miketheratguy
miketheratguy
About
- Username
- miketheratguy
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301691#Comment_2301691
Ignorimg your hatred for streamers, the cosmetic glitch was something that nobody complained about.
It makes sense for licensed characters, but not for unlicensed one's and it really does seem like a giant middle finger since NOTHING else was fixed.
It doesn't matter whether someone complained. That's not the litmus test in determining whether something should remain in the game. BHVR didn't want it in and that's their prerogative. They don't owe anybody an explanation yet they still provided one, and now people still complain. People also assume that they know the inner workings of the company, what's right for said company, and why the company made the decision that they did (hint: because they're inept, evil, worthless, hate the players, prefer to ignore important things for lesser ones, etc).
To recap, what exactly is this happening? The company took away something that was quite obviously not an intended feature to begin with and the players are reacting negatively not because they have any intimate knowledge of the company's inner workings but because they're angry that they can no longer exploit the game to give themselves something that they weren't meant to have.
-
I don't recall saying that people can't agree with or share an opinion, despite the fact that the last time I spoke negatively about streamers I was told that mine wasn't welcome.
@Zucker_Schock said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301589#Comment_2301589
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301583#Comment_2301583
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301572#Comment_2301572
He probably said that because Scott was quite often quoted.
I made the comment that I did because I've explained the cosmetic issue half a dozen times today (in short it was a bug, no one is entitled to it, BVHR has every right to eliminate it for any reason they choose, and there are probably more complex reasons for their decision than simply "we want to take things away from our players") yet now that streamers - players seen as some kind of authority on all things related to this game - are complaining, the misplaced sense of victimization is going to gain that much more traction.
In other words, it would be really nice if this community could actually have a reasonable discussion without seeking the perceived expertise of a streamer to determine the direction of the narrative.
-
@gendoss said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301615#Comment_2301615
Well to be fair, if BHVR wants to make money on cosmetics, they need people to buy them now and the way they want. If nobody wants a specific legendary cosmetic or only wants one part of it people won't buy it, simple as that. They're definitely losing money getting rid of the original cosmetic glitch.
That in and of itself should be a hint to people: If a company does something that costs them money, they probably have a pretty good reason for doing it.
-
In my experience, if the match gets to the loading screen stage, any add-ons or offerings I used are lost if the match fails to launch.
If other people are having different experiences I can only chalk this up to the fact that the game auto-refills a lost add-on or offering slot with another instance of the same thing (if you have more to spare), thus making it LOOK like you haven't lost anything until you double-check your item count. That or just plain luck.
I've lost more stuff than I care to count thanks to either server errors or - more frequently - killer disconnects.
-
I've seen a mix of both. Some people just don't understand, which I get. Not everyone knows everything. It's been said that the first step towards knowledge is the phrase "I don't know".
On the other hand - sadly, WAY more on the other hand - I'm seeing loads of people who honestly just don't seem to care one way or the other. They want their cosmetics, they want them now, and they want them regardless of what they have decided are empty "excuses" on the part of BHVR. Even many of the people who have claimed to understand licensing restrictions still spew venom towards the company for taking their unlicensed cosmetic bug away, without apparent consideration as to whether there could be complex issues behind that decision or whether BHVR has any moral ground to do such a thing. The reactions, by a wide margin, boil down to nothing more than "the company could fix the game but instead they took away a tiny harmless bug and now I hate them that much more". Some people have actually used terms like "I know for a fact" before proceeding to throw out nothing more than angry assumptions.
I've been trying to educate rather than criticize but many people already seem to have made up their minds not to care.
-
Oh look, it's Scott Jund's opinion on the subject.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301450#Comment_2301450
It’s better this way. Your ‚arguments‘ didn’t hold any grounds and throwing around the term ‚victim blaming‘ for people that knowingly and intentionally used a glitch to get cosmetics broken wasn’t helping your point either. the term most fitting here would have been ‚victimizing yourself‘ for the ones that act like they had a right for sets to be broken
Correct.
Even if we just assume (as many have been, so why not) that BHVR is evil, or inept, or cares only for profit (while simultaneously doing things that make them less money, apparently), the simple fact is this: People are angry that an unintended bug was fixed and that they can no longer exploit it for their own enjoyment. Does it suck that something fun isn't possible anymore? I didn't use the glitch but sure, I'll grant that most players would either be in favor of it or just not care one way or another. But do I feel bad for people who are lashing out with unbridled spite at the company for somehow wronging them, when what actually happened is that the company exercised its right to alter the game as they see fit, up to and reasonably including the choice to fix glitches that were never intended to be in the game to begin with AND potentially open them up to the possibility of a lawsuit? No.
Let's pretend that I made a habit of sneaking a cooler into McDonalds and filling it with ice so I didn't have to buy my own. McDonalds has ice machines for a reason, right? It's free. So why should they care if I use their ice machines in a way that they didn't intend? Why should it matter to them if I'm doing something that doesn't hurt anybody, regardless of the fact that it's exploiting a feature of their restaurant which I'm only getting away with because they haven't done something to stop me? Now let's pretend that today I went in there and they said "hey, you can't do that. You're not allowed to bring a cooler in here anymore". Man, that would make them MASSIVE jerks, wouldn't it?
-
@quazzi76 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301392#Comment_2301392
You must understand satire.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
@beached said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301249#Comment_2301249
No literally, no way in HELL did Capcom say “yeah go ahead and force people to buy the same head cosmetic twice” Like there just simply ain’t no way. Matter of fact I know they had little-to-no say in the released cosmetics because they would’ve taken one look at Claire’s face in her legendary skin and sent them back to the drawing board. Like I understand character integrity but they literally aren’t even upholding the integrity themselves it’s so hypocritical.
Matter of fact, you're throwing around a lot of conjecture and presenting it as evidence.
You do not know the details of BHVR's licensing agreement with Capcom. You weren't there, you aren't involved. None of us are. We can look at Claire and assume that Capcom wouldn't approve all we want, but our assumptions do not make something fact. That Claire exists in her current state without any alterations or announcements from either Capcom or BHVR suggests that Capcom approved her design before release (almost guaranteed), gave BHVR some flexibility in designing her character model, or are - at worst - upset and working things out behind the scenes. The idea of BHVR just slapping together a design without Capcom's consent - a presumable breach of contract in complete defiance of their intellectual property rights - is absurd.
-
There have been several threads complaining about this but I'll clarify things once more:
BHVR is legally obligated to represent licensed characters in whatever way their respective rights holders demand. It doesn't matter how the character may have looked in this other game or that one old movie. If BHVR wants a license to a character, and the owner says "okay but they have to look like this and act like that", then those are the terms that BHVR is legally obligated to uphold. They can quite literally be sued if they allow the characters that they license to be portrayed in a way that the rights holder does not approve of.
I'm not just speaking from the perspective of common legal sense, I'm speaking from actual experience of having personally met and worked for high-ranking staff and various developers of THQ and 2K Games, all of whom were quite familiar with the legal restrictions of using licensed characters (in this case WWE wrestlers) and all of whom confirmed explicitly that the decision to alter said characters was NOT UP TO THEM. Not only could they not implement a feature which allowed the player to change the appearance of the characters in the game (at that time), they were required to prevent attempts to do so.
The only issue here is that BHVR seems to have decided that it's easier and / or more preferable to have a catch-all system that prevents ALL characters, licensed AND unlicensed, from being altered beyond what BVHR feels is appropriate. For unlicensed characters, this is their right. For licensed characters, this is their LEGAL OBLIGATION. Period.
I get not liking the "integrity" explanation, but I'm getting tired of people deciding for themselves that it's just a made-up excuse.
-
@quazzi76 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301278#Comment_2301278
Funny. Been to a dealership's lately? There are mechanics there. Who do the mechanics work for? The dealership or themselves? Which guidelines do the mechanics follow? As far as car manufacturers, there are factory recalls to make vehicles better not worse. If it is cost effective (lol). As far as the game, it has gotten worse not better. Hence the satire.
Yes. As I said, MECHANICS make adjustments to your car. Some dealers have a service department. Some don't. Some use in-house mechanics. Others use independent contracting. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
If you want to stand by the vehicular analogy then in the case of Dead By Daylight, the dealership is Steam. Steam is not obligated to give anyone a refund for the game just because sometime past their warranty the original manufacturer - BHVR - launched a line extension that wound up requiring further refinement.
-
@quazzi76 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2301021#Comment_2301021
For a few glitches sure. If a car is running fine and the dealership makes an adjustment to where the car turns to a hunk a junk who is at fault? Right now the devs for listening to the share holders and not the dbd community.
Dealerships don't make adjustments, mechanics do. Once you've purchased a new car and driven it off the lot, whatever happens next is between you, your warranty, and - if you can establish that the vehicle you were sold was defective from the start - your state's particular lemon laws.
In the case of DBD, the manufacturer is already attempting repairs at no additional cost to you.
-
Oh okay, I only played RE2 (the original) once each with Leon and Claire, and that was over 20 years ago. Thanks for the answers.
-
As both a Mike AND a fan of domesticated rodents I take umbrage with this thread.
-
There's a huge gap of RE games for me, so...who the hell is Marvin?
-
Wraith. Not a serious nerf, he just needs a second pass to smooth out the difference between "absolutely worthless", which people claim he was before his buff, and "incredibly cheap", which is the state he's in now.
Same with Spirit. I personally wouldn't argue that she's in dramatic need of a profound overhaul. Just some fine-tuning.
I also wouldn't mind doing something about Bubba's ability to instantly put any survivor into the dying state at any time he wants, but maybe that's just me.
-
@quazzi76 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300959#Comment_2300959
More for satire. I agree that one should do their research on stuff before they buy it. In this case with bottom line meaning more to devs than the community what is the fall back. Buy a car sure. Buy a product that gets updated then turns to trash who is to blame? Either way still play just not as often
When someone buys a video game, especially now (as opposed to, for example, the 1990s), they're entering into not only a conceptual but also a legal contract. The contract essentially boils down to "you, the player, are paying for the right to play this game and we, the developer, will do what we can to ensure that the product works as intended. We make no promise, however, that you will be fully satisfied with your purchase forever and by entering into this contract with us, you agree that you accept this".
The fall-back? If enough consumers are able to prove that they've all been ripped off they can consult an attorney and try to launch a class-action lawsuit, which in this specific case no sane judge would rule in favor of.
-
@catbeans said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300959#Comment_2300959
There is a difference between "I don't like it" and " the game worked but has progressively gotten to a state that is doesn't and the devs don't care."
That's a subjective and unquantifiable belief, and even if it were true, it unfortunately doesn't change the criteria for compensation. Games don't come with lifelong warranties, they aren't 100 percent guaranteed to never have issues.
At some point this game will LEGITIMATELY become unplayable, at least online, when the servers are shut off. No one's going to get a refund for that.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300900#Comment_2300900
I feel like you've got a responsibility to yourself to research the things you buy to see if you actually like them before you purchase.
If you somehow manage to get blindsided (like a lot of people on this forum apparently) and go "I DON'T LIKE IT SO I WANT MY MONEY BACK".. then that's kinda on you.
I agree. As I mentioned in another thread tonight, caveat emptor. Don't jump in blind, don't jump in expecting any exploits to go forever unpatched, and don't jump in expecting that there will never, ever, be any issues or disappointments along the way. Serious problems will usually be resolved, but a consumer is generally not entitled to compensation just because they've decided, after well past a reasonable amount of time, that they've changed their mind.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
I doubt "game sux now" is an accepted reason for a refund.
Yeah, Gramps said it before I could.
I don't use some of my DLC purchases much either but that's not the developers' fault, it's pretty unusual to get a refund on just about anything in this world just because you don't use and / or don't like it anymore.
...And to anyone who thinks that this is unfair, please don't adopt anything.
-
Lol anyone who throws a Room gif at me for any reason is A-OK in my book. :)
-
I've noticed that the developers, and this community in general, seem to pay much more attention to what streamers are doing than pretty much any other gaming community I've been involved in. I myself have no interest in "e-celebs" in general and have been exposed to several that really rubbed me the wrong way (my reactions to whom are why I'm in forum jail at the moment, lol) so I admittedly have a clear bias. I don't watch them.
As such, because I don't watch them, I don't know what they specifically say (unless it's recounted here) or whether they seem like decent people worth listening to. If other people like them and want to watch them that's their prerogative. I've just noticed that their thoughts and opinions seem to hold a lot of sway here, for better and / or worse.
-
Can you blame them? You'd be angry too if people just kept killing you all day. :P
In all seriousness - and I've mentioned this before - I'm a survivor main but I still have to admit the facts, which are that my ratio of post-match survivor complaints to post-match killer complaints still sits at about twelve to zero.
-
YOU'RE TEARING ME APART, KEIORTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
-
No single person should have a more influential voice on the outcome of a game (or how other people respond to the game, for that matter) than any other, especially one who has financial interest in how that game is shaped in the future.
-
@latinfla4 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300715#Comment_2300715
Do you ever lobby dodge out of curiosity?
No, because it already takes too long to get into one. :)
Lobby dodging, while kind of a lame practice to me, is still at least better than disconnecting. Depending on the circumstances (such as a killer who DCs once the match starts to load) that not only screws people out of their items, it wastes several more minutes of their time. It's just a ######### thing to do.
-
@glitchboi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300688#Comment_2300688
Exactly. People are acting like BHVR did this because they're evilllll but they're just trying to avoid conflict.
To be completely fair a lot of people just don't know. As I coincidentally mentioned in another somewhat similar thread just before this one I found out myself by going through this same thing on the official forum of the THQ-developed WWE games. Those didn't allow you to change the appearance of official WWE wrestlers either (only custom characters that players made from scratch) and everyone demanded to know why. The developers had to repeatedly explain that it wasn't their choice - they actually asked for the feature themselves, in fact - but WWE forbade it, so that was that.
I understand wanting more customization options in this game too, I mean who wouldn't want that? But it's much more complex (and legally binding) than "eh, we didn't intend for this fun glitch that people like so we're going to make sure to fix that first".
I also have to point out: NEVER buy something that's based on a glitch. It can be changed at any moment, and if you knew it was a glitch going in, no offense, but it IS a "sucks to be you" situation. I mean not that I don't have sympathy, but caveat emptor.
-
@Gaffy said:
If it's just in the random rotation maybe or I'll just leave on the spot. If it's an offering I either go afk by an exit gate or get a hook and immediately facecamp. This map is garbage and needs to be removed until it's changed/ better to play on.
While I don't personally agree that the map needs to be changed (and am against the idea of any map in this game being outright removed), I respect the fact that when you get it you don't deliberately ruin the other people's game and waste that player's offering by disconnecting. I've been warned against mentioning wanting to disconnect in a game before, anyone who encourages it should get the same warning in my opinion. It's an entirely selfish act.
-
That would actually be really, really interesting. I don't know if I'd like it or not, it would feel so unnatural. Well, that's probably the wrong word. It would feel so unusual.
At first I misinterpreted the title of the thread and thought that you meant there was no "hunt music", or whatever term a person would use to describe the music that killers have when they're wandering around, looking for survivors, but not actively engaged in the hunt. I would be perfectly happy having the option to play without that.
-
@glitchboi said:
It's disappointing but it was probably necessary due to legal issues that could have resulted with Capcom.
The solution to this? Make weapons from sets unlinked, unlink non-licensed sets that CLEARLY work fine with other cosmetics (Why is Yun-Jin's outfit linked????), as proven in the Reddit post, and that's about it.
It's a license rights issue.
DBD is beholden to portray licensed characters in a way that's dictated by the owner of those characters. If the party that owns a licensed character says "they have to look like this", DBD is legally obligated to respect those terms. As part of that obligation they're likely required to do what they can to discourage people from circumventing this.
As such, BHVR probably has a single all-inclusive restriction on the ability to mix and match pieces from different character models to prevent such a thing from happening, rather than programming separate, individual restrictions for every character in the game (licensed or not). The answer, if they want to, is to individualize the ability to swap the character model pieces for unlicensed characters while keeping the restriction in place for the licensed ones. It's probably easier for them to just have the single all-inclusive restriction, and they probably figure that there's no benefit to them (BHVR) for changing that anyway.
I know that no one likes this, but it's a serious legal obligation that they have agreed to and are bound to enforce, not just a fun little thing that they wanted to take away because they're jerks with mixed-up priorities.
-
Being able to modify the appearance of in-game characters was the topic of deep discussion for years on the THQ WWE wrestling game forums. Players were constantly asking for the right to modify the way the characters looked and we were told, over and over again, that the developers were not allowed to implement such a thing - and in fact were instructed to actively discourage it - by the license holder, in that case WWE. I was able to verify this myself, in person, during a discussion with some of the series' developers in 2013. It would take years before WWE finally began to relent on the issue.
We made the same point as the one here in this thread: That "are you kidding WWE? With how insanely stupid you've made some of these people look in real life"?
Didn't matter. :)
-
I play the game an average of 3-5 hours every few days or a total of about 20, 25 hours a week. I'm an average player and do make sure to always have a Rift challenge going, but absolutely do not focus exclusively on the current tome. I bounce my challenges between all the different tomes. On this current Rift I am at about level 55 or so, despite not having specifically focused on achieving that goal, and thus decided to purchase the Rift pass. Because the Rift gives back rewards in the form of Auric Cells the pass cost me four dollars, the rest of which I should easily get back if I continue playing as I have been. I have to admit, I'm quite satisfied with my first Rift purchase and plan on getting more in the future.
Now having said that, I'm playing on PC which is the gaming machine that currently has the least amount of problems. Given how much trouble many players have reported, especially console players, I think it's perfectly reasonable to request that the duration of the current Rift be extended to compensate for their inability to play the game as they would otherwise normally be able to.
-
I like that "Dead Harding" is now a term. I'm being serious, I like the transformation of the title into an actual verb.
There's a character named Ace in the game. Ace can use Dead Harding. If Ace uses Dead Hard, you could say that it's "Ace Harding". Ace Harding is the name of the protagonist from a 30's-era detective game called Deja Vu. Deja Vu is also a perk in the game.
It's all coming together. The only logical inference to draw from all of this is that the Illuminati is responsible for Dead Hard being able to bypass bear traps.
-
Some of the posts here (on the forum in general, I'm not specifying this thread or even any specific users) are really demanding. I understand that it's frustrating to wait and wait and keep waiting, hoping for word from the developers on issues that are causing inconvenience or irritation. But everyone should know that it is not standard procedure for most companies, gaming or otherwise, to release repeated statements that just keep saying the same thing (in this case, "we're aware of the issues and trying to fix them".
People need to understand: If things get fixed, the fixes will be published. Until that time, if things are not to the company's satisfaction, making another statement saying the same things would just be redundant and help nothing. It's impossible to specify exact dates when things will get worked out because that's not something that anyone can predict with certainty, including the developers. So they can't give dates. And if things are still in progress, there's nothing they can say. They've acknowledged that they're aware of the issues, they've taken steps to address them, and apparently are continuing to do so. We just have to be patient.
-
If anyone's gonna chase after me screaming "OHHH YEAH!" it's gonna be Macho Man Randy Savage.
-
Well, I'm all for more options, but I do agree that adding any other mode that requires online play (as opposed to the bot match) would ultimately have a detrimental effect. By dividing the number of available lobbies it would make wait times that much rougher. At the moment, in the American midwest anyway, the game is pretty much killer-only from roughly 8pm to 3 or 4am. Choosing survivor means looking at the "searching for match" screen for anywhere between five and ten minutes.
-
@toxik_survivor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300289#Comment_2300289
Her and Jane combined is a symphony to my ears lmao
I've never been in the basement to hear what it's like for Jane to be hooked alongside Claire and / or Jill but I'm curious to do so for reasons that are super legitmate.
-
@LylakLavender said:
That is why I use Iron when playing her. She is too load. My husband thought I was watching a naughty video LOL.
"Too load"
All I'm saying. XD
-
Sadly, petitions generally mean nothing.
I'm all for the idea of all sets being unlinked, though. ALL sets. I don't like being forced to spend ten or fifteen dollars on an entire outfit if I only want, say, the torso.
-
@GrimmGaliard said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300125#Comment_2300125
How is this bigger than Stranger Things?
Speaking for myself (because I also consider this to be their biggest release), Resident Evil is a FAR larger property than Stranger Things. It's a media empire encompassing dozens of games, novels, films, action figures and more that has existed for a quarter of a century. That, paired with DBD's own five year anniversary, makes this the biggest milestone in the game's history to me.
-
@OopsAllHexes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300179#Comment_2300179
Thing is, being "open-minded" is just ignoring evidence at this point, because we have evidence to believe otherwise. So that doesn't work.
Mike, this is the 2nd time you've tried to give BHVR the benefit of the doubt. We don't have to give the benefit of the doubt if the proof is right there or their own failure to communicate properly leads to worrying.
We KNOW they were working on dumb things like cosmetic sets, we HAVE the notes. Instead of focusing on the big issues, like they should have, they were focusing sets that they DIDN'T EVEN FIX! Their priorities are bad!
They SHOULD be criticized for this as a result, at minimum. And there is, y'know, the whole Mandy thing. Mandy saying that they're "investigating" it when they aren't.
"This release was arguably the biggest milestone in the game's history, given the timing and the content, they know that the longer things are broken, the worse they look)."
They've broken promises, I don't think they care how they look at all.
EDIT: "They SHOULD be criticized for this as a result, at minimum. And there is, y'know, the whole Mandy thing. Mandy saying that they're "investigating" it when they aren't". Can you elaborate on this? I'm not familiar with this aspect of the situation.
---
No one's obligated to give them the benefit of the doubt, no. And if you're a long-time player (at the very least I'm assuming you've been playing longer than me, which is a relatively short time), I can understand the frustration. Hell, I can understand the frustration regardless. When I was part of the THQ community it was like this for every one of their yearly wrestling games. Every one. Had I still been playing when 2K20 released (look it up if you're unfamiliar, it was a debacle of epic proportions) I'd be saying the same things you are, but using much more terse words.
I'm just saying that even while we have evidence that not everything has been fixed, we really don't have evidence of what they're doing, what their actual plans are, etc. I guess it comes down to perspective - I can handle waiting for things to be resolved because I'm still enjoying the rest of the game just fine - which, let me be clear, does not make me better or more "right" than you. I'm just alright with hoping for the best and giving them the time they at least seem to need to get everything worked out. That's all. I've been on both sides of these kinds of issues (not as a game developer but someone who interacted with them, face to face, on an unfinished product) and I know that there are times when it seems like nothing is being done when in fact it's just a matter of things taking time.
Again, that doesn't make me "right". I just have that experience to call back on when something like this happens. Sometimes things eventually get worked out, but I've also seen other situations where they don't. I'm not knocking anyone for assuming the worst, I'm just trying not to make too strong an assumption in either direction.
-
@OopsAllHexes said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2300104#Comment_2300104
Ah, I see, you're one of the people who will defend BHVR no matter what.
"For all we know, these-"
I want you to check that list and tell me that half of the bugs on that list are connected to those issues.
Also, then there's the big thing about Mandy having said "the devs were fixing it" and yet they were focused on things like cosmetic sets being unlinked. Don't try and "BUT" this, unlinked sets isn't related to the FPS dips in the slightest.
Am I gonna see "UR NOT A DEV U DONT KNOW" next?
"Just because certain fixes were achieved faster, doesn’t mean the bigger issues are being ignored entirely. "
Like I mentioned, Mandy was saying the usual PR stuff, that the devs were "on it" yet they weren't, and even then, unlinked cosmetic sets is NOT a priority. It doesn't matter if that was achieved faster, the FPS drops SHOULD be the highest priority, for obvious reasons.
And allow me to add some important facts: This shouldn't be happening on a normal PS4 if the devs were competent. Like, at all. People seem to have forgotten what the PS4 and other consoles were capable of. DBD wasn't and still isn't graphically complex, neither is it very complex in terms of coding. Bloodborne and other games run perfectly fine with no slowdown whatsoever.
He's just trying to remain open-minded. None of us work at BHVR, we don't know what they are or are not doing to address the big problems.
That isn't to say that you and everyone else doesn't have the right to be frustrated - you absolutely do - but it's presumptuous for anyone to claim that they're ignoring what people are saying and doing nothing to fix major bugs (which, if true, would be quite silly of them from a financial perspective. This release was arguably the biggest milestone in the game's history, given the timing and the content, they know that the longer things are broken, the worse they look).
-
I haven't played the game yet today but I know that before the RE DLC my game was getting frame drops at least (and usually only) once per session: I could play for several hours and at some point, usually earlier than later, my game would turn into a slideshow for anywhere between ten and forty seconds. After the RE launch that issue disappeared.
Again, please note that I haven't played since the hotfix that arrived (to my understanding) today. My PC is pretty decent so if I can join the list of those who can confirm framerate issues, I will come back here and do so.
-
I very much enjoy Midwich. I love the atmosphere and the unique layout. Going up against Freddy on it once was also really cool, it felt much more fitting a map for him than Badham.
I do admit, however, that I find it very difficult as killer.
-
Last night, after playing Doc for like four hours straight (my first day of fully embracing my first killer), I got my first ever SWF team.
Oh boy.
The rumors are true. The hushed whispers of the sweat squads lurking in the shadows, waiting to pounce with their aggressive tactics and coordinated console chat, are real. While they surprisingly didn't annihilate me, and I even managed to hook one (which they may have allowed me to out of pity, I don't know), they were insane. A team of four looping experts who were literally racing around me left and right, buzzing me like flies, doing stuff I'd never seen before like disappearing magically from my view, turning corners at exactly the last second, ducking and bobbing and weaving like professional boxers, etc. It was at first frustrating but then eventually almost mesmerizing. I couldn't help but respect their skill. And, as is my style, at the end of the match I opened the gate and stood aside to nod at them to say "hey, good game". To my pleasant surprise, they did the same thing that "normal" survivors do when I make this gesture: They dropped the BS and nodded at me, ran over to ask for some hits, ran around dancing with me, etc. It wound up being pretty fun.
I have to say the same thing I said to another user the other day: You just can't allow yourself to take the antagonistic players personally. Their methods can't dictate your own fun. As hard as it is you just have to kind of shrug it off, otherwise it will bother you after they're long gone.
OR if you're really great with an oppressive Doc build, take it out on the next group that acts like a bunch of punks. :P
-
As a survivor main I trade my characters. I'll work on one for a while, max out the build that I like, perhaps prestige him or her. My first main was Meg because I think she's cute (or gorgeous, if going by her fortune teller skin). Once I III-50'd her (which, as I look at that sentence, sounds oddly sexual) I moved on to prestiging some of the other characters. I'm working on Kate now, which I've been looking forward to for quite some time, and I think Jeff will come next.
After a lot of experimenting and trying to overcome the anxiety I have when playing as killer and having all the match's focus on me, I have finally found my first killer main in The Doctor. I've been having a lot of fun with him and it's great to finally be able to actually play the game once the sun goes down.
-
@GrimmGaliard said:
Mate, I've been playing for about 4-5 years now and I don't know what every single perk, add-on and offering do. I just don't really care enough to keep up with it.
That being said, Nurse's is way old. Everyone knows Nurse's and BBQ.
I couldn't care less about becoming intimately familiar with all the perks at 400 hours in, and I don't anticipate caring any more about it 600 hours from now.
-
The skins are astronomically overpriced. Three good skins is the same cost as the entire base game. I don't have the time to sit and do the math but I'm guessing that if one were to buy all the cosmetics in this game it would cost several thousand dollars. That's insane.
Don't get me wrong, I love the game and many of the skins are awesome. I've bought some. But even five bucks per alternate costume is a little high, let alone ten to fifteen. At the very least I do respect that DBD restricts the extra purchases to cosmetics and doesn't go the lootbox or "pay to win" route.
-
@TheBus4K said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2296777#Comment_2296777
"provocative statements"
Well, I can't say much more. Children are easily provoked, I contributed my opinion and you got angry. Simple. Stop commenting on the forum with such a fragile mindset.
You should have said "trust me, you better stop". It would have more accurately relayed your desire to command others.
The "children" thing was unique though. Never saw that approach before!
-
@TragicSolitude said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2294781#Comment_2294781
Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks it's dark :)
Yeah, I get headaches and my eyes can be really sensitive to light, so turning up the Switch's backlight to make up for DbD's ridiculously dark maps isn't an option. Even on my laptop, I keep the screen at 12% brightness, and the laptop screen is much farther from my face than the Switch.
An in-game brightness/gamma slider that helps players calibrate it properly would be super appreciated. The game is available on so many different platforms and there's no way everyone's getting a reasonably similar visual experience.
Yeah I definitely noticed it, especially when I compare it to the PC version which - to me at least - seems to have gotten brighter? Less contrast? Maybe I'm just seeing things but the Lite does have what seems like really rich, dark blacks - normally a good thing, until you need to see what's IN those blacks.
I see what you mean about the intensity of the screen brightness. Man, that sucks. They definitely do need to add a brightness slider. That seems like such a no-brainer.