This is the part that downplays the issue, which has a fair point, but still is for the part of it failing to see how it’ll change the landscape. I care little now, but I still care. It had a vision and it was interesting in the beginning. One update after the other, where I would agree or disagree, I still hoped that every each implementation, the Devs would take a careful step of implementing what the masses keep asking for, but do it discreetly, so it doesn’t conflict with it’s current ‘feel’. Every single time, the requested thing was implemented with seemingly less and less to offer on the ‘careful’ aspect. It was implemented for the ‘sake of it’. I view it as bad, because I am the type to care about the lore, the story around and for the general health. I could rave about a well-implemented button prompt if the Devs took the time to look back on their game and bring improvements upon. AND they did at some point. I keep remembering the times for the first time I saw some icons get changed visually… Then a sound effect changed or added. It wasn’t necessary, but I am MUCH happier for those changes, because they’re small, do-able objectives in a barebone game that add up in making that single small element just that much more varied (less barebone) for a relatively small Developer team. That said, this is the two sides of the community. The one that plays for fun shooty-shoot relaxation and general fun and the other side that came for the different experience, the feeling of importance and weight, as well as hidden meaning in lore.
From my perspective to the other side, I can offer an argument that I feel is the truest to my heart - Why must you ask for these things that make the unique (at least to me) game be another copy of the same thing available in a much more stable or fleshed out state. I feel the game had the opportunity to start from a somewhat familiar basis with shooting mechanics, but then branch itself out and define itself as a game that is serious about itself. Instead I see it fall in a line of the same thing and blend in with the rest of the options.
Exactly.
It hurts to be the other side. You partially see my perspective, but then as well disregard for why we worry and I understand that our thirst for a meaningful, strategic game clashes with your fun and explosive game.
This is why we have these two sides of the argument.
I wouldn’t care. I would have paid more than they asked for Alpine Unrest if the spent more time on NPCs and mission structure. The whole map unlock, interiors and lore it offered was AMAZING. For me that was well worth it’s price. FNIX rising wasn’t anything new, and actually fell shorter of the same scale that Alpine felt like. If they needed more money for development of an exciting and solid DLC, I would’ve paid for it. Vanity packs and all. Still not an issue as to them implementing guns for money, because we Still don’t know what, how, why. The issues come from before.
Yes, but we’re not getting the quality. Still… ‘What, why, how’
Just as you can agree to what you want. Your rifle cost more, but you chose to spend that money and chose to do so to get a better feel. The others can argue about their guns being just as good, which won’t hold much ground, yes, but if they argued that it just as well does the job… You two go enjoy your shooting range experience and it’s indifferent to you shooting your targets. If you had to shoot the same target collectively, then that issue starts lingering. It isn’t as bad as putting your rifle against theirs, because then you with your superior weapon will have the advantage. Then that whole discussion boils down to skill etc. You both shoot he same item, without being set against each other, but if your guaranteed quality (assuming you got a lifetime guarantee and didn’t just get ripped off) proves time and time again to take the target out first/better the others will want to re-evaluate their options. Then that whole segment of people looking at you shoot your pretty gun will divide in to those who can and can’t afford it. Those who can’t, will dislike it, those who can… will still pose doubt to why they have to go that extra mile to just be at the same level as you. If your expensive rifle turns out to underperform, they’ll look at that thing not being necessary and go to that argument you stated - “My 100 euro gun is better”. It’s so subjective, yet we don’t even know what we’re getting here (what, why, how). It’s not as much as a PvP usual P2W discussion as it is a Meta discussion. Then you’d have to argue on your skill in using the weapon, not that the weapon price is what matters. It all just comes back to the balancing act -
Oh and…
It’s a perspective of which side requested what. I was pretty lenient/okay with these in the beginning (I had faith it’ll get ironed out), but the further we went, the more I started to object. Except for the crafting point… It’s the one area that started bumpy, that I didn’t really ask for, but it conveniently solved the plundra space issue (which to some still exists), but the argument is a bit misleading. It’s funny as a general view, but it lumps the people together as those who requested that change, but then didn’t like it anymore 
In this scenario, it’s one side asking for stuff, the other crying ‘Whyyyy’
towards things. I guess being a content creator, your disenchantment, doubly affects you.
) but if they really don’t want an idea, then they shouldn’t implement it. I think every player should have the same mindset as you 
.