's not the way 
> it's meant to be played ...
>
> I still believe in the linux binaries being delivered some day. But I 
> can't lie saying Epic had not promised the linux client to be inside 
> the box. At the fansite day we were told it will most likely not make 
> it into the box but maybe released simultaneously online. Later we 
> heard it will be a few weeks later etc. You know the story. You can 
> bring up as many car vendors with GPS and more as you want but that 
> won't change the fact that some people trusted in Epic and felt or 
> still feel betrayed.
>
> Of course they could have waited and of course the box doesn't say it 
> includes the Linux binaries. But that's what people knew. What they 
> couldn't know is that the release of something that is intended to be 
> released within a few weeks would take way more than a year. I think 
> only few would have been that mad if the client showed up like 3 
> months later considering the legal problems holding it up. Think about 
> it ...
>
> Don't get me wrong: I still think they created a great game after all 
> but they destroyed a lot by not keeping their promises. One more 
> reason why this could be the last UT at all :(
>
> Regards,
> René/B1tchkilla
>
>
> Sir Brizz wrote:
>> I'd say you had plenty of indications that the game was not going to 
>> live u to your expectations.
>>
>> 1) Epic has always had subpar releases of Unreal games on the first 
>> installment of an engine version. See: Unreal, UT2003/Unreal 2.
>> 2) The demo was released only a couple of weeks before the game went 
>> gold. They couldn't possibly have improved it much in that time.
>>
>> There are even more than that but those are simply the key things you 
>> could have looked at before buying the game.
>>
>> As for it being "RC7", what is that supposed to prove? RC stands for 
>> Release Candidate, so no matter what they released it would have been 
>> a release candidate. If you're talking about the labeling on the meta 
>> info of the disc, are you sure that wasn't a manufacturing mishap? :p
>>
>> If you look at the patch notes for the massive patch that they are 
>> releasing soon, you'll see that Epic HAS been listening to feedback 
>> all this time, despite what the pessimists in the community would 
>> have everyone believe. Epic has always listened to constructive 
>> feedback on their games (at least UT) and this patch proves they 
>> still do, the people that are complaining now are the ones who didn't 
>> give any constructive feedback so their voices weren't heard.
>>
>> Brizz
>>
>> On 2/9/09 12:08 PM, [FnG] Lambik wrote:
>>> [quote "Sir Brizz"]They delivered a functional game. If you bought 
>>> it the way it was packaged, you have no one to blame but yourself if 
>>> it disappoints you.[\quote]
>>>
>>> It's not only the linux community, but the wide spread of PC gamers 
>>> are complaining about the support that EPIC has shown the past year.
>>> The product which was released was not finished, infact I bought a 
>>> S.E. version which was actualy the RC.7  :S
>>> I did not buy it to play it on linux, but even the windows version 
>>> was not the quality we as UT community are use to.
>>> In the past EPIC had released UT versions which at start had 
>>> problems, performance, bugs, etc, but they did fix the urgent 
>>> matters within weeks, and the other stuff after a few months.
>>> That is what this community was expecting with this release too, 
>>> giving support, using the feedback we as UT ppl were supplying to 
>>> improve the game,
>>> giving the ppl the sense they are part of the process.
>>>
>>> When you take a look at how many servers that are running and being 
>>> used, compare that with any other game of the same level, then EPIC 
>>> should be ashamed.
>>> A successor of UT2k4 should atleast contain the same functionality.
>>>
>>> So in short to Sir Brizz, *yes we are only to blame but ourselfes*. 
>>> The fact remains that we are entitled to spread the word that EPIC 
>>> has failed to keep their promise,
>>> that they have let down our trust, that our advise is not to buy the 
>>> game.
>>> You may call it complaining, I see it as warning other users for the 
>>> bad quality game EPIC has created.
>>>
>>> EPIC has proven the following :
>>> "Results of the past are never a guarentee for the future"
>>> just my 2 cts,
>>>
>>> Lambik
>>
>
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to ut3-unsubscribe at icculus.org
> Mailing list archives: http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?64
>
>