Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Imagine the recent Star Wars Battlefront, only with less content, and even more almost redundant vehicles. That's this game.

 Kanluwen wrote:
From what I can find about Eternal Crusade, you're limited to 4 character slots unless you buy more and they made a priority to set up an "in-game currency shop" that could also be used for real money.

They had their in-game real-money store up and running before the game was playable, and any game that prioritises that over basic game functionality is not to be trusted.

 warboss wrote:
That's also the World of Tanks model (free to play but limited slots unless you buy more) and they're quite profitable.

But the key thing there is that those games are free. This game is not. This is paying for the opportunity to pay more. You are paying the price of a AAA new release game for an incomplete product. I almost want to call it fraud.

It appears you have at most biased or basic knowledge of the game. The game was started like a faux-Kickstarter, with various pledge levels earning you differing rewards based on how much you paid in (like a kickstarter.)
Only unlike a kickstarter, you were also gaining access to the alpha, which means a large amount of the testing done for the game is by players.

There was no immediate priority given to an "in-game item shop" that was anything beyond a small preview of what your pledge earned you. Most of the pledge levels came with an amount of in game currency used to buy cosmetic skins for weapons. The shop you refer to allowed you to get a glimpse of these weapons.

It's funny seeing so much hate from people who obviously don't know much about the history of the project or its current status. Not to mention many of these same people decry the particular business model they are using, but see no problem with pledgin money to kickstarters (which use an extremely similar business model.)

TLDR; Haters gonna hate?

It isn't blind hate, microtransactions in paid games are crap and microtransactions for digital goods in paid games for which not even an alpha is available, meaning people can't make any reasonable kind of judgement about the quality and are going on hype alone, is extra crap. If they cared about making a game as much as they cared about selling imaginary power swords the project would be run vastly differently, and the "haters" are people who rightly read the cynicism for what it is. I've followed the whole thing closely and it's going to be a disaster. Honestly with some great 40k games recently like Battlefleet I'm sad that this one's going ahead, it's not going to do the IP any favours whatsoever.

As opposed to real power swords ? I think we all get it. You don't like it.

Imaginary as opposed to something you can at least get access to. Not as opposed to real power swords, since they're fictional. I mean, I thought that was obvious. At the time they were hypothetical weapons for a game the substance of which was totally intangible.

And yeah, sure, boil it down to I don't like it. I definitely took the time to write that so that you could sum it up for me, so thanks. Helpful.

Lots of opinions from people tht have not played the game and are just posting what they have heard this seems like to me.

Im not a fan of the game, or the DLC, but DLC is part and parcel of online gaming now and has been for the past ten years or more and its only going to get worse.
Its not like you have to buy it, plenty of people have more money than sense and are willing to part with it on a whim, each to his own I say.

I do not like it as it promised to play like Planetside, four races fighting for the control of a planet and at the moment its just seperate matches like in battlefield, its not very enjoyable to me.
I am really not liking the third person perspective much anymore either.

It was never going to work as well as they said it would, the promised in game functions and mechanics all seemed pretty far fetched to me, a lot of the ideas like voting on a chapter heirarchy and organising massive assaults on huge well defended cites, were a bit hopefull to say the least.

Still for anyone interested, I think you should watch some of the dev streams here on twitch to see more about it.

https://www.twitch.tv/40kcrusade/profile

If we were like, commenting on the gameplay not having played it then maybe that would be relevant but my criticism is with the business model and the obvious cynicism it displays - playing the game wouldn't do anything to change that. As it happens though you can get a good impression from videos and streams, and from watching a few of those it's looking very basic.

A) This trailer looks ROUGH. Like, worse than the old 40k Space Marine for PS3 game.

B) Even if it's rough, if it's fun, I'll probably still pick this up because I'm a sucker for a fun 3rd person shooter.

C) I'm still salty THQ went under. I enjoyed the feth out of Space Marine and wanted to see where the trilogy went.

Yeah, I was an early supporter. You spend more time crawling around on the ground than actually fighting and the map design is terrible. Controls are clunky and playing as a Space Marine you do not feel like you're one of the elite super soldiers wearing amazing power armor with incredible stamina and strength. You run out of stamina super fast, melee is weak and drains you ridiculously fast. As for jump packs.. lol what a joke. Nah, if you like 40k, this has 40k stuff IN it. Sure. If you like video games though.. this is a solid miss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
A) This trailer looks ROUGH. Like, worse than the old 40k Space Marine for PS3 game.

B) Even if it's rough, if it's fun, I'll probably still pick this up because I'm a sucker for a fun 3rd person shooter.

C) I'm still salty THQ went under. I enjoyed the feth out of Space Marine and wanted to see where the trilogy went.

This is nothing like Space Marine.. which I was deeply hoping for.

With surprisingly competent GW games coming out (total warhammer, battlefleet gothic, deathwing), I'd like to hold out hope that this game might be ok.

And I'm fine with them abandoning the MMO aspect, I'm not sure that would have ever worked. A battlefield/battlefront type game with 40k flavor could be fun.

That being said, the developer of this game's library largely consists of cheap shovelware franchise tie-ins that to do nothing more than lure in unsuspecting buyers - usually children's movie video games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviour_Interactive

So, I generally expect there to be about the same level of quality in this game as there is in, say, "Phineas and ferb: quest for cool stuff" or "doritos crash course 2".

And those could be awesome games, I suppose.

But more likely, they put the put the absolute minimum possible into those games in order to have a mostly functional game to lure in as much money as possible from unsuspecting consumers familiar with the game's franchise but not with exploitative game developers. Because that appears to be their business model.

such awe:

Week releases
New bases:
Sector Imperialis: 32mm Round Bases (60) 26€
Sector Imperialis: Large Base Detail Kit 26€
Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing)
Sector Imperialis: 60mm Round Bases and 75mm&90mm Oval Bases 26€

New paints: (We may have extreme limitations on these for the first order.)
Citadel Layer: Fulgurite Copper 4.50€
Citadel Layer: Skullcrusher Brass 4.50€
Citadel Layer: Stormhost Silver 4.50€
Citadel Shade: Agrax Earthshade Gloss (24ml) 6€
Citadel Shade: Nuln Oil Gloss (24ml) 6€
Citadel Shade: Reikland Fleshshade Gloss (24ml) 6€
Citadel Technical: Soulstone Blue 3.30€ (If painted over bright metallic colours, should create a gemstone-effect)
Citadel Technical: Spiritstone Red 3.30€
Citadel Technical: Waystone Green 3.30€

Kap'n Krump wrote:That being said, the developer of this game's library largely consists of cheap shovelware franchise tie-ins that to do nothing more than lure in unsuspecting buyers - usually children's movie video games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviour_Interactive

So, I generally expect there to be about the same level of quality in this game as there is in, say, "Phineas and ferb: quest for cool stuff" or "doritos crash course 2".

And those could be awesome games, I suppose.

How dare you insult the maker of the Kimpossible video game series! In all seriousness, it's not very reassuring that most of their recent titles are on platforms infamous for swimming in 3rd party shovelware like the DS, Wii, and mobile. I will say though that the original Doritos Crash Course game was actually quite fun... very limited in scope but they did a good job with what they came out with. Hopefully the company will be able to break out of that apparent shovelware niche. Since I'm not interested enough to look up the metacritic scores on their dozens of games, I can't say for sure whether they were shovelware but the massive number of rapid fire licensed games on those particular platforms isn't encouraging.

aracersss wrote:such awe:

Week releases
New bases:

Spoiler:

Sector Imperialis: 32mm Round Bases (60) 26€
Sector Imperialis: Large Base Detail Kit 26€
Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing)
Sector Imperialis: 60mm Round Bases and 75mm&90mm Oval Bases 26€

New paints: (We may have extreme limitations on these for the first order.)
Citadel Layer: Fulgurite Copper 4.50€
Citadel Layer: Skullcrusher Brass 4.50€
Citadel Layer: Stormhost Silver 4.50€
Citadel Shade: Agrax Earthshade Gloss (24ml) 6€
Citadel Shade: Nuln Oil Gloss (24ml) 6€
Citadel Shade: Reikland Fleshshade Gloss (24ml) 6€
Citadel Technical: Soulstone Blue 3.30€ (If painted over bright metallic colours, should create a gemstone-effect)
Citadel Technical: Spiritstone Red 3.30€
Citadel Technical: Waystone Green 3.30€

I think you may have the wrong thread here unless those bases and paint colors are paint DLC customization options for a 40k video game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:
A) This trailer looks ROUGH. Like, worse than the old 40k Space Marine for PS3 game.

B) Even if it's rough, if it's fun, I'll probably still pick this up because I'm a sucker for a fun 3rd person shooter.

C) I'm still salty THQ went under. I enjoyed the feth out of Space Marine and wanted to see where the trilogy went.

I wouldn't say much worse though. The particle effects are a bit weird especially when the Chaos Sorcerer is killed by the Lascannon. Also, just because he's a Space Vampire Blood Angel doesn't mean he has to be a Twilight Space Vampire! There is way too much sparkle on that Blood Angels forehead bling for my liking. None of that is reassuring though since being almost as nice looking as a LAST gen console title from four years earlier isn't exactly a bragging point. I'm also a huge fan of 3rd person shooters and put hundreds of hours into space marine (both due to that interest as well as the simple yet addictive multiplayer).

Eh, we'll see in the end. They can't release an "alpha" on consoles (although a broken beta is possible as a retail release though) so we'll see a hell of a lot more in the months to come (assuming it isn't delayed).

The devs do put in lots of work to develop and tweak the game, but IMO it hasn't really improved over time.

The game is cool, even fun at times, but it isn't very good. Just basically one huge cluster****. Dying constantly, clunky controls, getting stuck on environmental features, friendly fire or stunning your teammates in close combat, horrible performance issues (worse for some, fine for others, but even on lowest settings mine runs horribly ever since a certain patch).

I don't really know what they could do to turn this into a good game. Somehow improving performance in a meaningful way (I have no idea how this works, just saying) would go a long way toward being worthwhile. Melee is a mess. Maybe by the time it's ready they will have ironed it all out, but with the current state of the game I'd say there's at least a year of work before that happens.

I played a couple hours of it earlier this year. It was kinda fun and had some really entertaining bits (powerfisting tanks so hard they fly and run someone else over is hilarious) but it was nowhere near completion. It felt like it needed another year minimum. I think the devs overpromised and that half of the things they want to put in the game won't make it in at this rate.

The YouTube videos make it look very much like a carbon copy of the Space Marine multiplayer mode, which was kinda fun.

It's a shame that they haven't managed to do much except poorly copy SM so far, but I'm hoping they might deliver some expanded content later. No thumbs up / down at this point from me yet, but at the moment Deathwing certainly looks more promising.

 prowla wrote:
The YouTube videos make it look very much like a carbon copy of the Space Marine multiplayer mode, which was kinda fun.

It's a shame that they haven't managed to do much except poorly copy SM so far, but I'm hoping they might deliver some expanded content later. No thumbs up / down at this point from me yet, but at the moment Deathwing certainly looks more promising.

Space marine had a working melee system that was both rewarding and punishing. This system is just punishing. You feel good when you score a kill, but there's very little actual skill involved....it's more about praying that you don't get shot to death in the .2 seconds you have between when you land and when you can start attacking.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:
friendly fire

In the first ever match I tried, I spent the whole time hunting my own squad and repeatedly killing them.

Not on purpose!

I just had no idea what the map and HUD markers were, so kept chasing down what I thought were the enemy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warboss wrote:
That's also the World of Tanks model (free to play but limited slots unless you buy more) and they're quite profitable.

But the key thing there is that those games are free. This game is not. This is paying for the opportunity to pay more. You are paying the price of a AAA new release game for an incomplete product. I almost want to call it fraud.

This. 100% This.

Please note that Eternal Crusade is STILL in closed Alpha stages/Early Access via steam.

I've seen games crash and die even as late as open beta. In fact, another 40k related game did just that. And it was cleaner and more polished than this currently is.

Heck, iirc Eternal Crusade has died twice already and had 3 design shifts since it was first conceptualised and announced (like, all the way back in 2005-2006? I remember there being something in WD about it).

I have no faith in this.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warboss wrote:
That's also the World of Tanks model (free to play but limited slots unless you buy more) and they're quite profitable.

But the key thing there is that those games are free. This game is not. This is paying for the opportunity to pay more. You are paying the price of a AAA new release game for an incomplete product. I almost want to call it fraud.

This. 100% This.

Please note that Eternal Crusade is STILL in closed Alpha stages/Early Access via steam.

I've seen games crash and die even as late as open beta. In fact, another 40k related game did just that. And it was cleaner and more polished than this currently is.

Heck, iirc Eternal Crusade has died twice already and had 3 design shifts since it was first conceptualised and announced (like, all the way back in 2005-2006? I remember there being something in WD about it).

I have no faith in this.

Hey not okay. I was actually really looking forward to that game, and then it died. I'm still salty.

Whoah.. okay.. there's some bad info going on.
The game IMO is gak but it is going to release as F2P.
However, it will be freemium (from last I saw). The F2P will only include the Orks. Unlocking the others will be through micro transactions. Personal vehicles also appeared to be a paid feature as well as did some weapons and cosmetics.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 warboss wrote:
That's also the World of Tanks model (free to play but limited slots unless you buy more) and they're quite profitable.

But the key thing there is that those games are free. This game is not. This is paying for the opportunity to pay more. You are paying the price of a AAA new release game for an incomplete product. I almost want to call it fraud.

This. 100% This.

Please note that Eternal Crusade is STILL in closed Alpha stages/Early Access via steam.

I've seen games crash and die even as late as open beta. In fact, another 40k related game did just that. And it was cleaner and more polished than this currently is.

Heck, iirc Eternal Crusade has died twice already and had 3 design shifts since it was first conceptualised and announced (like, all the way back in 2005-2006? I remember there being something in WD about it).

I have no faith in this.

Those were different projects by different studios. Dark Millennium online was the last one. You don't have to have faith in this game (I don't have much left) but it's not the same as those other ones. This is having issues because it's an inexperienced developer without much budget.

I'm sorry to say this game looks like absolute gak on every single level that matters, and quite a few that don't. Huge pass for me, and not only that, I am likely to have a diminished opinion of anyone who admits to buying it. That's how gak it looks.

There sure are lots of white knights coming out to defend this junk. It will be lucky to break 60k people at launch. I have heard " you are just misinformed" as an argument. Well bud, that "misinformation" is the prevalent belief of how the game is and will be. And based off that opinion, be it good or bad, will make or break a game. Your devs better do something to patch that up in a big way or you are just going to get more and more people telling others to skip this one. Then it's DOA.

 Orock wrote:
There sure are lots of white knights coming out to defend this junk. It will be lucky to break 60k people at launch. I have heard " you are just misinformed" as an argument. Well bud, that "misinformation" is the prevalent belief of how the game is and will be. And based off that opinion, be it good or bad, will make or break a game. Your devs better do something to patch that up in a big way or you are just going to get more and more people telling others to skip this one. Then it's DOA.

Really ?
I dont see lots of people defending it all, there a few people that dont like people making stuff up about the game, but even most of the early access backers have backed out already lol

 Brother SRM wrote:

Those were different projects by different studios. Dark Millennium online was the last one. You don't have to have faith in this game (I don't have much left) but it's not the same as those other ones. This is having issues because it's an inexperienced developer without much budget.

This is the same project, rebranded, renamed and passed along developers like a hot potato. I wouldn't say this is new.

And you say it's having issues because it's an inexperienced developer without much budget. They're under the umbrella of Bandai Namco - i.e. the people who produce Dark Souls, Tekken, the DragonBall games and the Naruto games. They have funding. They're just not filtering it into this project.

Because this project is the Eternal Hand-Me-Down of projects.

Bandai Namco didn't produce Dark Souls, they were the publisher, but not the producer. From Software was the producer of the Souls series.
Publishers and producers/developers aren't the same thing.

 Orock wrote:
There sure are lots of white knights coming out to defend this junk. It will be lucky to break 60k people at launch. I have heard " you are just misinformed" as an argument. Well bud, that "misinformation" is the prevalent belief of how the game is and will be. And based off that opinion, be it good or bad, will make or break a game. Your devs better do something to patch that up in a big way or you are just going to get more and more people telling others to skip this one. Then it's DOA.

"I'm ignorant and it's okay. Don't try and inform me otherwise, it's the devs responsibility."



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorTom11 wrote:
I'm sorry to say this game looks like absolute gak on every single level that matters, and quite a few that don't. Huge pass for me, and not only that, I am likely to have a diminished opinion of anyone who admits to buying it. That's how gak it looks.

Considering it's still in Alpha, yeah it does. Most games look like that in Alpha.
That being said, I'm not holding out hope for this one.
That's the first step on the road to disappointment.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Brother SRM wrote:

Those were different projects by different studios. Dark Millennium online was the last one. You don't have to have faith in this game (I don't have much left) but it's not the same as those other ones. This is having issues because it's an inexperienced developer without much budget.

This is the same project, rebranded, renamed and passed along developers like a hot potato. I wouldn't say this is new.

And you say it's having issues because it's an inexperienced developer without much budget. They're under the umbrella of Bandai Namco - i.e. the people who produce Dark Souls, Tekken, the DragonBall games and the Naruto games. They have funding. They're just not filtering it into this project.

Because this project is the Eternal Hand-Me-Down of projects.

Nope, this is nothing to do with dark milienium, all the work on this was started from scratch.

The best approach is probably a wait and see attitude. Don't get suckered in by a preorder "free" shiny power sword bonus or exclusive new hat for your Malibu Stacy Marine for the first 40,000 customers. I'll give this game another fair shake again in 6 months to a year when it comes out hopefully. What I see now compared with what I saw last year isn't exactly encouraging though. *fingers crossed*

 Rayvon wrote:

 Orock wrote:
There sure are lots of white knights coming out to defend this junk. It will be lucky to break 60k people at launch. I have heard " you are just misinformed" as an argument. Well bud, that "misinformation" is the prevalent belief of how the game is and will be. And based off that opinion, be it good or bad, will make or break a game. Your devs better do something to patch that up in a big way or you are just going to get more and more people telling others to skip this one. Then it's DOA.

Really ?
I dont see lots of people defending it all, there a few people that dont like people making stuff up about the game, but even most of the early access backers have backed out already lol

I was an early backer. I gave it a shot, had concerns and didn't like the direction, regardless of how much polish they put on it. I got a refund and haven't looked back other than to glance into this thread after a few months. I'll give the F2P mode a shot to see if my suspicions were correct.

I'm surprised they gave out refunds. Did you have to jump through hoops or initiate it unilaterally like with a credit card/paypal chargeback? Or did they have a policy that allowed refunds under certain circumstances?