Well i agree with some of that Potski, but i think you make it look a bit too one sided.
The implications of Johan's statement were a very clear NOT BEFORE LATE Q3 AND POSSIBLY LATER THAN THAT.
Irrelevant, things have changed, but someone has not gone back and edited it.
No, you folk misled yourselves, choosing to misread what he said thinking Alpha was already completed and that release was imminent. How exactly they could release it in nine weeks time when they haven't even started Beta is absolutely beyond any reasoning.
So, that was the situation on 20 March and it still appears to be the case today.
I think Johans Statement was far from very clear "minimum Q3 or later" to me and many others. Raising hopes about "final months to release" and "weekly dev diarys" sounded much more like the stated Q2 release date. I was sceptical about that but Johans post made me think: "Maybe they can do it, what do i know." I am not in the development process, so i trust the estimations of the people who are. But the following silence of the devs on the forums made it soon very clear that they had been bumping into some quite substantial problems and there is no way of a release soon. There have been a multitude of threads in the recent weeks of people asking about the release schedule and they all got locked. So there was clearly a need for an official update and the scheduling was far from clear cut, they dont even have an official statement concerning possible release right now.
A strawman is an argument made up by someone, attributed to his debaters, to be easily dismissed by himself. Like saying "people should not get worked up about the delay, software development can be unpredictable." When nobody really is worked up about that. You made a very long and well reasoned argument for something i feel isn't something people take issue with. My impression is, that every post which says " I am sad that they wont make it till their self set goal" is almost always followed by "but i understand that they can run into problems and i rather have a well made game later" Your post was in line with some others i have seen and i felt obliged to point out to you, that i feel you are not addressing what I and others feel to be poorly conducted and that is their communication or lack thereof in the recent weeks. Which is a shame because you put a lot of effort in your post, and i wouldnt want you to to feel targeted because of that.
You also said that " we were not promised a Q2 release" which i and others couldn't square in light of the statements in the dev diary in January or the Sticky Topics on the Forum and even Johans post in March, and i thought putting these statements together might explain, why people came to think of a Q2 release is possible. I dont think weighting these now with hindsight is a fair assessement of what kind of exectations they raised then. I also put these quotes together to show if this was as clear cut as you claim, then why weren't they more careful in their announcement, as by you logic even in January a Q2 release was out of the question.
I hope that cleared that up.
Yours sincerly
People being up in arms on the forum = stuff like this thread (and the other 20). What else would it look like? Pitchforks, tar and feathers?
I dont feel that the forum is up in arms. You are here long enough but i think people are acting quite reasonable, stating their dissappointment while equally understanding the decision. (Counters discussiont that is civil war)
As for your earlier remark about my use of ad hominem arguments and vitriol, I suggest that you review your own arguments. Potski made a very reasoned post that had nothing to do with you, yet you are the one going for drive-by accusations.
Well it was you who quoted me in a post that had nothing to do with you, questioning how i ever could criticise them while not having any financial investment, which i think i addressed. While saying that people "couldnt connect the dots and make logical inferences", so basicly calling me stupid. I am sorry to say that didn't invoke much sympathy for you. It is also a bit telling that you never adressed the arguments i made, maybe you should review my arguments as well.
Potski and i have a disagreement which we are dicussing openly and civil on the forums. He made a well reasoned argument and i adress it as i adressed yours. If Potski feels in any way personally attacked by me, i hope he will point that out to me and i will apologize. Right now i feel we are both seeing each other with goodwill and respect, something i think you were clearly lacking in your first post addressing me.
