Kunos has bitten off more than they can chew. If that wasn't clearly obvious before, it definitely is now. The game was originally supposed to be out in the Fall of last year. Now it's over a year later, after those plans were unveiled, and we're still in version 0.4, in other words, not even half-way done.
I think Kunos didn't decide to have a go at all those features, purely because of ambition, but also out of necessity. Because they're not making another spin-off, in the AC franchise, they're making a direct sequel to the original, and people expect the sequel to be better than the original in pretty much every way. The thing is, to do that, they're not just competing against their previous work, they're also competing against all the work an entire community has put into their first product. A community with many talented individuals contributing to make it grow in the juggernaut it is today.
If people already own a platform with all the features they want, why spend more for a new platform with less? That's the conundrum Kunos faces, they kind of don't have a choice but try and swing to the stars. The only problem is, I think they'd need a AAA-sized studio, with a AAA-sized budget to pull this off, and give people a sequel that clearly bests the original out of the box. Unfortunately, they don't have that.
Back to the current situation, and looking at things through a more objective lens, I don't think its reasonable to expect a game that released at the development stage it was released in, won't suffer changes, small or big. Because the game was, and still is, in that stage, buying into it was always going to be a gamble. I mean, the game came out very much unfinished. Not "needs-painting"-unfinished, but "we're-still-pouring-concrete-and-raising-the-walls"-unfinished.
Regardless of whether you agree, or disagree, with the industry practice of taking your money while the game is still in such a state, you have to know what you're getting into. If the game is still in active development, and at a stage where its features are still not clearly defined, things can be added, modified and dropped at any time. The fact that you can access and play those early builds and they're not just being playtested internally, at the studio, doesn't change the core phases a game goes through as it's being made.
Having said that, I think that if you're willing to take your customer's money early, to support what you're making, you should also be willing to give that money back, once you're no longer making what said consumer wanted, which is why I hope everyone who lost their reason to play this game gets their money back. This way, those who were dissapointed don't lose anything, they're just back to how they were before.
To end my post about this issue, I want to give a warning about proclaiming what the will of the community is at the moment. We still need to wait and see if the negative review flow holds, or starts falling off, before taking conclusions. As it stands, ACE is at 34% negative reviews (all languages), and this includes all negative reviews, regardless of reason, as it's unlikely all negative reviews are about the same issue(s). The next update will be a good barometer to see how much the community was impacted by this decision, as it will bring back a larger number of players than usual, increasing the chance of added awareness of this controversial decision. If the bad reviews come back strong, there are indications the silent majority probably thinks along the same lines as many that are here. If the game's score bounces back, then perhaps we really are just the vocal minority, in the grand scheme of things.
. Now, that IS a game that has nailed down its gameplay components perfectly.
