I'll try a reinstall. I like this game just not the bugs so go and try your idea, cheers mate.

Tried the reinstall and I'm still stuck. Thanks all who listened and helped. I'll take a break and give is a shot later... (Much later)

I never said anything about you saying someone is not allowed to say something - kek what a sentence -, but you sure try to stiffle discourse about how to react to devs like this, by saying "it's not constructive" to basically tell people to simply not buy games from these devs day one, again.
Which is basically what you do.
Your point is, essentially, "be happy you got something at all". Which, quite honestly, is so sad, I don't even want to explain how it's hurtfull to you AND the market.

What i did say, is, that the market is a reality, but not a omnipotent force.

You, me and the devs are a part of it and shape it.
But takeing the market as an excuse to justify bad practice, in an atempt to take away the agency of the devs in their decisions, saying "they had to do it because X", is simply dishonest.
If your money runs out and you need to release a broken game because of it, the market isn't at fault, but YOU.
Because you failed to plan, bit off more than you could chew and now decided to exploit people who are early adopters. These are all decissions YOU made, as a devteam and/or publisher, not the market.

That's what I was saying.

And yes, while DoS didn't release bugfree, it was nowhere near as devastating as this or the nausea inducing Bard's Tale though, with allmost no gamebreaking bugs that could render a 40 hours campaign pointless. While even after that, they GAVE AWAY the definitive edition of both their games to everyone who owned the original. Both of these versions include huge enhancements to the base game.

Here, I see a new dev in over their heads, with a publisher that set out to nickle and dime everyone they can with a million different editions of the game. A publisher, which they got after kickstarterbackers basically paid for their proof of concept, to boot.

Like I said, I'm all for sending signals of viability as a consumer to people who like to create games that I want to see more of.
But not like this. And not created on the backs of those that invest their money to fund the dreams of others.

It will mostly come down to how they react two months to half a year from now. If I will ever buy their games full price again.

And just think about how sad of a state the industry is in, when sentiments like this

> " assume, they could have done it differently. I once was Kickstarter backer for "the mandate". And they took the money and ran. So, in some way, i am even grateful for a bugged game like this. "

are held by people.

The answer to this is, like Hofnaerrchen74 said and I advocate for too, to adjust your consumerbehaviour accordingly.
If devs release their games to their paying early adopters for testing, simply opt out. Buy the games off of g2a, on sales when they are out and deflated (like the newest Deus Ex), refund. If they don't give a fuck about their moral obligation to their paying customer, why should I give a fuck about any moral obligation to their wellbeing as a producer?
Games are a luxury-good. I won't die without playing them. But they sure will have to retrain and get a different livelyhood, after they poisoned their own pool.

Just mindboggling, really.

owlcat seems to be hard at work fixing their game and it's good enough for me. I get where you are coming from, I really do. I just don't realistically see big complex games to release polished like you wish they are anytime soon if ever at all. I would prefer the games to release 100% bug-free just as anyone would, but I can settle on devs fixing their game for now.

just how many games with cult following were released as a buggy mess? a lot. people just tend to cherish fond memories of those and forget how broken they were on day1. and some of those were never fixed by devs at all and require fan patches to run decently well. so todays practice of actually fixing a game for about half a year after release in a step forward from what was common practice a decade or two ago when they would release a few patches plugging the worst and left the rest as is. and accessing those patches was pita too unlike now.

Yep, buggy games at release are kind of a common thing to be honest. At least these days it is much easier for the developer to push out a patch.

I am not saying it justifies a buggy game, but people do tend to whine a lot about this. At least they don't have to wait for a patch to be published through a gaming mag or a patch sent over snail mail.

I have yet to start the game and I bought it day 1. Those having serious complaints are either new to PC games or just enjoy complaining. /shrug

This is honestly what we're gonna get with crowdfunding/Prebeta early access sales

It puts huge pressure on the devs to release ontime rather than delay..I'll take this over "Bethesda" any day of any week.

I honestly havn't had many of the big bugs...but knowing they are there I've been doodling around with different builds and hard saving them after the stag lord...

My personal peeves are the sloppy writing and lack of explanations/manuals

I think i made this more like a statement of my frustration and maybe a cry for help? I know its going to be hard comming back (if ever) once i have put it away. Not remembering where or what i was doing is a big deal for me when i play RPG's. It was not my intention to start a flame war but just finding likeminded people who might have a workaround.

I'm also frustrated with "the Bethesdas" of the game indistries. To many games are all copy/paste or buildt on the back of modders or workers putting in 50-100 hours work weeks. I accept some bugs and the "100+ bugs" are hyperbole from me but im running out of energy/goodwill towards game developers. If Cyberpunk 2077 fails I'll buy a new ipad and play candycrush and watch Netflix to the end og time. =)

oh 100+ bugs is not a hyperbole. pretty sure there is more than that right now. a lot of those have common roots though. and a lot of those are not game-breaking.

and yeah as I said I have a much less lenient position about AAA titles that dare to do the same while working their devs to death and paying those peanuts in the process.

No flame intended Brother. Apologies if you tok it that way.

Maybe they should just stop publishing patches compulsively, and limit themselves to once per week, so that they can optimize this additional development phase. Because by now it's pretty clear that they published an unfinished game, even if they do not publicly admit it.
On Sunday the 7th of October the most recent release was 1.06, now it's 1.0.10b, Owlcat released 7 patches in 11 days.
Publishing patches asap is a good thing, if you are not releasing one every damn new day of the week, otherwise it's simply a waste of resources that could be saved to polish the game faster.

plugging holes as fast as they can is the best thing they actually can do. and it shows community they are hard at work. can you even imagine how bad it would be if they didn't do that? much worse than it is now, I tell you. there would be pitchforks and torches all around. and it wouldn't matter that they would release a big fat patch a week later.

I was waiting for two games to be released in September, one is Pathfinder and the other is Insurgency Sandstorm.
Pathfinder released on time the 25th of September, while Insurgency Sandstorm was delayed by three months, from the 18th of September to the the 12th of December. In the mean time buyers of the latter can play the game as a beta.
The developers of Insurgency Sanstorm implicitly apologized for the delay and resumed development in a seemingly planned and ordered way.
Owlcat instead officially released their game, but in reality they also pushed out an unfinished version of the game. And for this reason they immediately started to release a torrent of patches (I believe more than 10 in 3 weeks). The result is a complete mess.
One of the two acted professionally and minimized the damage, the other is Owlcat.