igotAhalo
Mortal
Again, I never said that the game couldn't be played for anyone. *most* people have had issues with online. Just because some people can stream online play doesn't make what I'm saying any less objective. Just because a problem isn't happening with everybody, doesn't mean that problem isn't an objective one. You seem to think just because there are a chunk of people who have played online, that the problems many people face are aren't facts. For some people, the game is playable, but for many it is not .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.
an·ec·do·tal
ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
- (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
And my original point was not simply just "I was sold a product that does not work" it was exactly what salt quoted, the comment directly above yours. These two points :
"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" ?"
If you agree with those points above, then you agree with my position, if you don't I don't know what to tell you. We can go in circles like this all day, but I don't really see the point. We disagree, and both of us believe the other isn't getting them.