Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 developer Saber Interactive must still be suffering from severe whiplash. It went from the high of announcing an incredible 4.5 million sales on Thursday, teasing the promise of future content, and deploying a major patch the next day. This the community seemingly rejected out of hand, sparking a swift backlash in scenes reminiscent of Helldivers 2's travails. The developer has responded, attempting to appease the unruly player base and promising a patch for the patch, which could be out later this week.
Publisher Focus Entertainment provided an update on X, promising to take another look at feedback and pledging to work with the community to get the game where it needs to be. To avoid Arrowhead's situation with Helldivers, Saber needs to thread the needle, walk back some of the more aggressive changes, and find a way to placate the most vocal elements of its player base, all under the microscope. In this scribe's opinion, the next patch has to hit, or Saber could end up stuck in a vicious cycle, a real momentum-killer that can be difficult to escape.
Are you optimistic Saber can pull out of its current nosedive and level out? Did you get a chance to play some Space Marine 2 over the weekend? Let us know in the comments section below.
[source x.com]
Comments 11
If Saber like to read players comments then they should have been aware of all the positivity surrounding the title at launch and left it mostly how it released. I don’t get why Nerfing a game is good for a player base in the first place..
Unless its a fighting game people generally hate nerfs especially in PvE so i don't understand why every Dev runs into this issue. Unless something is straight up broken good just leave it be and buff enemies and other weapons instead.
@DennisReynolds if you only ever buff and never need you end up with silly Time To Kills where everything dies (or kills) faster and faster.
A lot of this tends to come down to people picking a weapon or loadout that they either got comfortable with or picked specifically because its broken and then getting angry when they are forced to change their play style and learn something new.
Personally I'd fix this by not rebalancing any weapons and instead having less used weapons give bonus exp or something rewarding like this. The things you're using might be weaker than the meta but you will still be rewarded for playing with other things besides the broken combinations.
Review bombers are among the most pathetic losers online. Neckbeards who have no social lives, fighting wars that don’t exist outside their sad microcosm..
No game is safe lmao. Need a new ranking system because these user reviews ain’t it
For balance sure but I feel that if Devs wanted less dev time instead of balancing up and down because of players winning too easily or not as intended or whatever versus actually broken then why not just offer the players a set of parameters to work with?
Solves so much time. If survival games can do this with hard stats as their default in some cases, players can make it easier like popcorn to just make it so easy or easier enough will a bit of challenge. Sure that's more for survival games with resources but even enemy AI and other things are tweak-able.
If we can have graphics settings/accessibility then is why is this still a problem in other core aspects of games. XD Why do they hide the values, just set whatever for some mode like a campaign and leave customisation parameter ranges for players in other modes as they are doing it with a group of people after all, if multiplayer sure but for operations this would be perfect for it.
Why has this not been learned at all it's baffling to me? Sigh.
If Ark can do it for how many creatures on screen to breeding to whatever other aspects. Even PALWORLD learns from this as well, if Minecraft you can use commands to ease things of keepInventory to other things, why are these AA/AAA devs constantly changing things and wasting their own time? XD Too ingrained in their development strategies I guess?
For hacks or exploits (unless a good bug out of it) and things sure, or whatever else can be broken sure. But if good enough just ease on dev time on things that don't need fixing.
Is it to have more work to do? Is it to actually change things and too many unevern decisions being made all the time.
Listening to users goes either way but having less to tweak and customisation to free up that time and work on the next game or focus on the current support content makes more sense.
Not changing it to be harder for themselves or a small audience. Just offer better difficulty modes, better AI or more customisation scaling for players to have some control over for their match ups in Operations or multiplayer sessions.
@Yagami It's a sad state in gaming now people get mad at everything so i understand what she is saying.
For me personally just leav everything as it is and if people start complaining sorry I don't want to get reviewbombed.
The game was already too hard, IMO. Also not a fan of the fact that you have to play on harder difficulties to unlock better weapons, especially due to the difficulty. Let me grind a bit more on easier difficulties if need be. It’s too damned hard to read what’s going on when you get swarmed, which makes it impossible to parry attacks. Then you’re done for.
@Yagami Reviewbombing is stupid especially if you give it to a community that is so stupid that they will use it to hurt great games. Yes I said it the vocal gamecommunity is stupid and they will do more harm then good this way.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...