A take a large chunk of that back, now that I've researched the (essentially a) claim of silence or lack of communication by HPS... There was definitely some communication...
I don't really care at this point, but the results of your "research" are very misleading, for several reasons. First, the fact remains that the game was hopefully broken and incomplete upon release and remained so for years thereafter. Second, you don't indicate which issues, if any, the various betas fixed, and broke. Third, you don't mention that none of those betas were available through HPS, but rather "on the side" through ASID and/or Wodin.
Possibly misleading, but I was under the impression the real issue was silence and NO communication. I merely noted that there was "some." And that was the only angle I was correcting in my previous post.
I do not know about whether the announced betas were public or not. But "I" must assume announced betas were made public, based on the announced 2014 beta still being available 3 years later.
I do know that unannounced betas were not made public. The ones I contributed, just prior to the website hack and this patch, were far too short-lived, release publicly (or even mention). Some were a day or two, some were only hours.
But there was a definite dry period for all of 2015 & 2016. That itself would've left me with a "no communication" and "abandonment" impressions at that point. (But I had to correct my previously implied criticisms on the big communication picture. I believe we consumers owe each other the most correct info we can find. We ARE in it together. ...Or at least the sellers are in our wallets together!)
I've known for awhile, that Scott has and had been dealing with some health issues. Some of which would preclude his doing anything, for a while. This knowledge was made public recently, So I can mention one reason I'm much more apt to be lenient and give the benefit of the doubt. (That and I've loved Scott's HPS games since the 90s. *grin*)
Finally, the fact is that the dev never, ever, communicated with the community on the forums, such as they were.
I've never heard of that being a requirement, or even an expectation. So that one is new to me, after the lessons learned by the publisher of Jane's F-15 (name escapes me now). (If I was a publisher and saw that debacle, I'd tell everyone in my employ to never even log on to this newfangled interwebs thing)
This game remains the second-worse wargame purchase I've ever made (the first being Matrix's WiF).
You do have every right to your anger, no matter what I say about that one aspect. I respect that. But, you still EARNED the patch! You DESERVE to have a working game (albeit FAR too late).
What is "wif?"
My worst buy was the original Carriers at War... it required 128k!!! So I couldn't try it at the store. (Huge game!!! Being the first game I ever bought with a memory requirement over 64k... It SHOULD have been great for me! *grin*?) There were others here at Matrix and some seemingly worse. But I believe one's first, leaves the strongest and longest lasting memory. *grin?*
"Lose" is the opposite of "win." "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."
Friends Don't Let Friends Facebook.
Twitter is for... (wait for it!) ...Twits!