You still seem to fail at reading. I wrote:What is it with people accusing devs/PR of lying whenever they say something that then changes after the fact?
(emphasis added)This was either a lie or they failed to keep their word
That is not a direct accusation of lying, I am admitting multiple posibilities. Honestly, I think it's the second, as it's much more consistent with PDX behavior.
I don't have a problem with things changing, as long as it's done right. Feeding customer's expectations only to have them crushed later is not good PR nor good business. PDX seems to think that if they keep doing the same over and over again, they'll keep growing and earning more, and it's true. But they could grow and earn much more if they learned to do things better.Get a grip, and realise that things change.
I know that assuming is tempting but when you assume, you make an ass of you and me, so let's just don't. I know quite a lot about software development in general and a good bit about game devopment as well. But for some reason, I don't see PDX doing things the way that seems to make customers happy.You've also got no sensible way of telling when some of the fixes were completed. A "small" fix can take the whole month to be dealt with, especially if the problem it fixes is rare, difficult to duplicate, or tied into multiple systems within the game. Conversely a "large" fix for multiple issues can be resolved with one swift line of code sometimes, depending on what causes the issues in question.
As for actual issues, half of the contents of 1.6.2 was fixed by mods just days later, but that does not excuse not releasing even that as a hotfix. Then there were major issues that were very reproducible as things just didn't work at all for anyone, like government ethics attraction and starvation having no effect, that warranted a quick hotfix and because of their nature, could have been debugged really quickly (reproducible 100%) if the dev focused on them. And here we get back to the first point, as the devs apparently had other things to focus on.
And how does that relate to me (without EUIV), my friends and Stellaris?EUIV on the other hand, or any of their other current games? That's a lot more likely.
I didn't say it's not a bad thing, but it may have seemed so. I just never relied on that particular feature of steam, so I can't relate to you grievances with it. But just like everywhere else, the answer is not leaving, but trying to get it fixed. PDX as a company could put pressure on Valve that we as users never coud, even in large groups.I guess if you don't see why the "friends" list on Steam being unreliable is a bad thing, and potentially improved (at least theoretically) by a system that Paradox have direct control over, then there's no point talking about it.
Maybe by using steam ID's that you can obtain through the steam api the game already uses including the steam username and avatar to use in the list? You're inventing problem that does not exist.And of course, how do you whitelist/blacklist players on a platform you can't control?
So you're saying there is no filtering for hotjoin requests, confirming my previous point:It's a feature that can be added into the MP layer if Paradox want it, that isn't possible (to the best of my knowledge) whilst reliant on Steam.
Unless a way to list people, who can or cannot ask for a hotjoin, is implemented in the new system, your point seems to be quite invalid.
PS: I may just be venting my disappointment here, but that does not invalidate my reasoning.