Why it took NRS so long

[God Confirm]

There's this argument floating around that just because you're a consumer, you're entitled to have everything you want a product to be.

Yes, a producer of a product is responsible for meeting all federally regulated guidelines before they can sell said product. Yes, there are many things costumers are entitled to simply by virtue of being a consumer.

HOWEVER...there is an old saying that goes, "Let the buyer beware."

The consumer isn't scott-free by any stretch of the imagination. The onus is on the consumer to make informed purchases. If you buy a knock off radio without researching the brand, manufacturer, and product history and it breaks on you due to being cheaply made, that's the customer's fault for making a poorly informed buying decision.

Translate this concept to NRS games: When MKX came out and you purchased it with the online experience in mind, you would be disappointed.

MK X isn't like Battlefront or World of Warcraft in that it is designed to be an online experience. Online is a feature, but it's not the point of the game.

So if you, the consumer, purchased the game without reading reviews, without researching the online experience, you share at least some responsibility for your dissatisfaction.

Make informed purchases.

That's true in general, but on the flip side what you ARE entitled to as a consumer is what you were sold. I was sold on a game with great NetCode and all those promises, as such I'm entitled to it just as the rest of you are, it's what we were told we were getting and what we payed for.

 

[Rude]

That's true in general, but on the flip side what you ARE entitled to as a consumer is what you were sold. I was sold on a game with great NetCode and all those promises, as such I'm entitled to it just as the rest of you are, it's what we were told we were getting and what we payed for.

So you believe that every commercial is 100% factual?

Advertisement is meant to persuade, not to inform. So, based on your logic, if Crest isn't objectively the best toothpaste even though the advertisement told me it was, that's Crest's fault and not mine for not researching the product?

As I said before, the game was very clearly designed and advertised as an offline experience. It's true that they shilled the hell out of the online feature, but it was still just a feature, not the core intent of the product.

 

[Rude]

While the essence of your post is correct, please don't throw around words if you don't fully grasp them.

" We are ENTITLED to a functioning product that's competitive against the market."

You actually got that with MKX, even with the bad net code. Contractually speaking (since you threw the term "contract"), you bought a game and the disc functioned. Everything that was promoted to being in the game was on the disc (so it's not like your disc had no story mode or something). So in this "contract" NRS fulfilled its obligation. I'm a lawyer so I would know.

Not saying that means it's OK for MKX to have the terrible net code it had/has, but I'm saying it's not OK for you to be condescending while being off the mark. MKX is competitive against the market. In many ways, it dominates it in its genre.

I want to move to Lebanon and make fuzzy babies with you that regulate the hell out of people.

<3

 

[igotAhalo]

So you believe that every commercial is 100% factual?

Advertisement is meant to persuade, not to inform. So, based on your logic, if Crest isn't objectively the best toothpaste even though the advertisement told me it was, that's Crest's fault and not mine for not researching the product?

As I said before, the game was very clearly designed and advertised as an offline experience. It's true that they shilled the hell out of the online feature, but it was still just a feature, not the core intent of the product.

Well there is a difference in what you are comparing. The example you used with crest toothpaste is pretty hard to prove in saying that it's the best toothpaste. If I bought it, and didn't think it was the best toothpaste, I wouldn't buy it again. Any company can say there product "is the best". Thats an extemely subjective and vague claim to make. With mk x, they sold a product that could be PLAYED online. Half the time I can't even play it, because I get kicked from the lag, or if I dont get kicked it's just too bad to play. It's a lot less subjective with mk x, you can't make an argument on how wether their online is good or not, because half the time it is NOT EVEN PLAYABLE. this is not subjective. When i can physically show you every game i have working on my internet, and mk x is the only game I have that lags horribly, it's fact that online is hard to play, if at all.

 

[God Confirm]

So you believe that every commercial is 100% factual?

Advertisement is meant to persuade, not to inform. So, based on your logic, if Crest isn't objectively the best toothpaste even though the advertisement told me it was, that's Crest's fault and not mine for not researching the product?

As I said before, the game was very clearly designed and advertised as an offline experience. It's true that they shilled the hell out of the online feature, but it was still just a feature, not the core intent of the product.

Anything that is promised and not delivered is false advertising.

That aside, at the very least, if you payed $60 USD for a game that promises great, stable, lag free online experience, you can complain about it when you get something completely different.

People selling you things are not completely excerpt from the laws surrounding it, just because you failed to research it, and much less from critical response. He'll research it is a vague term anyway, most these triple A games pay the big sites to co-sign everything anyway.

You are entitled to what you payed for. I like you, but to argue otherwise is... I'm just going to call it shortsighted. But there's a lot of other words if have for it if I didn't like you.

 

[igotAhalo]

Anything that is promised and not delivered is false advertising.

That aside, at the very least, if you payed $60 USD for a game that promises great, stable, lag free online experience, you can complain about it when you get something completely different.

People selling you things are not completely excerpt from the laws surrounding it, just because you failed to research it, and much less from critical response. He'll research it is a vague term anyway, most these triple A games pay the big sites to co-sign everything anyway.

You are entitled to what you payed for. I like you, but to argue otherwise is... I'm just going to call it shortsighted. But there's a lot of other words if have for it if I didn't like you.

That's actually a good point, if you research it you most likely will get "great reviews" like certain games get, every single year. What's laggy to some isn't laggy to others, and even then it doesn't let the seller off the hook if one person gave it a good review

 

[Rude]

Well there is a difference in what you are comparing. The example you used with crest toothpaste is pretty hard to prove in saying that it's the best toothpaste. If I bought it, and didn't think it was the best toothpaste, I wouldn't buy it again. Any company can say there product "is the best". Thats an extemely subjective and vague claim to make. With mk x, they sold a product that could be PLAYED online. Half the time I can't even play it, because I get kicked from the lag, or if I dont get kicked it's just too bad to play. It's a lot less subjective with mk x, you can't make an argument on how wether their online is good or not, because half the time it is NOT EVEN PLAYABLE. this is not subjective. When i can physically show you every game i have working on my internet, and mk x is the only game I have that lags horribly, it's fact that online is hard to play, if at all.

You know, it's funny. I've very rarely been kicked due to lag. Now, I will completely admit that the online is terrible and my experiences range from awful to mediocre, but i have always been able to play it, and to imply that your experience is an objective representation of every player's experience simply isn't accurate.

With my toothpaste example yes, you can choose to buy a different toothpaste. Likewise, you can choose to play a different fighting game. There is a distinct difference between a game that is supposed to be an online, multi-player experience(think Titanfall) and an offline game with an online feature.

Anything that is promised and not delivered is false advertising.

That aside, at the very least, if you payed $60 USD for a game that promises great, stable, lag free online experience, you can complain about it when you get something completely different.

People selling you things are not completely excerpt from the laws surrounding it, just because you failed to research it, and much less from critical response. He'll research it is a vague term anyway, most these triple A games pay the big sites to co-sign everything anyway.

You are entitled to what you payed for. I like you, but to argue otherwise is... I'm just going to call it shortsighted. But there's a lot of other words if have for it if I didn't like you.

I'm glad that when presented with an argument that isn't in line with your own that you have to restrain yourself from "other words" (i.e. ad hominems) when speaking to me. That's great, man.

I never absolved NRS of any responsibility in the netcode as is. You seem to be confusing my intent. Clearly, they are responsible for it's poor condition and I would never say otherwise.

Now, there are plenty of review outlets that aren't supported by Triple A gaming companies. Everything from User Reviews, The YouTube Boom of game critics, etc there are plenty of avenues to find objective criticism of you look for it.

To put it another way: You wouldn't buy a car without at least looking into the viability of the features it offers, would you? Or would you just take the salesperson's word for it?

So, you believe that the consumer should take every advertisement at it's word? I'm sorry, but that's a very niave and unrealistic perspective. An advertisement's entire goal is to persuade. Persuasion can happen any number of ways, some of which are not fact-based.

If you have a company which has a track-record of poor online experiences, yet they promise a great online experience each time and fail, isn't the responsible thing to do to proceed cautiously? Perhaps wait and see what other users say?

My point: While the poor netcode is 100% NRS's fault, the customer bears at least some responsibility for simply taking an advertisement at it's word instead of making an informed decision.

You are responsible with how you spend your money.

 

[WiseM0nkey]

this thread gave me lung cancer. Thank you.

 

[igotAhalo]

You know, it's funny. I've very rarely been kicked due to lag. Now, I will completely admit that the online is terrible and my experiences range from awful to mediocre, but i have always been able to play it, and to imply that your experience is an objective representation of every player's experience simply isn't accurate.

With my toothpaste example yes, you can choose to buy a different toothpaste. Likewise, you can choose to play a different fighting game. There is a distinct difference between a game that is supposed to be an online, multi-player experience(think Titanfall) and an offline game with an online feature.



I'm glad that when presented with an argument that isn't in line with your own that you have to restrain yourself from "other words" (i.e. ad hominems) when speaking to me. That's great, man.

I never absolved NRS of any responsibility in the netcode as is. You seem to be confusing my intent. Clearly, they are responsible for it's poor condition and I would never say otherwise.

Now, there are plenty of review outlets that aren't supported by Triple A gaming companies. Everything from User Reviews, The YouTube Boom of game critics, etc there are plenty of avenues to find objective criticism of you look for it.

To put it another way: You wouldn't buy a car without at least looking into the viability of the features it offers, would you? Or would you just take the salesperson's word for it?

So, you believe that the consumer should take every advertisement at it's word? I'm sorry, but that's a very niave and unrealistic perspective. An advertisement's entire goal is to persuade. Persuasion can happen any number of ways, some of which are not fact-based.

If you have a company which has a track-record of poor online experiences, yet they promise a great online experience each time and fail, isn't the responsible thing to do to proceed cautiously? Perhaps wait and see what other users say?

My point: While the poor netcode is 100% NRS's fault, the customer bears at least some responsibility for simply taking an advertisement at it's word instead of making an informed decision.

You are responsible with how you spend your money.

The thing is, it's either my connection that's bad or its the game. And knowing how many other people have this problem, it's not subjective. I know so many people online and off who have told me about this problem, or who have actually showed me the lag they have (while having no other lag in any other game) it's ridiculous. And yes, I can choose to buy another fighting game, but how is that really relevant to my original point? My point was that I am entitled to what I was told the product was. I was sold a fighting game which could be *actually* be played online and off. It doesn't matter if it's a feature, the main selling point or a side selling point, I was sold this as a part of the product and i am entitled to this part of the product. Me buying another fighting game as a result of nrs not selling me the entirety of what they said they were going to doesn't go against my point.

If you buy a car, and listed on its features (not an objective statement, actually a feature of the car, just like mk x online) was a free stereo system, with a good subwoofer included too. Now, let's say you bought the car, and one of the reasons you bought it was for this sound system, that actually ended up not really working, and half the time you heard static and it was just a horrible experience. You don't think you were entitled to that sound system? You payed your money for the car which INCLUDED the sound system, regardless if it was a feature or not. You keep putting emphasis on that *it's just a feature*. If it's a feature, and I pay for it, I expect that to actually come working with my product. It doesn't matter that it's a feature. Yes, if I buy a product and it comes half ass, in the future I might just buy a different product, but that still doesn't take away the fact that I was entitled to the product in the first place.

 

[Rude]

The thing is, it's either my connection that's bad or its the game. And knowing how many other people have this problem, it's not subjective. I know so many people online and off who have told me about this problem, or who have actually showed me the lag they have (while having no other lag in any other game) it's ridiculous. And yes, I can choose to buy another fighting game, but how is that really relevant to my original point? My point was that I am entitled to what I was told the product was. I was sold a fighting game which could be *actually* be played online and off. It doesn't matter if it's a feature, the main selling point or a side selling point, I was sold this as a part of the product and i am entitled to this part of the product. Me buying another fighting game as a result of nrs not selling me the entirety of what they said they were going to doesn't go against my point.

If you buy a car, and listed on its features (not an objective statement, actually a feature of the car, just like mk x online) was a free stereo system, with a good subwoofer included too. Now, let's say you bought the car, and one of the reasons you bought it was for this sound system, that actually ended up not really working, and half the time you heard static and it was just a horrible experience. You don't think you were entitled to that sound system? You payed your money for the car which INCLUDED the sound system, regardless if it was a feature or not. You keep putting emphasis on that *it's just a feature*. If it's a feature, and I pay for it, I expect that to actually come working with my product. It doesn't matter that it's a feature. Yes, if I buy a product and it comes half ass, in the future I might just buy a different product, but that still doesn't take away the fact that I was entitled to the product in the first place.

You said earlier in my toothpaste example that you could always choose to buy another toothpaste.

The same too, applies for fighting games.

Now, you keep pushing the narrative that the feature - online - doesn't work. As in, you were sold a broken function.

I am arguing that it isn't objectively true, because I've always been able to play it. It's never not worked for me unless PSN itself was down.

While our experiences are admittedly anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt, they are at their core different experiences.

Which means that your truth is not an objective one, as it is not true in every instance. It's subjective and not representative of every single player that plays the game.

I've never denied that false advertising isn't a thing because it is. However, the game was not advertised as an exclusively online or even mostly online experience. What this means is that the game is intended primarily for offline use. Which means the online feature is extra, but not the primary priority.

As a consumer, it's your responsibility to take some initiative and not take a salesperson at their word.

It sounds to me like these arguments suggest a preferred lack of involvement in how one spends money, as if all the work should be done for you and everyone should be 100% honest, all of the time

That's not how the real world works.

 

[coolwhip]

I want to move to Lebanon and make fuzzy babies with you that regulate the hell out of people.

<3

That's illegal over here...

 

[God Confirm]

This is officially getting too ridiculous to debate against

Funny thread !

 

[sinosleep]

While the essence of your post is correct, please don't throw around words if you don't fully grasp them.

" We are ENTITLED to a functioning product that's competitive against the market."

You actually got that with MKX, even with the bad net code. Contractually speaking (since you threw the term "contract"), you bought a game and the disc functioned. Everything that was promoted to being in the game was on the disc (so it's not like your disc had no story mode or something). So in this "contract" NRS fulfilled its obligations. I'm a lawyer so I would know.

Not saying that means it's OK for MKX to have the terrible net code it had/has, but I'm saying it's not OK for you to be condescending while being off the mark. MKX is competitive against the market. In many ways, it dominates it in its genre.

It is a functioning product, but the netcode isn't competitive agaisnt the market considrring how long a vastly superior alternative has been around.

I chose my words carefully, which is why I can be condescending, cause I'm fucking right. The proof is in the pudding. We won. They're changing the netcode.

 

[Rude]

That's illegal over here...

Damn you, Lebanoooooooonnn!

Damn yooooouuuu!

 

[coolwhip]

It is a functioning product, but the netcode isn't competitive agaisnt the market considrring how long a vastly superior alternative has been around.

I chose my words carefully, which is why I can be condescending, cause I'm fucking right. The proof is in the pudding. We won. They're changing the netcode.

They changed the netcode because it was bad. Nobody ever argued otherwise (some did early on but then it quickly became apparent the netcode stinks). That doesn't mean it's their contractual obligation to do so (it isn't). So no you're not right at all, and the words you chose weren't careful.

The netcode sucks and NRS are changing it. We have the right to demand better quality and that doesn't make us entitled. These are facts. When you start talking about things you don't fully understand, like contracts and such, that's when you lose me.

 

[trufenix]

Why don't you ask the sf5 community who's been testing their beta for months. You got kp2 releasing most likely in the same time frame so........

Okay, lets clarify something here. MKXs beta changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for SFV players past or present. If you were planning to buy SFV you already have (At least partially) in exchange for free access. If you were not planning to or were on ty, he fence and did not pre-order, a limited access beta test for an alternate year old game is in NO WAY influence your purchase.

Nobody is ignoring SFV and re-buying a copy of MKX just to get into a beta that may or may not improve its netplay. Maybe, just maybe there are some people out there who have not played either game but the beta means nothing to them either because just buying MKX doesn't get you into the beta. Buying KP2 doesn't get you into the beta. KP2 content won't even be in the beta at launch.

If anybody needs to be "worried" about mkxs beta test, its whoever is planning on releasing their game later this year when the beta is over and MKX gets a fresh coat of netcode paint, but even then, the number of people who like MKX who still haven't bought it after over a year will be so miniscule it won't even be a flash in the pan of KoFXIV or Tekken 7s potential sales.

 

[igotAhalo]

You said earlier in my toothpaste example that you could always choose to buy another toothpaste.

The same too, applies for fighting games.

Now, you keep pushing the narrative that the feature - online - doesn't work. As in, you were sold a broken function.

I am arguing that it isn't objectively true, because I've always been able to play it. It's never not worked for me unless PSN itself was down.

While our experiences are admittedly anecdotal and should be taken with a grain of salt, they are at their core different experiences.

Which means that your truth is not an objective one, as it is not true in every instance. It's subjective and not representative of every single player that plays the game.

I've never denied that false advertising isn't a thing because it is. However, the game was not advertised as an exclusively online or even mostly online experience. What this means is that the game is intended primarily for offline use. Which means the online feature is extra, but not the primary priority.

As a consumer, it's your responsibility to take some initiative and not take a salesperson at their word.

It sounds to me like these arguments suggest a preferred lack of involvement in how one spends money, as if all the work should be done for you and everyone should be 100% honest, all of the time

That's not how the real world works.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Mk x being either not playable online due to lag or actually getting kicked is something I can actually prove. You may not be able to prove it to my extent, but many people can. Mk x being unplayable online to a lot of people is extremely objective, I even put the definitions right here... it's not influenced by my personal feelings or bias, it's an absolute fact that many people could show you if you were to actually go and see. Just because it doesn't happen to you to the extent that it happens to me, or other people, doesn't mean that's it's a subjective statement. All that means is that objectively, many (not all) people have online experiences where it's extremely hard to play, or they can't play at all. None of this is a personal opinion.

And again, saying it's just a feature or not the main selling point doesn't mean you shouldn't get what you paid for. If it was included in the purchase, it should work and be playable. And I think again you are missing my whole point, I understand how the world works, I'm not naive, all I'm saying is that all these people who are giving nrs big props for fixing the online now shouldnt, because it is something we payed for when we got the game. I know people get jipped all the time on purchases, I understand how companies may twist facts, but are you saying that if you bought something, it came as an incomplete product, and 9 months later they gave you the rest of the product, you would be happy and thankful to them? Or would you be like "about damn time, I payed for this a while ago" ?

Just because sales people twist things and lie, doesn't mean you shouldn't expect to receive what you pay for. Your whole point is summed up too "sales people lie, that's how the world works, so if you get jipped on a product it's your fault and don't blame the company" which why wouldn't we? It's there job to give us a product that works, and if it doesnt, I'm going to voice my opinion and *obviously * not be thankful when they fix something they should have a while ago, which was my whole point

 

[trufenix]

That's actually a good point, if you research it you most likely will get "great reviews" like certain games get, every single year. What's laggy to some isn't laggy to others, and even then it doesn't let the seller off the hook if one person gave it a good review

I want you to find me the review that says MKX has excellent netplay.

 

[BGMD]

If what Paulo said is true (and I have no reason to doubt him), it only took them 8 months of rewriting the game's code basically from scratch. I'm actually amazed by this development because in 1000 yrs I wouldn't believe WB would actually do anything of this magnitude, even after unprecedented decision to pull Arkham Knight from steam store. I sincerely hope that after last couple of years of short-sighted decision making and launch blunders WB execs are finally starting to realize that cutting corners isn't doing favors to anyone.

 

[deathblooms2k4]

If you did your research when the game came out you would have been fooled. If you look at the posts here on TYM on release there were many people claiming the online was good. The truth was there but as is common with most blind bias people were in denial. So if you were doing your research by visiting TYM you could have been easily fooled. The only indication I found that it was bad was by watching Street fighter players stream the game and tweet about it.

Personally I don't think there is a good excuse for how poor the online experience is in this game. NRS had two previous titles that were heavily criticized for their poor online play, furthermore there are studious that are much smaller, with might tighter budgets who were able to develop games with vastly superior netcode.

I'm excited for this change, if it actually proves to work out and the game is playable online I'll likely start playing again. A lot of you have said NRS is doing this because they listen to the community, I'd say that maybe that's true but people have been complaining about their netcode since MK9. I think what makes more logical sense is that they are recognizing that esports is a thing, as well as online streaming and it's important for the game to have decent netcode if they really want it to be involved in those markets. Especially since those markets are continually growing. KI has consistent streamers and viewership and SFV will have a lot of people streaming if the game has decent netcode (which appears to be the case).

 

[igotAhalo]

I want you to find me the review that says MKX has excellent netplay.

The point was you can't base buying a game off of a review only. If people read reviews only, you wouldn't get the whole picture. GameSpot said "but the online suite gives players a lot of options, allowing players to battle in head-to-head matchups, team battles, and king of the hill lobbies. Players can also compete to see who can score the highest in various modes, giving the online multiplayer another mode that sets it apart from that of other fighting games." While saying nothing about lag.

US gamer said "and while not perfect, the net code is vastly improved over previous NetherRealm fighting games. " the definition of vastly is enormous or huge, which I feel like was a bit of a stretch here. If somone were to have read either of these, they could have easily got lead into thinking "wow I can play online now"

 

[SaltShaker]

people who are giving nrs big props for fixing the online now shouldnt, because it is something we payed for when we got the game.

if you bought something, it came as an incomplete product, and 9 months later they gave you the rest of the product, you would be happy and thankful to them? Or would you be like "about damn time, I payed for this a while ago" ?

 

[Rude]

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Mk x being either not playable online due to lag or actually getting kicked is something I can actually prove. You may not be able to prove it to my extent, but many people can. Mk x being unplayable online to a lot of people is extremely objective, I even put the definitions right here... it's not influenced by my personal feelings or bias, it's an absolute fact that many people could show you if you were to actually go and see. Just because it doesn't happen to you to the extent that it happens to me, or other people, doesn't mean that's it's a subjective statement. All that means is that objectively, many (not all) people have online experiences where it's extremely hard to play, or they can't play at all. None of this is a personal opinion.

And again, saying it's just a feature or not the main selling point doesn't mean you shouldn't get what you paid for. If it was included in the purchase, it should work and be playable. And I think again you are missing my whole point, I understand how the world works, I'm not naive, all I'm saying is that all these people who are giving nrs big props for fixing the online now shouldnt, because it is something we payed for when we got the game. I know people get jipped all the time on purchases, I understand how companies may twist facts, but are you saying that if you bought something, it came as an incomplete product, and 9 months later they gave you the rest of the product, you would be happy and thankful to them? Or would you be like "about damn time, I payed for this a while ago" ?

Just because sales people twist things and lie, doesn't mean you shouldn't expect to receive what you pay for. Your whole point is summed up too "sales people lie, that's how the world works, so if you get jipped on a product it's your fault and don't blame the company" which why wouldn't we? It's there job to give us a product that works, and if it doesnt, I'm going to voice my opinion and *obviously * not be thankful when they fix something they should have a while ago, which was my whole point

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

sub·jec·tive
səbˈjektiv/
adjective

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Mk x being either not playable online due to lag or actually getting kicked is something I can actually prove. You may not be able to prove it to my extent, but many people can. Mk x being unplayable online to a lot of people is extremely objective, I even put the definitions right here... it's not influenced by my personal feelings or bias, it's an absolute fact that many people could show you if you were to actually go and see. Just because it doesn't happen to you to the extent that it happens to me, or other people, doesn't mean that's it's a subjective statement. All that means is that objectively, many (not all) people have online experiences where it's extremely hard to play, or they can't play at all. None of this is a personal opinion.

And again, saying it's just a feature or not the main selling point doesn't mean you shouldn't get what you paid for. If it was included in the purchase, it should work and be playable. And I think again you are missing my whole point, I understand how the world works, I'm not naive, all I'm saying is that all these people who are giving nrs big props for fixing the online now shouldnt, because it is something we payed for when we got the game. I know people get jipped all the time on purchases, I understand how companies may twist facts, but are you saying that if you bought something, it came as an incomplete product, and 9 months later they gave you the rest of the product, you would be happy and thankful to them? Or would you be like "about damn time, I payed for this a while ago" ?

Just because sales people twist things and lie, doesn't mean you shouldn't expect to receive what you pay for. Your whole point is summed up too "sales people lie, that's how the world works, so if you get jipped on a product it's your fault and don't blame the company" which why wouldn't we? It's there job to give us a product that works, and if it doesnt, I'm going to voice my opinion and *obviously * not be thankful when they fix something they should have a while ago, which was my whole point

The problem is that your scenario isn't based purely in facts. Your premise is anecdotal at best. As is my premise. Just as easily as you can say that it is "unplayable", I can provide evidence of it being playable.

Your original talking point was that you were sold a product that does not work. Specifically, you said it was "unplayable." Streams such as MilkySituation, ESL, Pig Of The Hut, are all actual pieces of evidence that directly contradict your argument of the online being unplayable.

So no, you saying that you were sold an "unplayable online experience" is completely anecdotal and not based in complete facts. If it were literally unplayable, ESL couldn't possibly exist.

Again - I think you're missing the point in an attempt to "win." In a perfect world yes, you should be given exactly what you are promised.

That isn't consistent with reality. No one is saying, "don't be upset with the netcode." My point has always been, "Be upset, but also acknowledge you share responsibility for your dissatisfaction because you took an advertisement at face value instead of making an informed buying decision."

That's they key part - taking advertisement at face value. While using facts is a method of persuasion, it is only ONE method of persuation. An advertisement's first goal is to convince you to buy a product.

No where did I say that NRS' isn't responsible for its bad netcode, or that people shouldn't be upset. However, you chose to buy the game when you had other options for games that HAVE a reputation for quality online.

So yes, the customer bases some responsibility for buying a bad product. It's not like there wasn't a precedent from NRS for it's online play.

 

[MKF30]

At any rate, the beta sign up is up so now it's up to us for proper feedback if we want improvements. Goes to sign up.

 

[deathblooms2k4]

For those of you saying people should have known better. It was really difficult outside of watching streams to get a solid opinion one way or another when the game was released.

From this thread: http://testyourmight.com/threads/the-mkx-netcode-complaint-thread.52459/page-16