Bota:16

Throw a friend request my way, B0TA16 (that's a zero not 'OH'). Something that bugs me is that after each map, you have to join a new "server". By the time 1 map gets done you and your team has started to "mesh", but then the map is over and off to another one with another group of random players. I know you can create a fireteam, but it's annoying nonetheless.

They downloaded a cracked *.exe file for Vegas and released it for the Steam version because the people who bought it off of Steam couldn't play because of the DRM. UBI didn't initially release a dedicated server *.exe for Vegas either. Eventually someone in the community "made" one, UBI eventually released what was necessary to have dedicated servers, it turned out to be the same as the community made one. I still scratch my head as to how UBI is still as successful as they are. Of course you take Assassin's Creed out of the equation and they don't have much to show as far as profits go.

I wouldn't call it blindly optimistic and you don't need to be condescending to the people who are supporting GB by saying that. I think most people are aware of the possibility that it won't get finished, but there's nothing wrong with people being "excited" for the type of game that BFS is trying t omake and many of us have been waiting for for a loooooong time.

Considering the amount of time and ultimately money that went into developing FS who's to say that it was all that profitable. The release got pushed back multiple times and from the first footage they showed, it went through a pretty drastic redesign. Their sales might have been better than expected, but I'm sure their expenses were also higher than normal as well. From the UBI PC forums people are reporting that there aren't many people online for Coop or PvP. So I doubt sales on PC have been anything but horrid. I wouldn't be surprised if UBI seriously rethinks the idea of another PC version of GR.

That was the reason for the Kickstarter and the function of Kickstarter in general. To back an IDEA. What BFS showed is essentially unfinished pieces to an unfinished game. In order to show all the "fun" things to do, they need money in order to create it. They expressed their ideas (<<<keyword) of what they thought would make a great tactical shooter, of which they actually have something to show in-game (most KS campaigns have very little if anything at all), though unfinished. Honestly the biggest mistake BFS made in the KS campaign was showing any in-game stuff, because people will judge it against what their expectations are for a "finished product". It would have been better to not show anything in-game and leave that up to the imagination of the viewer like many other Kickstarters do. But John wanted to at least show something with substance as opposed to fluff and PR speak filled with buzzwords. John did have a large part in the early RSE games (R6/GR) and we consider(ed) those quite fun. Why couldn't he make another game at least equally as fun that is catered to (whether you agree or not) to people who were/are fans of early TC games?

That's a familiar face.

Truer words can not be spoken. It baffles me when people from within the "tactical shooter" community (i.e. GR, ArmA, and BFS as well) make this whole thing about the PR/marketing of the KS campaign instead about Ground Branch as a game that so many of us have wanted for a better part of a decade. This is the chance to get what we want, but people want to make mountains out of mole hills from very minor stuff relative to the grand scheme of things. Who knows when another opportunity like this will ever happen, if it ever happens again.

I would say Ground Branch is being built for exactly the original Ghost Recon fans and I would bet John Sonedecker would say the same thing.

I understand that, but BFS had 2,000+ registered members on their forums before the KS campaign went live. Most have not pledged.

I wish I could say I agree with you on that. Unless there are only a 1,000 or so fans of tactical shooters out there, in which case games like Takedown and Ground Branch should not be even considered.

Too bad they don't let you turn off all the crutches and helpers. They really should just put one button on a controller and write "EASY" on it in big bold letters.

Exactly, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the value dedicated servers adds to a MP FPS game. But yet UBI fails to do anything about it time and time again. And in the event they "try" (or steal community made dedicated servers and release them as their own), they are horribly broken and never get fixed. Back to my original point, IF ubi was taking the MP of FS serious in any way they would be saying "look here! look here! we have dedicated servers because we KNOW that's what PC gamers want!" And they know that's what PC gamers want. Instead they have avoided the question until recently, which was there will be NO dedicated servers. It's going to be the same game as the console version. And as far as Punkbuster goes, it is worthless without dedicated servers, there's really no other way to put it. But the Punkbuster name looks good on a stat sheet.

I wish I shared your faith in UBI when it comes to PC gamers.

You've basically said what what I was getting at in my first post, just in a lot more words. They took the easiest and cheapest route for PvP MP. That tells me that they are NOT taking it seriously.