IGN Review

It's actually not an assumption, I am 100% certain I saw an explanation stating that some of the new Uber devs have been hired after the steam sales during the 90$ phase were good. Though I am too lazy to look for any such quotes

Uber moved to a bigger building because there team had grown, this mostly indicates that it's also more expensive and Uber got money on there hands. Because if they are in bad financial weather not a sane person would spent even more money when you Don't have it. But Uber has made weird choices before that no sane person could understand ^^ but then again if financially healthy the release was yet another non sane decision!

Petroglyph was using the same reason (we need a bigger building for our bigger team), but the truth is they failed at End of Nations pretty hard at that time, it's their second failed game in a chain.

Actually I think I read what you said incorrectly, my bad. I read it as roughly "There sales are bad, and that's why they released early"

My apologies if I had.

I can understand some reviews specifying the save feature. Less the online one noting the recent trend of the genre.

I can't understand how the video obviously didn't get the game and if crude neanderthal don't understand then must be game's fault. I seen reviews objectively note features present and missing and give it a 6 or higher. I don't know why IGN has to be "those people". It doesn't suprise me though. Do you think "Mario Party" and it's series is not a well made game and is just terribly made and useless and a ripoff to buy? IGN regularly rates them 4 and below, don't they? The games as well technically function and as such they probably deserve a 5 at lowest. But hey, the older cool kids look respectable to all the little kids when they bash stuff.

Btw, don't remember Mario Party games, nearly any of them, having bugs. GTA Online did in fact have some glaring bugs. But they don't rate on merit, features, gameplay, originality, or value compared to development difficulty. They rate whatever da **** they want to rate. That is why their site in general is usually the most avoided information I dig through. Looking at google... third site is IGN, skip that, what's below that...

EDIT: What the relative calculated **** is this?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/10/22/grand-theft-auto-online-review

They didn't give the motherf***er a review, stating it's changing state and unfair nature of it's rough release. HYPOCRITICAL MOTHERF***ers... No way, seriously? This right here? This is exactly why the sounds that come out of IGN's mouths don't form words and instead form a bunch of loud stereotypical echo chamber dribbel. Let me rate IGN: For their generally rough release, the fact that they have if anything gotten worse since, their generally unchanging state and nature, and the broken nonsensical function they attempt to perform, I'd give them a 4 tops. Hey, I won't rate a 0, they technically have a website and at least do something based on video games, they just do a terrible and nonfunctional job while they are at it.

What did I tell you guys? ****ing IGN is completely contradictory all the time and only rates for the pay. I can only imagine the studio behind GTA Gave them a **** ton of money. Heck, GTA IV got a 10/10 and that game was NOT worthy of a 10/10, not bad, but not a 10/10.

Bleh my opinion of IGN is dropping further every single day.

Check "Steam game and stats", scroll down to "top games by player count", Planetary Annihilation is no longer on the list. The lowest ranked RTS is Medieval 2 Total War, that game is almost eight years old, Planetary Annihilation was released 16 days ago. The Metacritic rating (for PA) has been removed, but the number on metacritic remains at 59.

I don't understand, how is it measured? Is it a day to day basis, over a week, to that very hour? If it's to the hour... It is pretty late in both the US and Europe atm.

http://www.steamcharts.com/app/233250#All

You know there is a text to read just before the rating?

I've never seen that page. Good catch.

Anyhow, how can you guys keep complaining about Steam? First is doing an outstanding job in selling the game. Just look at the content here, it's impressive: http://steamcommunity.com/app/233250

As second aspect, sales on Steam is what kept the game floating in the last year or two, and bankrolled Uber after the Kickstarter campaign. Without Steam there couldn't be any game. Money from Kickstarter wasn't going to be enough. Remember?

If PA now is going down in sales it's not because Steam or because the customers on Steam are all stupid. You know very well why it is happening.

It is a shame, but it is not really customers' fault if the game gets bad reviews.

Honestly, I can't argue it is nice that steam sells the game, but the community vocal at steam are not the best and it isn't just "this game".

It is like, every non-viral game. It is like, the steam community are given notecards to read from.

Ok, perhaps sales aren't going exactly as expected. I don't know anything about the PA Digital Deluxe Add-On, but it didn't sell much...

http://www.steamcharts.com/search?q=planetary annihilation

It is a cosmetic skin pack. *shrug*

Also, I believe there is a pack for the game and the addon. I assume it sold the worse because SXX pointed out the price is... wierd. But it would technically also be considered the same.

Also, the game has a standalone shop, probably more of the sales stem from it.

Yes. But the content on that page isn't published by aliens. It comes from Steam users, and it's so much richer than what I usually see on this forum. Some magnitude richer.

It's a long story but people on Steam haven't been treated equally in the past months/years, and much has been done to make them feeling like second class customers. Now some of them are paying Uber back. They felt fooled and want to advise new users not to trust Uber. You can argue until morning, but it's their right to do so.

I see how some of them are raging and exaggerate tones. But hej, there are people in here too that go all the other extreme with the same passion and energy

Thing is, if I say to someone not to buy a game like PA, I am not doing my interest, but their owns. If the game is good in a month or so they will think I'm an idiot and purchase the game nonetheless. On the other hand, if I tell them to buy it no matter what, that's less of a honest recommendation, because the main reason I want them to, is so that I can keep playing myself.

Isn't it?

Perhaps, but it's hard to say, 'cos there aren't any data to support it.

Also, Steam still is a source of customers, even if people decided later to buy directly from Uber. I've seen few coming from Steam, asking about the game, and been redirected to Uber-shop by Uber's supporters and backers.

People that later asked how to re-link their game with Steam

That is kind of the thing. I would never ask to recommend or rate disingeniously or falsely. However, I have seen six or seven threads linking to steam or reddit. Now, one reddit and one steam link was to a pretty neat game discussion. The rest, were things like Uber pyramid scheme talk and other pretty much falsified information.

False information is bad in both directions. My personal opinion on the game, is just that it isn't very user friendly and that is pretty factual, but there are plenty of games that rely on user technical aptitude, and this is just as good if you figure out what you are doing. No harder than several other games I played that were popular but lacked similar gameplay documentation or how-to.

That is a good thing. The game is basically... what does "steam" call it? Basically, it's cross platform without individual purchase for each platform. Some games require purchase for linux library for instance and whatnot. And other games you see something steam calls it, where one purchase works on windows and linux and whatnot?

Well, the game was big about "if you buy on steam, you can use standalone, and if you buy standalone you can convert to steam key". Basically, any way you do it, you can play on the other platform.

I don't think this reviewer has a sound grasp of these types of games. He said that for games of this type, "brute force carries the day." I agree that spam is an integral part of this game, but if he can't see any strategic options or tactical decisions beyond that, then he's an idiot.

In his introduction he says that this game is in the tradition of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander with rate-based economies and epic scale. He then concludes his review by saying that there are so many good alternatives to this style of epic-scale RTS. So many alternatives? What, SupCom and TA?

Asides from that, I am patiently waiting for an offline mode to this game, because I often cannot play it due to issues between the server and I.

Picture?

well you can meka them in editor but not load them :
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/40-planet-systems-we-will-ever-have-access-to-such-scale.64209/