How many highly succesful, critically acclaimed movies don't get sent out for screening beforehand? Case closed people. Since when does a developer NOT want its game stress tested to heck to get some good buzz going before release? Blizzard and Turbine certainly didn't mind with WOW and LOTR. Right now, the buzz is quite mixed because no one really knows much of anything about AoC except what we can read. The videos show very little. Has there been one decent video of mass PvP yet? Nope! How can a game that mostly focuses around PvP at its endgame not even show one decent seige. All we got was an edited hacked together preview with a bunch of NPC standins. its not that they cant show a seige its that they probaly dont want to... people take things they see in videos then add thing they think are gonna be there but arent actualy in the video wich leads to hype... Hype can be good or bad but the game is still being optimized why show something laggy for the haters to spread there venom with by saying its a lagfest etc
Every single video has loads of sliding animation and lag. How many more times will people fall for the, "its a bad connection" excuse FC has been using for the past few months? How many videos do we need to see that show the same animations over and over again with people just standing there hardly moving, while FC goes and says, "they're not really using combos". How about loading up FRAPS, sticking your lead testers on there for 5 minutes and show us how its SUPPOSED to be played. How hard is that? there usally is lag in closed beta... there still optimizing ... and the videos ive seen really arent very laggy... take a look at the new video using the cheetah2 engine as showcased at CES today and the frame rate is outstanding and the anims smooth
Get real people. AoC might be good eventually but its obviously not ready yet and keeping a tight NDA and not having an open beta pushes that point home. Put 2 and 2 together. There hasn't been a great MMO yet with a developer keeping as much as possible in a cloud of mystery. or they learned from the overhype vanguard had and there trying to make it so they dont make the same mistake and release to much info.
exactly overhyping a game can punish it take VG and Tabula Rasa
To add im also glad they are not doing a open beta i am pish sick of people diving into a BETA for 5 minutes and not liking the game or there crap system not running it on full settings then proceeding to slag it off on every forum they find and driving potential players away ie Tabula Rasa, and then those same players dont even bother to try the retail version of the game even on a free trial.
i think AOC is gonna be fantastic and have been impressed with everything ive read and video's i have seen.
No open beta does NOT mean no stress test. No open beta just means they will have to invite people in a controlled manner and being part of the test binds you to an NDA.
some of you are either confused or dont understand the differences between an open beta and a closed beta. Its just a matter of an NDA agreement. They decide how many to invite in instead of having their game completely flooded. I have confidence they'll invite plenty of people to test their servers limits.
It just sounds like they want to be able to control their final testing phases. You guys are going on like the game isnt being tested at all, and thats just a very poor assumption.
this isnt the first time an MMO has gone without an open beta phase
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
If you read some stuff about AOC you wouldve know that they want it to be a surprise, just to let you know
Oh it's a surprise. Then it's alright. Who doesn't like surprises. Lets all go and spend 50$ for a surprise.
ya its pretty clear reading through this thread that nobody really gives a crap about whether or not the developers would benefit to opening their game up for testing to the public. They just want a demo of the game before they buy it.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
Not sure why peeps think a cheetah 2 engine will mean anything towards laggy graphics.Graphic lag is still all about poly count,how many items are in visual and added effects like shaders/shadows/decals/ect ect.PC's nowadays can easily handle poorly written code,heck if something had 50 added lines to the code somewhere that wasn't optimized you'd never know it.
I think the only delay AOC is having is because IMO there having some probs with the 64 bit .exe version.BTW i think it is fairly apparent this modern game is still dx9 and only 64 bit workable.It is not a true 64 bit game,this is why trying to add tons of effects such as what vanguard tried [shaders]many systems will bottleneck and lag.They can brag about never falling below 20 fps now ,but that is prolly because they removed alot of added effects.If dx 10/64 bit machines get alot more FPS than the peeps using xp 32 bit,then i would have to give funcom some credit for doing a good job.Personally i feel all the players will get the same performance depending of course on there cpu/gpu/ram.
Not sure where dude got his analogy of TR though lol.That game didn't have one bug when i played it.It wasn't bad because of releasing an open beta it was bad because it had no content and was VERY boring.I am sure AOC will easily have more content and be alot more fun to play than TR was.
Yes i do believe this game wil not live up to the hype only because there are not many good games at all to share the hype with,so funcom has alot riding on there shoulders.Warhammer is the only other mass hyped game out there,so both are riding on hype alone ,nothing concrete as far as gameplay or content.This won't be out of the bag until peeps start playing the game.Some actually ALOT of people ,just as in the warhammer case already have inbedded into there mind this game will rock without any doubt,lol,play it first then make a proper judgement.
This game or FUNCOM i mean should release an open beta,for many reasons.This is extremely poor marketing,as just throwing an untested product into the hands of the buyer leaves premise for some very bitter buyers.They did say there test machines were beefy,wich leads me to believe alot of players will struggle with graphic lag.There is another huge factor when comes to a MMO,and that is how will the netcode react to thousands of online players?This should have been tested through beta not after the buyers pay there money.You can't test or rely on your netcode testing it in your shop lol,every player will be on a lan getting 0-15 pings and all on beefy systems.IMO they have decided that they would lose too many potential buyers if peeps had a look see first through an open beta,no other reason that would make sense,there deffinately afraid of something.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Not sure why peeps think a cheetah 2 engine will mean anything towards laggy graphics.Graphic lag is still all about poly count,how many items are in visual and added effects like shaders/shadows/decals/ect ect.PC's nowadays can easily handle poorly written code,heck if something had 50 added lines to the code somewhere that wasn't optimized you'd never know it. I think the only delay AOC is having is because IMO there having some probs with the 64 bit .exe version.BTW i think it is fairly apparent this modern game is still dx9 and only 64 bit workable.It is not a true 64 bit game,this is why trying to add tons of effects such as what vanguard tried [shaders]many systems will bottleneck and lag.They can brag about never falling below 20 fps now ,but that is prolly because they removed alot of added effects.If dx 10/64 bit machines get alot more FPS than the peeps using xp 32 bit,then i would have to give funcom some credit for doing a good job.Personally i feel all the players will get the same performance depending of course on there cpu/gpu/ram. Not sure where dude got his analogy of TR though lol.That game didn't have one bug when i played it.It wasn't bad because of releasing an open beta it was bad because it had no content and was VERY boring.I am sure AOC will easily have more content and be alot more fun to play than TR was. Yes i do believe this game wil not live up to the hype only because there are not many good games at all to share the hype with,so funcom has alot riding on there shoulders.Warhammer is the only other mass hyped game out there,so both are riding on hype alone ,nothing concrete as far as gameplay or content.This won't be out of the bag until peeps start playing the game.Some actually ALOT of people ,just as in the warhammer case already have inbedded into there mind this game will rock without any doubt,lol,play it first then make a proper judgement. This game or FUNCOM i mean should release an open beta,for many reasons.This is extremely poor marketing,as just throwing an untested product into the hands of the buyer leaves premise for some very bitter buyers.They did say there test machines were beefy,wich leads me to believe alot of players will struggle with graphic lag.There is another huge factor when comes to a MMO,and that is how will the netcode react to thousands of online players?This should have been tested through beta not after the buyers pay there money.You can't test or rely on your netcode testing it in your shop lol,every player will be on a lan getting 0-15 pings and all on beefy systems.IMO they have decided that they would lose too many potential buyers if peeps had a look see first through an open beta,no other reason that would make sense,there deffinately afraid of something.
the last paragraph of your post isnt accurate. Theyre testing the game, theyre inviting and have been inviting people in. Theyre just not having an "open" beta, its a closed beta bound by NDA. They have thousands of people testing already.
actually, they have over 10,000 beta testers currently
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
No Open Beta == Super Hyped Let Down There is a reason they don't want a lot of outside folks looking at this thing before it goes on sale. Think about it.
Oh , people and their flawed logic.
Games never used to beta and people didn't whine, and they were killer games, both on console and PC .
SOE beta tests always. You know why? Because it saves them developers cost so they don't need to take out the bugs themselves.
The same thing happened with Vanguard.
No open beta tests are usually a good thing I think.
Originally posted by Wizardry This game or FUNCOM i mean should release an open beta,for many reasons.This is extremely poor marketing,as just throwing an untested product into the hands of the buyer leaves premise for some very bitter buyers.They did say there test machines were beefy,wich leads me to believe alot of players will struggle with graphic lag.There is another huge factor when comes to a MMO,and that is how will the netcode react to thousands of online players?This should have been tested through beta not after the buyers pay there money.You can't test or rely on your netcode testing it in your shop lol,every player will be on a lan getting 0-15 pings and all on beefy systems.IMO they have decided that they would lose too many potential buyers if peeps had a look see first through an open beta,no other reason that would make sense,there deffinately afraid of something.
They've invited 10,000 people, and thousands more will join in the next month or two. How many to they have to invite to run a decent beta? One million? Think about that for a second, if you've ever tested a game before.
If there were only 10 people in beta, yeah, I'd be concerned.
If you read some stuff about AOC you wouldve know that they want it to be a surprise, just to let you know
Oh it's a surprise. Then it's alright. Who doesn't like surprises. Lets all go and spend 50$ for a surprise.
ya its pretty clear reading through this thread that nobody really gives a crap about whether or not the developers would benefit to opening their game up for testing to the public. They just want a demo of the game before they buy it.
After so many promises never delivered, if I don't try a game first I don't buy it. As simple as that.
And yes I don't care about them developers in an open beta, I assume they are just stress testing.
If they are not offering an open beta is because they are afraid of people trying it. Or, they are the first to change how things are being done so far. We'll see.
After so many promises never delivered, if I don't try a game first I don't buy it. As simple as that.
And yes I don't care about them developers in an open beta, I assume they are just stress testing. If they are not offering an open beta is because they are afraid of people trying it. Or, they are the first to change how things are being done so far. We'll see.
They're not a US company, they're Norwegian. European games are known to do stress testing in house, and they use their own beta testers. I think that's important to take into consideration.
And again, some of the best games never had a beta. There is no need for a beta if everything is running smoothly with in-game testing.
I'm not sure why you're worried so much. I'm more worried of a beta that is used to take out all bugs by players instead of the developers.
Personally I think many of the posters here isn't interested in the game at all. They got their minds set for a game that release later this year - if it isn't postponed that is. An open beta would do nothing to change their minds. This is my personal feeling anyway after reading some of the arguments on this and other boards around.
There's a lot of "I feel this" and "I think that" in this thread. The funniest thing is however that the arguments many use for why AoC will fail does not apply - in their opinion - for "the other game". This is funny because it's nothing solid. It's based upon rumours, hearsay and personal feelings. There's nothing really concrete. The same applies for the "other game", but somehow the same arguments doesn't. There's actually much more media and information released from AoC than it is for the "other game". Whereas someone might say "OMFG look how crap, he ran through a stone on that vid" on the "other game" the same person is saying "STFU n00b it's still work-in-progress". It's not like it's taking half a year to fix trivial bugs like that. This is confusing for me.
"But" some are saying. "But I trust the 'other game's' developers and after Anarchy Online I don't trust Funcom anymore". Yes I agree that a 100% track record for making good game(s) is impressive, but let us look at that argument for a moment. The devs of the 'other game' has made one game which was very good. Hell I even got it myself. Got a 9.1 score at Gamespot - if we ever can call that a benchmark after Kane & Lynch anymore. But let's for the sake of argument anyway as these scores are fairly consistant on several sites. One game that was very good. That's hardly an impressive track record if you ask me. It shows great potential though, but not an impressive track record. ID software has an impressive track record and so does Blizzard, Valve, Firaxis and so on. They've also made lots and lots of games which has been consistantly good over time. Funcom is known for making story-driven games of which "The longest journey" is their prime example. It has also been lauded as the best adventure game for years - when released - on several gaming sites. It got a 9.3 score at gamespot with it's sequel "Dreamfall" at 8.1 - which is nothing more than solid I agree.
Anarchy Online was riddled with problems at it's release there's no sane man who could deny that. Because of the problems it received a mere 7.6 score at Gamespot, which honestly doesn't cut-it. It's expansion a couple of years later went up almost a full point to 8.5 which is very respectable. If you take into consideration that expansion packs really has to offer something special - empirically speaking - to receive a good score it's very respectable indeed. It also shows that Anarchy Online's launch was terrible - once again - and that Funcom lost millions in revenues because of it. Who knows what their score would've been if they had a normal launch. If the expansion pack is an indication it would've been very good indeed and Funcom fixed the teething problems of AO quick after relase.
So what does all of this tell us? It tells me at least that Funcom has a track record as a solid software developer with ample experience in the MMO-market. It tells me that they know how to serve an MMO - eventually. But the most important argument is that they know how much money they lost on the AO launch. If someone think they will release an unfinished game again then they're more biased than what's good for them in their real-life. In fact I would think they've actually learned more from the failed launch of AO then they would from a flawless one. Another thing is that the mmo-market is considerably different today than it was back "then" and this goes for both developers. Both games will be gargantuan successes when they release compared to back then, so you could question how relevant the experience they've gained is set to this launch. I don't know, but I do know that Funcom is a company driven by profit - like every other game company - and I know that a failed or poor launch will hamper that profit. People learn from their mistakes if we didn't we would've been extinct as a species.
This is a game they've spent 5 years to make. It's the second most expensive MMO in the gaming history after WoW. Any fan of MMO's should be happy that they're starting to get alternatives to WoW. Instead you're trying to put down any competitors to what you're seeing as 'the truth'. If there's any hold to any of it I wouldn't care, but most of the arguments are biased and not universal compared to the "other game". If you're going to bring down a game at least be rational and fair.
PS. Yeah I know most of you won't read this text as it's probably waaaay too long. Sorry about, but I was bored
Not sure why peeps think a cheetah 2 engine will mean anything towards laggy graphics.Graphic lag is still all about poly count,how many items are in visual and added effects like shaders/shadows/decals/ect ect.PC's nowadays can easily handle poorly written code,heck if something had 50 added lines to the code somewhere that wasn't optimized you'd never know it.
Wizardry - seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about with code optimization. Graphics code can be streamline immensely, and produces much better performance when it is. Ever notice how Halo for Windows performed so poorly that a computer that could run Half Life 2 without issue would chug up and die in sections?
To give you an example of an optimization that can make graphics render much faster with no loss in visual quality:
AVOID PER-FRAME CODE
Not everything needs to be done 60 times a second. A huge saver of CPU time is to make certain aspects of the game logic run at a frame rate slower than the screen refresh rate. Most physics will look quite reasonable running at 30 frames per second. Some types of logic, such as path-finding, can be spread over a large number of frames.
This is a good example of a mature optimization. Many games use this form of optimization. It can be a massive time saver, cutting as much as 20% to 50% off your CPU time. It is something that is very difficult to add late in the project. The change in timing from running logic synchronized with the rendering frame advance, to logic running independently can introduce all kinds of obscure timing bugs.
So, in short, don't comment on that which you don't understand. Because frankly, you're obviously clueless in that area.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
huge let down to a lot of people. even if it runs perfectly smooth on computers below recommended recs. basically they've been running the hypometer for too long and to the wrong crowd of MMOers.
i think any game that has over 100k beta testers doesnt need to worry much about there hypometer when it comes to an open beta. People are going to buy this game no matter if there is a beta or not. Alot of people(and im not saying u unless you kow in your heart this fits you) are just upset because they were hoping to get a crack at the game early on. And they know that its a childish excuse so they would rather say something must be wrong. Nah to me something is right. Think about how much hype went into vanguard or LOTRO, so many people played them and the reviews were crazy before the game even came out, some people said they liked it, some people said they didnt and that hurts your sales. Funcom knows they have a strong game and the people who will like there style, will like there game. They arent worried about the people who say they arent getting the game because of the beta because they already know that this game isnt for everyone. Better to have a slow start with alot of progression then to have a mass start and mass decline!
huge let down to a lot of people. even if it runs perfectly smooth on computers below recommended recs. basically they've been running the hypometer for too long and to the wrong crowd of MMOers.
i think any game that has over 100k beta testers doesnt need to worry much about there hypometer when it comes to an open beta. People are going to buy this game no matter if there is a beta or not. Alot of people(and im not saying u unless you kow in your heart this fits you) are just upset because they were hoping to get a crack at the game early on. And they know that its a childish excuse so they would rather say something must be wrong. Nah to me something is right. Think about how much hype went into vanguard or LOTRO, so many people played them and the reviews were crazy before the game even came out, some people said they liked it, some people said they didnt and that hurts your sales. Funcom knows they have a strong game and the people who will like there style, will like there game. They arent worried about the people who say they arent getting the game because of the beta because they already know that this game isnt for everyone. Better to have a slow start with alot of progression then to have a mass start and mass decline!
WoW had as many beta tester applications as AoC has, but they didn't avoid an open beta. Open betas, whether the hardcore "It's for bug/stress testing" guys want to admit it or not, has shifted in its purpose recently. It's now not only for stress testing, it's for a public showing of the game. There's even been dev teams that have stated as much during their open betas.
If Funcom knew they had everything on the stress test side under control and that it would be ready for release without opening up the beta, then there's really no reason not to give an open beta, odd as that sounds. Marketing says if you feel you're product is good enough that people will want to buy it, give them a short open beta to leave a good taste in their mouths come release day. It worked for Blizzard, even when everyone in open beta had to experience the dreaded loot lag for the first half of the open. As much as some hate the game, you gotta give some respect to Blizzard for awesome marketing. While I can understand not wanting to make a WoW clone, there's absolutely no reason not to follow their marketing scheme.
The only people who were let down by Dark and Light and Vanguard were people that either hyped themselves up or flocked to the latest pseudo-alternative MMO. Age of Conan isn't that big of a deal, it's just another casual, heavily-instanced, heavily-restricted MMORPG.
You should only anticipate games that meet your own criteria of what an MMO should be, not anybody else's.
With that said, Darkfall Online is the only game on the horizon that's the "real deal".
Originally posted by Sroek With that said, Darkfall Online is the only game on the horizon that's the "real deal".
..Darkfall online is the "real deal"?!???
....Please tell me that you are kidding!
This is the game that was supposed to be released in 2003 for Christ's sake! 2003!
Darkfall will NEVER come out, and if/when it does, it will be so damn old already that even if it runs smoothly, people will be just as well to play Asheron's Call on the PvP Darkside sever or something.
Please tell me that you're kidding about Darkfall being the "real deal" bro...
huge let down to a lot of people. even if it runs perfectly smooth on computers below recommended recs. basically they've been running the hypometer for too long and to the wrong crowd of MMOers.
i think any game that has over 100k beta testers doesnt need to worry much about there hypometer when it comes to an open beta. People are going to buy this game no matter if there is a beta or not. Alot of people(and im not saying u unless you kow in your heart this fits you) are just upset because they were hoping to get a crack at the game early on. And they know that its a childish excuse so they would rather say something must be wrong. Nah to me something is right. Think about how much hype went into vanguard or LOTRO, so many people played them and the reviews were crazy before the game even came out, some people said they liked it, some people said they didnt and that hurts your sales. Funcom knows they have a strong game and the people who will like there style, will like there game. They arent worried about the people who say they arent getting the game because of the beta because they already know that this game isnt for everyone. Better to have a slow start with alot of progression then to have a mass start and mass decline!
WoW had as many beta tester applications as AoC has, but they didn't avoid an open beta. Open betas, whether the hardcore "It's for bug/stress testing" guys want to admit it or not, has shifted in its purpose recently. It's now not only for stress testing, it's for a public showing of the game. There's even been dev teams that have stated as much during their open betas.
If Funcom knew they had everything on the stress test side under control and that it would be ready for release without opening up the beta, then there's really no reason not to give an open beta, odd as that sounds. Marketing says if you feel you're product is good enough that people will want to buy it, give them a short open beta to leave a good taste in their mouths come release day. It worked for Blizzard, even when everyone in open beta had to experience the dreaded loot lag for the first half of the open. As much as some hate the game, you gotta give some respect to Blizzard for awesome marketing. While I can understand not wanting to make a WoW clone, there's absolutely no reason not to follow their marketing scheme.
i dont think thats accurate. if you had things that were new age in a game that you didnt want to leak out yet, you would keep it under raps too. trust me, in this day in age i understand why its good to have an open beta because it gives everyone a chance to see if hey liek it, but : 1. that is an unnoficial use for beta and is not required 2. just because you dont have an open beta doesnt man that something is wrong.
now if wow had over 15 thousand closed beta testers with more invites going out, and you have proof of this then i will understand your point even more, but liek i said, it doesnt have to be done.
With that said, Darkfall Online is the only game on the horizon that's the "real deal".
..Darkfall online is the "real deal"?!???
....Please tell me that you are kidding!
This is the game that was supposed to be released in 2003 for Christ's sake! 2003!
Darkfall will NEVER come out, and if/when it does, it will be so damn old already that even if it runs smoothly, people will be just as well to play Asheron's Call on the PvP Darkside sever or something.
Please tell me that you're kidding about Darkfall being the "real deal" bro...
- Zaxx
That's the year it began development. Games don't release the same year people start working on it. Media coverage and aesthetics have very little to do with a game's potential, it's the design principles, which is precisely why I research into games that I actually would enjoy playing. Darkfall Online won't appeal to everybody, because not everybody likes freedom in a videogame, but I do.
Originally posted by Sroek With that said, Darkfall Online is the only game on the horizon that's the "real deal".
..Darkfall online is the "real deal"?!??? ....Please tell me that you are kidding! This is the game that was supposed to be released in 2003 for Christ's sake! 2003! Darkfall will NEVER come out, and if/when it does, it will be so damn old already that even if it runs smoothly, people will be just as well to play Asheron's Call on the PvP Darkside sever or something. Please tell me that you're kidding about Darkfall being the "real deal" bro...
- Zaxx
That's the year it began development. Games don't release the same year people start working on it. Media coverage and aesthetics have very little to do with a game's potential, it's the design principles, which is precisely why I research into games that I actually would enjoy playing. Darkfall Online won't appeal to everybody, because not everybody likes freedom in a videogame, but I do.
T O T A L L Y - W R O N G - A N S W E R
I have also followed Darkfall for a couple years way back in 2001 and 2002 or something. The DARKFALL website had a FAQ on it back in 2001 and the question was when was the expected release date for Darkfall. The Answer was a best guess release date of "FALL OF 2003". 2003 was the first announced RELEASE DATE not when it began development. Trust me, I've already been on the Darkfall follower crowd.. um about 7 years ago now.
With that said, Darkfall Online is the only game on the horizon that's the "real deal".
..Darkfall online is the "real deal"?!???
....Please tell me that you are kidding!
This is the game that was supposed to be released in 2003 for Christ's sake! 2003!
Darkfall will NEVER come out, and if/when it does, it will be so damn old already that even if it runs smoothly, people will be just as well to play Asheron's Call on the PvP Darkside sever or something.
Please tell me that you're kidding about Darkfall being the "real deal" bro...
- Zaxx
That's the year it began development. Games don't release the same year people start working on it. Media coverage and aesthetics have very little to do with a game's potential, it's the design principles, which is precisely why I research into games that I actually would enjoy playing. Darkfall Online won't appeal to everybody, because not everybody likes freedom in a videogame, but I do.
T O T A L L Y - W R O N G - A N S W E R
I have also followed Darkfall for a couple years way back in 2001 and 2002 or something. The DARKFALL website had a FAQ on it back in 2001 and the question was when was the expected release date for Darkfall. The Answer was a best guess release date of "FALL OF 2003". 2003 was the first announced RELEASE DATE not when it began development. Trust me, I've already been on the Darkfall follower crowd.. um about 7 years ago now.
- Zaxx
However, back then it was vaporware. The game only started showing promise around '03-'04 and has been on a roll ever since. You have to remember that it's an independent project, not a high valued production. I follow games that appeal to me and after reading extensively on it, Age of Conan just doesn't.
i dont think thats accurate. if you had things that were new age in a game that you didnt want to leak out yet, you would keep it under raps too. trust me, in this day in age i understand why its good to have an open beta because it gives everyone a chance to see if hey liek it, but : 1. that is an unnoficial use for beta and is not required 2. just because you dont have an open beta doesnt man that something is wrong.
now if wow had over 15 thousand closed beta testers with more invites going out, and you have proof of this then i will understand your point even more, but liek i said, it doesnt have to be done.
An estimate from IGN stated that over 400,000 beta applications were received by Blizzard once they opened signups. For a single phase, Blizzard was taking about 10,000 applications from each region of testing. This is well over the 15,000 mentioned.
I agree companies are in no way obliged to hold open beta tests. I feel it's a terrible move, with Blizzard proving open betas can do a lot for your game if you're prepared for it, but in the end it is their choice.
I have also followed Darkfall for a couple years way back in 2001 and 2002 or something. The DARKFALL website had a FAQ on it back in 2001 and the question was when was the expected release date for Darkfall. The Answer was a best guess release date of "FALL OF 2003". 2003 was the first announced RELEASE DATE not when it began development. Trust me, I've already been on the Darkfall follower crowd.. um about 7 years ago now.
And they are still working towards that 2003 release. Why would anyone mention DarkFall in a discussion about problems with a game launching? At least AoC will have a launch, may not be the best or the worst but it will happen.
I really hope that AOC is the real deal but i can no longer get excited about a game before it comes out, nor will i ever preorder again. Vanguard beat that out of me.
It looks very promising and the graphics look amazing but Vanguards did as well. I dont think it will be another Vanguard though. The one great thing that Vanguard did was scare developers into not releasing too early, which is why you have seen AoC and WAR get pushed back a couple times.
I would not do an open beta either, and not because it is the easy way by getting the players to fix bugs, which never happens by the way Candygirl, the players report the bugs, not fix them. Again good job on reaming SOE for this practice. It isnt like DAOC had open Beta, or Lineage 2, or WoW or LOTRs or a bunch of other companies games.
I would not do an open Beta or lift NDA before launch because many Beta testers just plain suck. Too many people get into a Beta so they can play a game for free, not so they can test the game for bugs. They sign up for a unfinished game then bash the game because it is unfinished, DUH. Plus the genre has grown alot since WoW came out and since WoW is the first game for a large part of the MMO player base they may not like a game that his considerably harder then WoW and also bash it.
I would rather have no publicity then bad publicity from people who should never have been in Beta to begin with. Do a closed Beta, invite it up as you get closer to launch, do a big stress test right before launch, then launch and lift NDA. Im cool with that. Now if they launch and the game sucks shame on them. But that is why i will be waiting a month or two before buying any MMO again.
Comments
If you read some stuff about AOC you wouldve know that they want it to be a surprise, just to let you know
To add im also glad they are not doing a open beta i am pish sick of people diving into a BETA for 5 minutes and not liking the game or there crap system not running it on full settings then proceeding to slag it off on every forum they find and driving potential players away ie Tabula Rasa, and then those same players dont even bother to try the retail version of the game even on a free trial.
i think AOC is gonna be fantastic and have been impressed with everything ive read and video's i have seen.
No open beta does NOT mean no stress test. No open beta just means they will have to invite people in a controlled manner and being part of the test binds you to an NDA.
some of you are either confused or dont understand the differences between an open beta and a closed beta. Its just a matter of an NDA agreement. They decide how many to invite in instead of having their game completely flooded. I have confidence they'll invite plenty of people to test their servers limits.
It just sounds like they want to be able to control their final testing phases. You guys are going on like the game isnt being tested at all, and thats just a very poor assumption.
this isnt the first time an MMO has gone without an open beta phase
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
If you read some stuff about AOC you wouldve know that they want it to be a surprise, just to let you know
Oh it's a surprise. Then it's alright. Who doesn't like surprises. Lets all go and spend 50$ for a surprise.If you read some stuff about AOC you wouldve know that they want it to be a surprise, just to let you know
Oh it's a surprise. Then it's alright. Who doesn't like surprises. Lets all go and spend 50$ for a surprise.ya its pretty clear reading through this thread that nobody really gives a crap about whether or not the developers would benefit to opening their game up for testing to the public. They just want a demo of the game before they buy it.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
Not sure why peeps think a cheetah 2 engine will mean anything towards laggy graphics.Graphic lag is still all about poly count,how many items are in visual and added effects like shaders/shadows/decals/ect ect.PC's nowadays can easily handle poorly written code,heck if something had 50 added lines to the code somewhere that wasn't optimized you'd never know it.
I think the only delay AOC is having is because IMO there having some probs with the 64 bit .exe version.BTW i think it is fairly apparent this modern game is still dx9 and only 64 bit workable.It is not a true 64 bit game,this is why trying to add tons of effects such as what vanguard tried [shaders]many systems will bottleneck and lag.They can brag about never falling below 20 fps now ,but that is prolly because they removed alot of added effects.If dx 10/64 bit machines get alot more FPS than the peeps using xp 32 bit,then i would have to give funcom some credit for doing a good job.Personally i feel all the players will get the same performance depending of course on there cpu/gpu/ram.
Not sure where dude got his analogy of TR though lol.That game didn't have one bug when i played it.It wasn't bad because of releasing an open beta it was bad because it had no content and was VERY boring.I am sure AOC will easily have more content and be alot more fun to play than TR was.
Yes i do believe this game wil not live up to the hype only because there are not many good games at all to share the hype with,so funcom has alot riding on there shoulders.Warhammer is the only other mass hyped game out there,so both are riding on hype alone ,nothing concrete as far as gameplay or content.This won't be out of the bag until peeps start playing the game.Some actually ALOT of people ,just as in the warhammer case already have inbedded into there mind this game will rock without any doubt,lol,play it first then make a proper judgement.
This game or FUNCOM i mean should release an open beta,for many reasons.This is extremely poor marketing,as just throwing an untested product into the hands of the buyer leaves premise for some very bitter buyers.They did say there test machines were beefy,wich leads me to believe alot of players will struggle with graphic lag.There is another huge factor when comes to a MMO,and that is how will the netcode react to thousands of online players?This should have been tested through beta not after the buyers pay there money.You can't test or rely on your netcode testing it in your shop lol,every player will be on a lan getting 0-15 pings and all on beefy systems.IMO they have decided that they would lose too many potential buyers if peeps had a look see first through an open beta,no other reason that would make sense,there deffinately afraid of something.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
the last paragraph of your post isnt accurate. Theyre testing the game, theyre inviting and have been inviting people in. Theyre just not having an "open" beta, its a closed beta bound by NDA. They have thousands of people testing already.
actually, they have over 10,000 beta testers currently
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
Oh , people and their flawed logic.
Games never used to beta and people didn't whine, and they were killer games, both on console and PC
.
SOE beta tests always. You know why? Because it saves them developers cost so they don't need to take out the bugs themselves.
The same thing happened with Vanguard.
No open beta tests are usually a good thing I think.
They've invited 10,000 people, and thousands more will join in the next month or two. How many to they have to invite to run a decent beta? One million? Think about that for a second, if you've ever tested a game before.
If there were only 10 people in beta, yeah, I'd be concerned.
If you read some stuff about AOC you wouldve know that they want it to be a surprise, just to let you know
Oh it's a surprise. Then it's alright. Who doesn't like surprises. Lets all go and spend 50$ for a surprise.ya its pretty clear reading through this thread that nobody really gives a crap about whether or not the developers would benefit to opening their game up for testing to the public. They just want a demo of the game before they buy it.
After so many promises never delivered, if I don't try a game first I don't buy it. As simple as that.And yes I don't care about them developers in an open beta, I assume they are just stress testing.
If they are not offering an open beta is because they are afraid of people trying it. Or, they are the first to change how things are being done so far. We'll see.
And again, some of the best games never had a beta. There is no need for a beta if everything is running smoothly with in-game testing.
I'm not sure why you're worried so much. I'm more worried of a beta that is used to take out all bugs by players instead of the developers.
Personally I think many of the posters here isn't interested in the game at all. They got their minds set for a game that release later this year - if it isn't postponed that is. An open beta would do nothing to change their minds. This is my personal feeling anyway after reading some of the arguments on this and other boards around.
There's a lot of "I feel this" and "I think that" in this thread. The funniest thing is however that the arguments many use for why AoC will fail does not apply - in their opinion - for "the other game". This is funny because it's nothing solid. It's based upon rumours, hearsay and personal feelings. There's nothing really concrete. The same applies for the "other game", but somehow the same arguments doesn't. There's actually much more media and information released from AoC than it is for the "other game". Whereas someone might say "OMFG look how crap, he ran through a stone on that vid" on the "other game" the same person is saying "STFU n00b it's still work-in-progress". It's not like it's taking half a year to fix trivial bugs like that. This is confusing for me.
"But" some are saying. "But I trust the 'other game's' developers and after Anarchy Online I don't trust Funcom anymore". Yes I agree that a 100% track record for making good game(s) is impressive, but let us look at that argument for a moment. The devs of the 'other game' has made one game which was very good. Hell I even got it myself. Got a 9.1 score at Gamespot - if we ever can call that a benchmark after Kane & Lynch anymore. But let's for the sake of argument anyway as these scores are fairly consistant on several sites. One game that was very good. That's hardly an impressive track record if you ask me. It shows great potential though, but not an impressive track record. ID software has an impressive track record and so does Blizzard, Valve, Firaxis and so on. They've also made lots and lots of games which has been consistantly good over time. Funcom is known for making story-driven games of which "The longest journey" is their prime example. It has also been lauded as the best adventure game for years - when released - on several gaming sites. It got a 9.3 score at gamespot with it's sequel "Dreamfall" at 8.1 - which is nothing more than solid I agree.
Anarchy Online was riddled with problems at it's release there's no sane man who could deny that. Because of the problems it received a mere 7.6 score at Gamespot, which honestly doesn't cut-it. It's expansion a couple of years later went up almost a full point to 8.5 which is very respectable. If you take into consideration that expansion packs really has to offer something special - empirically speaking - to receive a good score it's very respectable indeed. It also shows that Anarchy Online's launch was terrible - once again - and that Funcom lost millions in revenues because of it. Who knows what their score would've been if they had a normal launch. If the expansion pack is an indication it would've been very good indeed and Funcom fixed the teething problems of AO quick after relase.
So what does all of this tell us? It tells me at least that Funcom has a track record as a solid software developer with ample experience in the MMO-market. It tells me that they know how to serve an MMO - eventually. But the most important argument is that they know how much money they lost on the AO launch. If someone think they will release an unfinished game again then they're more biased than what's good for them in their real-life. In fact I would think they've actually learned more from the failed launch of AO then they would from a flawless one. Another thing is that the mmo-market is considerably different today than it was back "then" and this goes for both developers. Both games will be gargantuan successes when they release compared to back then, so you could question how relevant the experience they've gained is set to this launch. I don't know, but I do know that Funcom is a company driven by profit - like every other game company - and I know that a failed or poor launch will hamper that profit. People learn from their mistakes if we didn't we would've been extinct as a species.
This is a game they've spent 5 years to make. It's the second most expensive MMO in the gaming history after WoW. Any fan of MMO's should be happy that they're starting to get alternatives to WoW. Instead you're trying to put down any competitors to what you're seeing as 'the truth'. If there's any hold to any of it I wouldn't care, but most of the arguments are biased and not universal compared to the "other game". If you're going to bring down a game at least be rational and fair.
PS. Yeah I know most of you won't read this text as it's probably waaaay too long. Sorry about, but I was bored
Wizardry - seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about with code optimization. Graphics code can be streamline immensely, and produces much better performance when it is. Ever notice how Halo for Windows performed so poorly that a computer that could run Half Life 2 without issue would chug up and die in sections?
Here is an interesting article on the subject.
http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/04/mature-optimization-2/
To give you an example of an optimization that can make graphics render much faster with no loss in visual quality:
AVOID PER-FRAME CODE
Not everything needs to be done 60 times a second. A huge saver of CPU time is to make certain aspects of the game logic run at a frame rate slower than the screen refresh rate. Most physics will look quite reasonable running at 30 frames per second. Some types of logic, such as path-finding, can be spread over a large number of frames.
This is a good example of a mature optimization. Many games use this form of optimization. It can be a massive time saver, cutting as much as 20% to 50% off your CPU time. It is something that is very difficult to add late in the project. The change in timing from running logic synchronized with the rendering frame advance, to logic running independently can introduce all kinds of obscure timing bugs.
So, in short, don't comment on that which you don't understand. Because frankly, you're obviously clueless in that area.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
i think any game that has over 100k beta testers doesnt need to worry much about there hypometer when it comes to an open beta. People are going to buy this game no matter if there is a beta or not. Alot of people(and im not saying u unless you kow in your heart this fits you) are just upset because they were hoping to get a crack at the game early on. And they know that its a childish excuse so they would rather say something must be wrong. Nah to me something is right. Think about how much hype went into vanguard or LOTRO, so many people played them and the reviews were crazy before the game even came out, some people said they liked it, some people said they didnt and that hurts your sales. Funcom knows they have a strong game and the people who will like there style, will like there game. They arent worried about the people who say they arent getting the game because of the beta because they already know that this game isnt for everyone. Better to have a slow start with alot of progression then to have a mass start and mass decline!
i think any game that has over 100k beta testers doesnt need to worry much about there hypometer when it comes to an open beta. People are going to buy this game no matter if there is a beta or not. Alot of people(and im not saying u unless you kow in your heart this fits you) are just upset because they were hoping to get a crack at the game early on. And they know that its a childish excuse so they would rather say something must be wrong. Nah to me something is right. Think about how much hype went into vanguard or LOTRO, so many people played them and the reviews were crazy before the game even came out, some people said they liked it, some people said they didnt and that hurts your sales. Funcom knows they have a strong game and the people who will like there style, will like there game. They arent worried about the people who say they arent getting the game because of the beta because they already know that this game isnt for everyone. Better to have a slow start with alot of progression then to have a mass start and mass decline!
WoW had as many beta tester applications as AoC has, but they didn't avoid an open beta. Open betas, whether the hardcore "It's for bug/stress testing" guys want to admit it or not, has shifted in its purpose recently. It's now not only for stress testing, it's for a public showing of the game. There's even been dev teams that have stated as much during their open betas.
If Funcom knew they had everything on the stress test side under control and that it would be ready for release without opening up the beta, then there's really no reason not to give an open beta, odd as that sounds. Marketing says if you feel you're product is good enough that people will want to buy it, give them a short open beta to leave a good taste in their mouths come release day. It worked for Blizzard, even when everyone in open beta had to experience the dreaded loot lag for the first half of the open. As much as some hate the game, you gotta give some respect to Blizzard for awesome marketing. While I can understand not wanting to make a WoW clone, there's absolutely no reason not to follow their marketing scheme.
The only people who were let down by Dark and Light and Vanguard were people that either hyped themselves up or flocked to the latest pseudo-alternative MMO. Age of Conan isn't that big of a deal, it's just another casual, heavily-instanced, heavily-restricted MMORPG.
You should only anticipate games that meet your own criteria of what an MMO should be, not anybody else's.
With that said, Darkfall Online is the only game on the horizon that's the "real deal".
..Darkfall online is the "real deal"?!???
....Please tell me that you are kidding!
This is the game that was supposed to be released in 2003 for Christ's sake! 2003!
Darkfall will NEVER come out, and if/when it does, it will be so damn old already that even if it runs smoothly, people will be just as well to play Asheron's Call on the PvP Darkside sever or something.
Please tell me that you're kidding about Darkfall being the "real deal" bro...
- Zaxx
i think any game that has over 100k beta testers doesnt need to worry much about there hypometer when it comes to an open beta. People are going to buy this game no matter if there is a beta or not. Alot of people(and im not saying u unless you kow in your heart this fits you) are just upset because they were hoping to get a crack at the game early on. And they know that its a childish excuse so they would rather say something must be wrong. Nah to me something is right. Think about how much hype went into vanguard or LOTRO, so many people played them and the reviews were crazy before the game even came out, some people said they liked it, some people said they didnt and that hurts your sales. Funcom knows they have a strong game and the people who will like there style, will like there game. They arent worried about the people who say they arent getting the game because of the beta because they already know that this game isnt for everyone. Better to have a slow start with alot of progression then to have a mass start and mass decline!
WoW had as many beta tester applications as AoC has, but they didn't avoid an open beta. Open betas, whether the hardcore "It's for bug/stress testing" guys want to admit it or not, has shifted in its purpose recently. It's now not only for stress testing, it's for a public showing of the game. There's even been dev teams that have stated as much during their open betas.
If Funcom knew they had everything on the stress test side under control and that it would be ready for release without opening up the beta, then there's really no reason not to give an open beta, odd as that sounds. Marketing says if you feel you're product is good enough that people will want to buy it, give them a short open beta to leave a good taste in their mouths come release day. It worked for Blizzard, even when everyone in open beta had to experience the dreaded loot lag for the first half of the open. As much as some hate the game, you gotta give some respect to Blizzard for awesome marketing. While I can understand not wanting to make a WoW clone, there's absolutely no reason not to follow their marketing scheme.
i dont think thats accurate. if you had things that were new age in a game that you didnt want to leak out yet, you would keep it under raps too. trust me, in this day in age i understand why its good to have an open beta because it gives everyone a chance to see if hey liek it, but : 1. that is an unnoficial use for beta and is not required 2. just because you dont have an open beta doesnt man that something is wrong.now if wow had over 15 thousand closed beta testers with more invites going out, and you have proof of this then i will understand your point even more, but liek i said, it doesnt have to be done.
..Darkfall online is the "real deal"?!???
....Please tell me that you are kidding!
This is the game that was supposed to be released in 2003 for Christ's sake! 2003!
Darkfall will NEVER come out, and if/when it does, it will be so damn old already that even if it runs smoothly, people will be just as well to play Asheron's Call on the PvP Darkside sever or something.
Please tell me that you're kidding about Darkfall being the "real deal" bro...
- Zaxx
That's the year it began development. Games don't release the same year people start working on it. Media coverage and aesthetics have very little to do with a game's potential, it's the design principles, which is precisely why I research into games that I actually would enjoy playing. Darkfall Online won't appeal to everybody, because not everybody likes freedom in a videogame, but I do.
T O T A L L Y - W R O N G - A N S W E R
I have also followed Darkfall for a couple years way back in 2001 and 2002 or something. The DARKFALL website had a FAQ on it back in 2001 and the question was when was the expected release date for Darkfall. The Answer was a best guess release date of "FALL OF 2003". 2003 was the first announced RELEASE DATE not when it began development. Trust me, I've already been on the Darkfall follower crowd.. um about 7 years ago now.
- Zaxx
..Darkfall online is the "real deal"?!???
....Please tell me that you are kidding!
This is the game that was supposed to be released in 2003 for Christ's sake! 2003!
Darkfall will NEVER come out, and if/when it does, it will be so damn old already that even if it runs smoothly, people will be just as well to play Asheron's Call on the PvP Darkside sever or something.
Please tell me that you're kidding about Darkfall being the "real deal" bro...
- Zaxx
That's the year it began development. Games don't release the same year people start working on it. Media coverage and aesthetics have very little to do with a game's potential, it's the design principles, which is precisely why I research into games that I actually would enjoy playing. Darkfall Online won't appeal to everybody, because not everybody likes freedom in a videogame, but I do.
T O T A L L Y - W R O N G - A N S W E R
I have also followed Darkfall for a couple years way back in 2001 and 2002 or something. The DARKFALL website had a FAQ on it back in 2001 and the question was when was the expected release date for Darkfall. The Answer was a best guess release date of "FALL OF 2003". 2003 was the first announced RELEASE DATE not when it began development. Trust me, I've already been on the Darkfall follower crowd.. um about 7 years ago now.
- Zaxx
However, back then it was vaporware. The game only started showing promise around '03-'04 and has been on a roll ever since. You have to remember that it's an independent project, not a high valued production. I follow games that appeal to me and after reading extensively on it, Age of Conan just doesn't.
I agree companies are in no way obliged to hold open beta tests. I feel it's a terrible move, with Blizzard proving open betas can do a lot for your game if you're prepared for it, but in the end it is their choice.
And they are still working towards that 2003 release. Why would anyone mention DarkFall in a discussion about problems with a game launching? At least AoC will have a launch, may not be the best or the worst but it will happen.
I really hope that AOC is the real deal but i can no longer get excited about a game before it comes out, nor will i ever preorder again. Vanguard beat that out of me.
It looks very promising and the graphics look amazing but Vanguards did as well. I dont think it will be another Vanguard though. The one great thing that Vanguard did was scare developers into not releasing too early, which is why you have seen AoC and WAR get pushed back a couple times.
I would not do an open beta either, and not because it is the easy way by getting the players to fix bugs, which never happens by the way Candygirl, the players report the bugs, not fix them. Again good job on reaming SOE for this practice. It isnt like DAOC had open Beta, or Lineage 2, or WoW or LOTRs or a bunch of other companies games.
I would not do an open Beta or lift NDA before launch because many Beta testers just plain suck. Too many people get into a Beta so they can play a game for free, not so they can test the game for bugs. They sign up for a unfinished game then bash the game because it is unfinished, DUH. Plus the genre has grown alot since WoW came out and since WoW is the first game for a large part of the MMO player base they may not like a game that his considerably harder then WoW and also bash it.
I would rather have no publicity then bad publicity from people who should never have been in Beta to begin with. Do a closed Beta, invite it up as you get closer to launch, do a big stress test right before launch, then launch and lift NDA. Im cool with that. Now if they launch and the game sucks shame on them. But that is why i will be waiting a month or two before buying any MMO again.