No, it means he was willing to waste £30 on a game instead of a round of drinks.

Wow, I didn't think there was anyone in here who has less respect for Tree than I do. You win!

What? I have no respect for him because he was willing to throw £30 down the drain on the off chance? Not sure where you're getting all this information from but I can tell you it's faulty and needs patching :P

So, you have a lot of respect for people who knowingly piss their money away? I'm confused. You're upset that the game is not worth the money you spent on it, but you have no problem with someone else knowingly pissing their money away on that very same game. That is very odd.

+1

Despite its many faults, CoD has been the best 50 bucks I've spent in a long time. Have enjoyed many hours flying the ATAG server with you guys, and using Teamspeak to greatly enhance the experience (including joking how similar Snapper, Sniper, Striker, etc. sound in the heat of a dogfight).

When I think of the money I've blown on bad hardware AND software over the years.........50 lousy bucks is NUTHIN'!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

You should stop attempting to read between lines that dont exist, it's clearly confusing you...

I'm not the one who is confused. Tree pre-ordered the game. That means he trusted that he would get value for his money. Period.

Hmmm, I agree with you on the $50 issue, however there was a huge amount of speculation on the game, underpinned by gloriously extravagent (and largely wrong) statements from Oleg on what the game would be like on release. I believe the community is largely self-destructive in its ability to get worked up over minor issues (as you suggest towards), however Oleg's statements can't be ignored. IMHO, many of us were duped into believing the game would be something it wasn't on release. The most tangible example were the release videos: filmed at 1/8 speed and aimed at showing a 'playable game'. Yes, it showed the game was playable, but we weren't aware the game was running at 1/8 speed for it to be playable at that stage. This is the most palpable, and upsetting, part of the process. The fact that the release was a mess, and the situation was sugar-coated and offered with a virtual cherry on top. We weren't to know that the cherry was off-date, and the sugar extremely thin.

I agree that there is more to life, but this forum is a vehicle for consumer issues (expressed openly), which is why there will be a lot of opposition and anger over the playablity of the game. It has improved considerably, and hopefully will continue to do so (despite the patches being rather reactionary, IMHO, in terms of certain graphical features) and I don't think there's anything healthy about dwelling on the issues and opinions of other users on the game. It's interesting to debate, but at the end of the day: one man's meat is another man's poison. People will always have different opinions on the game, and different experiences.
For instance, I believe that the minimum specs are aimed at showing the lowest-spec machine for which the game is able to run playably on at lowest settings. For some/(many?) with the lowest spec machine, this is impossible, as a large number have shown on these forums. Others may believe the specs are ridiculous to go by. As I say; different opinions, different experiences.

Have a nice friday :)

Oh yes you are... value, is purely subjective, trust need not enter the equation.

It does for people who are thinking rationally.