If they don't put their best efforts to bring the game you can be damn sure they would have legal issues, that clause doesn't give full protection to MS to jus stop support and development a week after or anything that isn't show good will.

It's a Beta, it shouldn't be right there with proper finished games.

The nomination is a joke. 

It's a Beta, it shouldn't be right there with proper finished games.

The nomination is a joke. 

My post or Ludicrous post? LOL

Oh. Interesting.  Well I still think that is what the person meant. Even though that appears to be wrong.

I wonder how many people are buying it "now" think they will get a discount on the full version later on?

Isn't it weird to charge $30 for a "early access" version, and a full retail version?

Really? I had the game day one and managed to play fine... maybe you're mistaking just the online with the entire game? Singleplayer worked a charm, just the multiplayer that was down, and as someone that prefers singleplayer for racing games anyway, I gave zero fucks, lol :P 

Of course, but the clause isn't intended to protect MS from that kind of extreme. It's a general warning that they can't guarantee the game will be finished (it's not even theirs), and that the game can change over time. It protects them if, for example, in 2 years time a big update releases that changes the game into something someone dislikes. It's a step of distance placed between MS and the developer's long-term actions.

I personally expect MS would offer refunds even in the above example, but they're not going to put themselves in a situation that obligates them to. That disclaimer gives them some potential flexibility.

I don't think it should, but I also don't think busted port jobs should be up for consideration either. 

It's a game that was playable this year that millions of people have enjoyed. Its GOTY material.

Yours.

But on a serious note I dont see anything wrong with game preview. The game was clearly advertised to come to game preview. In all PR and trailers game preview was mentioned and when buying games I'm game preview you know the game is unfinished. Yeah they're selling an unfinished game but at the same time you're still going to get a finished game. Game Preview gives the community to voice their opinions and play while the game gets updated which can lead to a better final product. In a way its like kickstarter but you actually get access to the game while its in development. For those that don't want game released unfinished then just wait til it's done. In a few days 1.0 comes out on PC and you seem to be interested in the game so I'd suggest you give it a go.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that final version would be $60. Im just sating if you buy the game now you get access to the full version in addition to the game preview. People are acting like this is their final product @$30.

If half the game didn't work, then yes... it was broken. 

Got it on PC yesterday.
All Ultra, 1440P, never once dropped below 35fps. 50-55fps was the average on my 6~ year old PC.

60fps fully locked with the old 3930K @ 4.8ghz.

This game is brutal on the CPU, it does seem to use around 8~ CPU threads, but pegs one core higher than the others... It's no wonder the consoles are struggling with this though as the 8-core Jaguar is only a fraction of the power.

I found the game itself though to be extremely ugly, even on Ultra settings, could only imagine how bad it looks on the Xbox One and Xbox One X which I might get at a later date once the shiznit is ironed out.

I was fine with Splatoon coming out with limited content and free updates at a reduced pricepoint, because what was there was polished.

It delivered on smooth 60fps almost all the time and the art style and visual presentation was pleasing even if it wasn't technically the most advanced.

I think that is what most people are talking about when they say 'gameplay over visuals' while hitting the highest resolutions and prettiest details isn't requirement as long as the gameply is good, a balance is expected and graphics have to be at least good enough to not get in the way of gameplay either. To come back to my Splatoon example: If they had just pushed it out with their dummy 'soy-block' graphics I would NOT have been happy with the game at all.

FPS is part of gameplay though and does not sit on the graphics side of the argument.

It's a game that was playable this year that millions of people have enjoyed. Its GOTY material.

Yours.

But on a serious note I dont see anything wrong with game preview. The game was clearly advertised to come to game preview. In all PR and trailers game preview was mentioned and when buying games I'm game preview you know the game is unfinished. Yeah they're selling an unfinished game but at the same time you're still going to get a finished game. Game Preview gives the community to voice their opinions and play while the game gets updated which can lead to a better final product. In a way its like kickstarter but you actually get access to the game while its in development. For those that don't want game released unfinished then just wait til it's done. In a few days 1.0 comes out on PC and you seem to be interested in the game so I'd suggest you give it a go.

Of course, but the clause isn't intended to protect MS from that kind of extreme. It's a general warning that they can't guarantee the game will be finished (it's not even theirs), and that the game can change over time. It protects them if, for example, in 2 years time a big update releases that changes the game into something someone dislikes. It's a step of distance placed between MS and the developer's long-term actions.

I personally expect MS would offer refunds even in the above example, but they're not going to put themselves in a situation that obligates them to. That disclaimer gives them some potential flexibility.

The way the disclaimer is but doesn't make it at all not get to that extreme, the way it's written and could be interpreted is full protection against any shenanigans, and that is why I said all the burden was on the customer and that is why on court it would probably be reversed if MS didn't take all the steps they can to release the game.

If people were able to earn the full 60USD back from things like MP on KZ using temporary frames to hit "1080p" with 60fps on MP then how would one not expect that they not delivering the game wouldn't generate lawsuits and wins from buyers?

Also if you launch a MP game and shut the server 6 months after you would probably face legal issues, while shutting after 5 years is less likely to generate you problems.

Unbelievable.

Sure the busted ports shouldn't, but on this note are you saying that even the main game that is working good should be nominated because it have a shitty port or just the port shouldn't be nominated? Because although I would agree that if a game have bad versions the game as a whole shouldn't be enjoying good sales and getting prizes if they are evaluating only one version then they can say the others hold no weight on it.

So millions of people playing it make it a GOTY? So CoD should win GOTY every year, or the candy crush type games... the merits for GOTY isn't two dimensional "being release" "millions playing".

You are going to get if it releases a finished game, they already have a fineprint saying the game may not release and they aren't responsible for it.

If the full game doesn't release this is all they will get. And would make no sense for you to pay in advance and then don't get the end product.

Please explain how the MP not working makes half of the game.

I saw the video yesterday on base X1, that looks ugly. People were saying PS360 level of IQ, but to me it looks worse than a PS2 game. If I were going by memory this is level of Medal of Honor on PS1.

I'm not on the crowd of "gameplay above graphics". But I agree with you that for a game to be enjoyable it must hit at least an acceptable level on framerate, graphics, gamedesign, gameplay, etc. Our preferences and what have more value is sure personal and may make we prefer a cinematic game or a platformer, but if the cinematic game have bad framerates or is unplayable or the platformer look ugly they shall fail.

So millions of people playing it make it a GOTY? So CoD should win GOTY every year, or the candy crush type games... the merits for GOTY isn't two dimensional "being release" "millions playing".

You are going to get if it releases a finished game, they already have a fineprint saying the game may not release and they aren't responsible for it.

The way the disclaimer is but doesn't make it at all not get to that extreme, the way it's written and could be interpreted is full protection against any shenanigans, and that is why I said all the burden was on the customer and that is why on court it would probably be reversed if MS didn't take all the steps they can to release the game.

If people were able to earn the full 60USD back from things like MP on KZ using temporary frames to hit "1080p" with 60fps on MP then how would one not expect that they not delivering the game wouldn't generate lawsuits and wins from buyers?

Also if you launch a MP game and shut the server 6 months after you would probably face legal issues, while shutting after 5 years is less likely to generate you problems.