I enjoy previews as well. On paper they're a very good thing, but they can occasionally be misused and backfire, as we're seeing here. As you said, the preview images were too frequent, repetitive and unflattering. It's one thing to present concept art and digital renders of what customers can look forward to, and it can even be productive to look at feedback and take things back to the drawing board (like Alex said), but it's another thing entirely to make claims of superiority and innovation and, months later, present something that is of debatable quality. DFG got overexcited with their initial support, and took their previews too far. That in part is what has brought on so much contention to this release.Originally Posted by strewart
I agree. While I don't think this has been anything malicious on DFG's part, I also think that they've been very misleading to their customers. I have no idea if they have any major investors, but in a sense a lot of their customers have invested money, interest, and for some even loyalty to the success of this new company, and that deserves some amount of information. I don't know what private announcements DFG has made about production status of the USMC, but their public announcements have been very telling. As I see it, much of what DFG has presented to the public has been motivated by good intentions and a desire to keep everyone informed. This is especially obvious because everyone has been screaming for information. However, DFG hasn't shown much wisdom in exactly what information they provide, or how much is prudent. They've shown us digital renders of the USMC, and when they ran out of stuff to show us about the marines, they've shown us what they have of other sets. They're trying to buy credit on the only collateral they have: ideas. Whether or not the ideas are worth banking on in the first place is up for debate, but there are those who are speaking out in favor of what they've seen so far, so DFG can at least count on some sales (hopefully beyond the initial pre-orders). With any luck, they'll learn from this rocky start and make less mistakes in the future.
Would we have those? Would we? Say DFG had ignored all the feedback they got, or didn't even provide images to get feedback in the first place? Say they had released their sets just as those early sets indicate. If people didn't like them would they buy them? Or would they have gone somewhere else to get futuristic soldiers and killer bugs? That's the bottom line, really, and I think where DFG has kind of been tripping itself up. In an effort to cater to potential customers they've made changes, and some of them for the better, but in the process they've also tipped so much of their hand that they're now seen as unprofessional. They need to reevaluate their business model to ensure that they don't make the same mistakes in the future. Either they follow the dictates of the mob (because that's how we as the screaming masses have generally been behaving) or they realize that "haters are gonna hate," make what they damn well please and hope that the sets they design ultimately sell. Any balance in between is extremely delicate, and DFG just hasn't reached it yet, if they ever will.
An important point, and one that shows that even though DFG may be listening to feedback from Teh Interwebz, they haven't been the most adept at implementing it. They just aren't showing what they need to in order to appease the masses.
Reply With Quote
