Based on your initial hissy fit reply it casts doubt on your beta testing experience.. In that typically people with beta testing experience have MORE understanding of what goes into a 'it', NOT LESS! Which your initial post proved you have very little understanding of what goes into 'it'

For example that initial post of your started off with

And the rest of that post only goes on, in summary, with your whining about feeling like an 'alpha' tester and helping a 'crack head' and referring to it all as a p*ss take of biblical proportions

Does that reply sound like someone with a wealth of knowledge and experience in beta testing?

I think most would agree it does not

SAVVY?

Or, put in your words, from that 1st post of yours

Capische?

It was and is testable.. Only thing you had to do was put a little effort into reading the posts by others that found a work around so they could continue to keep testing.. You know the things good beta testers do.

Never said it was un-true! Just pointed out that complaining about find a bug in a beta patch is like

Complaining about getting wet after jumping into a pool
Complaining about getting burnt after running into a burning building
Complaining about getting sun burnt after laying on the beach all day
Complaining about getting shot after pointing a gun at your head and pulling the trigger
Complaining about getting laid after ... mmmmm on 2nd thought clearly that one does not apply to you

As in all these results should be 'expected' from these actions

Which is what you did in your initial hissy fit tantrum filled post

Promise?

This means so much to me from the guy who said beta testing CoD is equivalent to helping a crack head

Ok.. ok.. ok. I give you two gold stars

Feel better now?

Too funny.. you don't even know what beta means and now your trying to claim that your the one that determines what is beta and what is alpha?

Please

Baaaaaaaaaa

Personally I'm very happy they sold me an "alpha" with the prospect of the sim being finished rather than cancelling the project. If they told us it was an "alpha" or "beta" there wouldn't have been enough copies sold to finance further work.

The statement that the community fixing the devs shody work is a joke as we would have nothing to fix if it weren't for the developers doing most of the work. I suppose we could wait for the community to build a far superior product from scratch, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Although the developers of the IL-2 series were community members who thought they could build a superior product to what was on the market and succeeded. Yet the so called community still turns on them with a vengence.

I do think those types of business practices are deceptive to say the least, whatever the product might be. While it might accomplish the short term goal of continued development, it might well sacrifice long term repeat sales. Too many feel burned by this release to the point that they may or may not be back. Hopefully those of us who stick will be sufficient enough in numbers to ensure more releases. I would think Luthier knows that well enough to avoid any more public relation disasters.

The early release accomplished the "long term goal", now we have a strong possibility of the series continuing for years. If it wasn't released as is, it was finito, done, dead, there was no more development funds available to finish the project. Unless you believe they released the sim unfinished just to piss everyone off.

Further public relation disasters should be avoided now that the game engine is basically working, and you only need to flesh out the new theaters. BUT it will depend on how long it takes to fix the bugs and add missing features, before they can work full tilt on the new theaters. That said new features can still be added to COD as they release the new theaters, the same way they developed the original IL-2 series.

Not what I said. I said what they did was deceptive. As in they knowingly lied to those of us who supported them for years that CoD was running well on a less than state of the art computer. If you choose not to remember those pre-release statements that's fine. For me, I prefer to take a more balanced approach. I'm still hoping CoD lives up to it's potential while keeping in mind what was claimed and soon proven to be BS. I'll be supportive, not blind.

What type of business practices?

Keep in mind that Chivas, as sensible and as reasonable and as adult of a view he has on this, which I and many others share

Does not work for 1C, nor does he have any proof that 1C intentionally released a 'alpha' let alone 'beta' product.

Which is not to say they didn't, only that I know of no contractual agreements that 1C failed to provide to us the users. Put another way, what advertisement on the package or advertisement at the steam download did CoD not provide?

I know we were 'told' (not to be confused with promised) of many things over the past 6 years of CoD development that were 'intended' to be in the initial release, but didn't end up in the initial release.. But can 'anyone' point to anything advertised on the box or at the STEAM download that turned out not to be in the game?

Note I am honestly asking here!

And I am talking real things, not advertisements like 'best flight model' or best 'AI' which is subjective and thus debatable.

I am talking about real things (read false advertisement) like say, 20 flyable aircraft when in fact only 18 are flyable. Things like that!

Ill bet there are none, because if there were, it would be a simple mater for these poor but hurt smacktards to get their money back! And since they are still here instead of spending their money on some other game like Quake, I think we all (read adults) can agree that buggie does not equate false advertisement

As Chivas said, if they had told people the game wasn't working at release (some might say broken), would people have purchased it? Instead it seems that misinformation was put out that the game was running on a less than top of the line computer just before CoD's initial release to generate sales I would assume. There was genuine excitement about that on the UBI forum only to be ruined by less than glowing user reports. I find that deceptive. I said nothing about false advertising. I understand what buggy is. I understand all features previously mentioned over CoDs development lifetime might not make the initial release. What I don't understand is claiming boldly that a product works acceptably well when clearly it didn't. That is deception, if not an outright lie. More than that it was and is disappointing considering the relationship we previously had with the Il2 team.

Too much talking. I love this "alpha", "beta", "totally porked sim" since day one, and now...

[youtube]Ch2bf-QOVCI[/youtube]

EVEN MORE!