So 1.0 owners have to start paying the monthly fee immediately?

[Abriael]

Which based on the dates would be months of early access because release is stated as Jan - post (sometime after Jan) and reinstated free period is before at oct-nov. So that should be your real complaint which is also unrealistic, which you also stated because people would be upset for such a head start.

A free trial isn't a headstart. They're very different concepts.

...except when it isn't a promise, it is a wild-eyed misinterpretation based on a document that was not only clearly labled as "subject to change", not merely a subjective estimate of some vague dates, but had also been revised several times from the version you are referencing.

You can't misinterpret "Free trial". It literally only means one thing.

None of those "revisions" stated that there would be no free trial.

[Keku]

A free trial isn't a headstart. They're very different concepts.



You can't misinterpret "Free trial". It literally only means one thing.


None of those "revisions" stated that there would be no free trial.

Except when you state it's clearly for 2.0 and they have it slated BEFORE their slated release date on the same document.

So if it's for 2.0 it has to be "early access" only because they game isn't slated to be released until well after the stated free period starts.

If it was for 1.0 sure it may make no sense to you but they stated that since the game was so bad they extended the free period and said they would give another after billing had started, which could be said to be that, but I understand why you would feel it makes no sense but "why give a free trial for a failed game" why also did they charge for it the last 10 months it was running before shutdown?