Im glad your in beta and have seen the game is a success, I havent had a good game to play since DAOC launch... so you will forgive me if Im a bit skeptical about a new game.
I desperately want it to be a success but I also dont want another horrible game.
Tabula Rasa was made by Richard Garriot, the same man who made UO, a game I loved. Sadly TR was horrible. Thankfully I was able to get into the beta and see that it was awful.
With AOC, keeping a NDA up till launch is a bad idea in my opinion, folks have been burned many times, and spending 50 bucks on a product (especially with a company thats had issues in the past) is more risk than many are willing to take.
I have my games pre-ordered, signed up for beta and the pvp weekend, we will see if I can get into any of em.
I still believe the only reason to keep an NDA in tact till launch day is if you have little if any confidence in your game. I wasnt comparing WOW to this game, I was comparing their launch, I also compared TR's release.
I hate wow, but they obviously had a lot of confidence in their game, Funcom seems to not have as much. IMO.
... I still believe the only reason to keep an NDA in tact till launch day is if you have little if any confidence in your game. I wasnt comparing WOW to this game, I was comparing their launch, I also compared TR's release. ...
Hearing that a game is keeping alpha / beta testers under a NDA up through launch makes me hesitant as well. I don't require (detailed) information about a game prior to launch, but information prior to a product release influences my expectations and desire to purchase.
Of course, it's their business decisions in terms of how to disseminate information about their game just like any other marketing decision is theirs to make. In the end, I'll wait for the game to be released, wait for reviews to come out, speak to friends about the game, and wait for the inevitable patches or updates.
If the NDA is going to be up through launch, it just means I won't be interested in the game for now, which I don't see as being a bad thing.
A: The Beta is for the developer, not for you. Just because developers have been using them as a marketing tool of late doesn't mean that it is a good or bad way of doing things, it's just a way.
B: Any assumption about a companies motives behind their NDA policy is just an assumption. Actually based on everything I've read on these boards about this issue, personally I think the best stratagy would be to set a corporate policy that your NEVER going to have a Open Beta, and NEVER going to lift NDA. Then there's no question. But as many of you I'm sure will point out, I don't work for Funcom. So who knows? Really who knows? Not me... but not you either.
C: Even if they do lift NDA... it doesn't matter. There is one thing that every computer game released since the dawn of internet, good bad or otherwise has had in common: Stupid people write stupid things about it on the internet. You know why my post count is so low? Because I can't stand gushers OR bashers, or Fanbois or Flamers, or whatever terminology you kids use to describe your average forum lurker.
Conan might suck, it might rock, it might be ok. Who knows? None of this Open Beta, NDA, etc. whatever proves one way or the other, it might mean they have no confidence in their product, or it might just be the way they decided to handle things.
You have three choices: Preorder, Wait for release and reviews, write AoC off entirely. No choice is wrong, no choice is right. You don't know anything, I don't know anything. We're all stupid and I have a headache.
A: The Beta is for the developer, not for you. Just because developers have been using them as a marketing tool of late doesn't mean that it is a good or bad way of doing things, it's just a way. B: Any assumption about a companies motives behind their NDA policy is just an assumption. Actually based on everything I've read on these boards about this issue, personally I think the best stratagy would be to set a corporate policy that your NEVER going to have a Open Beta, and NEVER going to lift NDA. Then there's no question. But as many of you I'm sure will point out, I don't work for Funcom. So who knows? Really who knows? Not me... but not you either. C: Even if they do lift NDA... it doesn't matter. There is one thing that every computer game released since the dawn of internet, good bad or otherwise has had in common: Stupid people write stupid things about it on the internet. You know why my post count is so low? Because I can't stand gushers OR bashers, or Fanbois or Flamers, or whatever terminology you kids use to describe your average forum lurker. Conan might suck, it might rock, it might be ok. Who knows? None of this Open Beta, NDA, etc. whatever proves one way or the other, it might mean they have no confidence in their product, or it might just be the way they decided to handle things. You have three choices: Preorder, Wait for release and reviews, write AoC off entirely. No choice is wrong, no choice is right. You don't know anything, I don't know anything. We're all stupid and I have a headache.
Ok this was some funny stuff - especially the headache bit I just wan to point out that some people posting here actually are in either technical beta or the closed beta. Most of these people wont say much other than the politically correct - "this game has great potential" or "it will change a lot before the release" without breaking the NDA.
I test online applications for living - I am going to wait to buy the game in the store.
If it were going to be "ready" then they would not still be hiding behind an NDA.
It will have a lot of problems but they will likely fix them after retail, only when everyone is screaming in their face.
Otherwise, there would be no NDA now
I can't believe someone hasn't said this yet, but Funcom doesn't release its NDAs. The one for Anarchy online is still in effect.
Funcom isn't hiding behind anything. It's just their company policy that's been in effect long before Age of Conan.
What would lifting the NDA do for Funcom anyway? It would only allow beta testers to comment on a build of an MMO that might not reflect the final game version, thus biasing people one way or another.
Hearing that a game is keeping alpha / beta testers under a NDA up through launch makes me hesitant as well. I don't require (detailed) information about a game prior to launch, but information prior to a product release influences my expectations and desire to purchase.
Refer to my post above. Releasing the NDA does nothing for Funcom but a disservice.
I swear, people look for any excuse to put down a game and its developer before launch.
Funcom did not release the NDA for Anarchy Online, and it turned out to be very incomplete and incredibly buggy at release. Some might say they did not release the NDA specifically because of this. Its a shame so many people think this is a good direction for the genre to go and refuse to learn from the past. Can't wait to see SoE and EA adopting this same policy once they see it works for Funcom, so the release state of everything ever released from now on becomes completely hidden until we've paid for it. Thanks for helping the cause, Daedalus.
I swear, some people get so caught up in their personal flavor of the month desires they just can't see the big picture.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
Funcom did not release the NDA for Anarchy Online, and it turned out to be very incomplete and incredibly buggy at release. Some might say they did not release the NDA specifically because of this. Its a shame so many people think this is a good direction for the genre to go and refuse to learn from the past. Can't wait to see SoE and EA adopting this same policy once they see it works for Funcom, so the release state of everything ever released from now on becomes completely hidden until we've paid for it. Thanks for helping the cause, Daedalus. I swear, some people get so caught up in their personal flavor of the month desires they just can't see the big picture.
Frankly, that "waiting for Darkfall" comment just says it all. How can you criticise Funcom for not releasing information but be content to "wait" for a game that's never coming out? *sigh*
Why would Funcom release the NDA of a game that is still being tested and completed? The only result would be to give people an incomplete picture and contradictory reports from various beta testers who should be spending time helping to remove the remaining bugs than reporting to the community about their impressions of the game.
The fact of the matter is, we've known that the NDA would never be released. I don't understand why only now this is an issue.
Speculating on the status of the game based on an NDA policy that had been in effect for almost 9 years now just doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, speculating that other companies will adopt the same policy is useless as well. Funcom has had this policy for 9 years or more and it doesn't seem to be catching on.
If you want to deny yourself the next big MMO, an MMO that at least tries to do something unique, that's your call, and you can vote with your wallet.
Funcom did not release the NDA for Anarchy Online, and it turned out to be very incomplete and incredibly buggy at release. Some might say they did not release the NDA specifically because of this. Its a shame so many people think this is a good direction for the genre to go and refuse to learn from the past. Can't wait to see SoE and EA adopting this same policy once they see it works for Funcom, so the release state of everything ever released from now on becomes completely hidden until we've paid for it. Thanks for helping the cause, Daedalus. I swear, some people get so caught up in their personal flavor of the month desires they just can't see the big picture.
Frankly, that "waiting for Darkfall" comment just says it all. How can you criticise Funcom for not releasing information but be content to "wait" for a game that's never coming out? *sigh*
Why would Funcom release the NDA of a game that is still being tested and completed? The only result would be to give people an incomplete picture and contradictory reports from various beta testers who should be spending time helping to remove the remaining bugs than reporting to the community about their impressions of the game.
The fact of the matter is, we've known that the NDA would never be released. I don't understand why only now this is an issue.
Speculating on the status of the game based on an NDA policy that had been in effect for almost 9 years now just doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, speculating that other companies will adopt the same policy is useless as well. Funcom has had this policy for 9 years or more and it doesn't seem to be catching on.
If you want to deny yourself the next big MMO, an MMO that at least tries to do something unique, that's your call, and you can vote with your wallet.
Well... thats the conflict. The game could be cool and unique but no one but the testers know this. Releasing the NDA would allow testers to talk about the good and the bad. Hopefully there is more good than bad.
AO for example was HORRIBLE. It was the Darth Vader of launches. To me was the worst launch... so obviously for some of us old timers we are a bit worried. Funcom did good by AO after release, but sadly it was a bit to little to late.
Most of us didnt know until this thread that funcom had never dropped an NDA, so it becoming an issue now makes sense.
Funcom is welcome to hold onto the NDA however they please, however, people will speculate on why they do things differently than any other company in the genre. That doesnt really mean they are right or wrong to do so, just different.
However, if AOC releases and its as buggy as AO was... then people like me wont trust them in the future, specifically cause they wont tell us before launch about the state of the game we are getting into.
Funcom did not release the NDA for Anarchy Online, and it turned out to be very incomplete and incredibly buggy at release. Some might say they did not release the NDA specifically because of this. Its a shame so many people think this is a good direction for the genre to go and refuse to learn from the past. Can't wait to see SoE and EA adopting this same policy once they see it works for Funcom, so the release state of everything ever released from now on becomes completely hidden until we've paid for it. Thanks for helping the cause, Daedalus. I swear, some people get so caught up in their personal flavor of the month desires they just can't see the big picture.
Frankly, that "waiting for Darkfall" comment just says it all. How can you criticise Funcom for not releasing information but be content to "wait" for a game that's never coming out? *sigh*
I really should take that out of there, since every AoC fantroll seems to make some childish comment about it, no matter what the thread topic is. What does Darkfall have anything to do with Funcom's NDA, or the topic?I don't even consider myself a fan of Darkfall, I just find the idea behind the systems its proposing as intriguing. But I hardly ever even post on the board.
Why would Funcom release the NDA of a game that is still being tested and completed? The only result would be to give people an incomplete picture and contradictory reports from various beta testers who should be spending time helping to remove the remaining bugs than reporting to the community about their impressions of the game.
While its true that the hardcore fans that believe funcom can do no wrong will no doubt try to spin any negative info as incomplete or invalid, I don't particularly care. I only want to know the real state of the game at any given moment in time. Both the state of the game during development, and at release time. Mostly because I want to see if it matches up with the information that is being 'fed' to the community. Releasing the NDA will provide that. I don't mind if it doesn't meet your personal approval, I can live with that.
The fact of the matter is, we've known that the NDA would never be released. I don't understand why only now this is an issue.
Hint: Its in the thread title.
Speculating on the status of the game based on an NDA policy that had been in effect for almost 9 years now just doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, speculating that other companies will adopt the same policy is useless as well. Funcom has had this policy for 9 years or more and it doesn't seem to be catching on.
1 game in 9 years could be a fluke. 2 games, and other companies start paying attention. I don't see any reason why the community should give them an excuse to ruin the genre further.
If you want to deny yourself the next big MMO, an MMO that at least tries to do something unique, that's your call, and you can vote with your wallet.
To claim this is the next big MMO before its even released and before an NDA has lifted tells me your arguments and motivations for your position are based on fandom. You are of course entitled to this, however I'm not particularly interested in drinking that kool-aid myself. I prefer proof to faith. I guess thats the scientist in me.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
Well... thats the conflict. The game could be cool and unique but no one but the testers know this. Releasing the NDA would allow testers to talk about the good and the bad. Hopefully there is more good than bad.
AO for example was HORRIBLE. It was the Darth Vader of launches. To me was the worst launch... so obviously for some of us old timers we are a bit worried. Funcom did good by AO after release, but sadly it was a bit to little to late. Most of us didnt know until this thread that funcom had never dropped an NDA, so it becoming an issue now makes sense. Funcom is welcome to hold onto the NDA however they please, however, people will speculate on why they do things differently than any other company in the genre. That doesnt really mean they are right or wrong to do so, just different. However, if AOC releases and its as buggy as AO was... then people like me wont trust them in the future, specifically cause they wont tell us before launch about the state of the game we are getting into.
But isn't that how it is in every game? You don't ever really know how a game will play until it gets released. This whole idea of knowing what the game is like before it's even finished is very new to me.
I don't know much about AO, but that was a long time ago. Besides, you have a lot of beta leaked information floating around on the internet and youtube. If you really want the information, you should be able to find it without much trouble.
Even if they lifted the NDA, I don't see what that would change other than you having to wade through countless posts with contradictory information and opinions. Funcom is very much aware that they owe people a stable game for the AO launch. The company's future rests of AoC. If it fails, Funcom is probably done as a company.
Considering that you added the Darkfall comment after your initial post in an edit, it looked more like a jab to me than just something passive. I really don't consider myself an AoC fanboy or whatever, but I am anti-Darkfall.
There's no "state of the game" for you to know because the game is in beta. That's the "state of the game". It sounds like you just are hungry for information, but clamoring for it will not change the simple fact that the NDA will not be lifted... ever.
The thread title just repeats a few informational blurbs and makes baseless speculation.
No one is giving anyone a pass just because it's "Funcom". Everyone I see is critical and worrisome. This website just seems more than anything else, a place for people to come and complain about anything and everything.
Wow, you prefer "proof to faith" and you are waiting for Darkfall? That's just a little contradictory, but I digress.
The fact of the matter is, I do have proof, but a certain NDA prevents it from being shared. Take that how you wish, but fandom is just not how I roll.
Hearing that a game is keeping alpha / beta testers under a NDA up through launch makes me hesitant as well. I don't require (detailed) information about a game prior to launch, but information prior to a product release influences my expectations and desire to purchase.
Refer to my post above. Releasing the NDA does nothing for Funcom but a disservice.
I swear, people look for any excuse to put down a game and its developer before launch.
You may be imagining that I have some sort of bias against either AOC or Funcom, though I do not. I certainly did not "put down" the game or the developer in my post. I simply pointed out that hearing that having testers under a NDA through launch makes me hesitant. Unless I'm able to 1) play the game myself through an open beta, trial, or demo, or 2) hear from people who have played the game during development, I defer judgment as to whether it may or may not be a game I would be interested or enthusiastic about purchasing. I hope it is a successful game and one that I will enjoy playing, but as of right now I don't have much of an interest.
As to whether releasing an NDA could do *nothing* for Funcom but a disservice, I would disagree. Hypothetically (depending on the state of the game), word of mouth from testers could generate buzz and pre-sales, and allowing game journalists to preview and report on the feature set could mean extra publicity if it did not mean violating a NDA. Keeping a NDA through launch and running an open beta could generate negative speculation on things such as the feature set or stability of the game as it nears launch.
I'm neutral, Funcom can do what they choose to, and I'll act like an interested but unbiased consumer.
I've never trusted beta testers to give me an accurate view of a game though. And besides, word of mouth has already spread all across the internet in a lot of beta leaks.
Recently, it seems to me as though people want to believe that they are forced to buy a game.
Let me elaborate on this. In so many threads now, people complain about the apparent idea that FunCom might not be dropping the NDA (I am not saying they will, or won't, because I don#t know, but for now, I "think" they will). Complaining about that in many different ways. Some say it is to hide a crappy product. That is their right, if they want to believe that. I can't change that, and I wouldn't want to. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is good people think for themselves.
Some go on to say that keeping the NDA up until launch means scamming people out of their money. Now -that- is a point I frankly do not understand. How are they -scamming- you out of your money? Do they somehow force you to pre-order the game? Isn't it simple fact that you, as a cautious consumer have the possibility to simply wait until release and then see for yourself what the game is like, hear it from every major gaming magazine, watch friends play it, most likely get Free Trials eventually or Buddy-Passes from others? If you do not want to give FunCom your money before you see the game is actually good, then you don't have to!
Seriously, so many people seem to believe that pre-ordering is a -must- these days and standard procedure for everyone. Well here's the thing. Making a pre-order on a game that is not released yet, you -always- take a risk. If you follow through that is. Because even if you pre-ordered, you have the right to -cancel- that pre-order any time you want if you feel FC is not open enough and you'd rather hesitate.
So seriously, everyone who's telling me FC is -scamming- or -cheating- people should really stop and think about things. No one is forcing you to pre-order the game or even buy it on release day. The only one who -can- force you to do that is yourself. And to everyone who says "But I want to be there from day-one, otherwise I can't compete"...well, we all have our quirks and if you can't stand the idea of someone else reaching 80 before you...then I guess you will have to take a wild shot. But if that means so much to you, I suppose taking the risk of pre-ordering isn't too far off, is it?
All right, sorry for the wall of text, but that had to get off my chest.
Considering that you added the Darkfall comment after your initial post in an edit, it looked more like a jab to me than just something passive. I really don't consider myself an AoC fanboy or whatever, but I am anti-Darkfall. ??? I'm not following you here. I never added anything to do with darkfall after an edit? The only darkfall comment made was in the original post and made after you commented on my sig. Thats fine if your anti-darkfall i guess, although it seems like a waste to hate on it. Like I said, I have no particularly loyalty to it, i just like the type of systems it claims to have. Maybe I should replace my sig with: Waiting for game with freedoms and meaningful consequences. Might attract less haters and is probably more accurate. There's no "state of the game" for you to know because the game is in beta. That's the "state of the game". It sounds like you just are hungry for information, but clamoring for it will not change the simple fact that the NDA will not be lifted... ever. I like to know whether something is a wise investment or not. Criticising people every time they want to make an educated purchase is not going to make them suddenly want to blow their money without good reason. If they don't want to lift the NDA than great - just tells the more smarter gamers that they might be hiding something. The thread title just repeats a few informational blurbs and makes baseless speculation. You said you didn't know why people were making a big deal about the NDA now. The answer is, because its 7 weeks till launch. Whether or not this was always there policy doesn't really matter. I think most people thought that was just a joke, that in this day and age and with products like Vanguard, that no company would be foolish enough to keep an NDA up forever. Hell I still can't believe it. And I can't believe people actually defend them for it. No one is giving anyone a pass just because it's "Funcom". Everyone I see is critical and worrisome. This website just seems more than anything else, a place for people to come and complain about anything and everything. Wow, you prefer "proof to faith" and you are waiting for Darkfall? That's just a little contradictory, but I digress. I'm not buying Darkfall until I see some proof either. How is that contradictory? The fact of the matter is, I do have proof, but a certain NDA prevents it from being shared. Take that how you wish, but fandom is just not how I roll. If you can't provide proof, than why should i believe you?
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
When it comes to a new game, only you should decide if you like that game or not. That negates the NDA. We are part of a genre that has thousands of people playing online together. Surely you will have a friend that will buy the game if you dont want to spend money on the box. Plus Open Beta annoucement is imminent.
So most of the people who moan about NDA not being lifted (if it will or will not is still not clear) also moan that they can't trust anyone else to make that decision for them. Very contradictory indeed.
What might happen is that the Open Beta will have a different terms and conditions to the Closed Beta agreement.
Lets all chill out. just over a month till launch. And an Open Beta announcement coming V soon.
I'm just a little worried about the Open Beta registration. We all know you will have to fill out a registration form, but will they do another 'we pick 20k random people' or does everyone get into the Open Beta?
I very much doubt you'll see a totally open registration process in a game rated M+.
As for numbers, I don't think that any MMO developed is paying for server farms unless they are really close to release. My guess is that the open beta numbers will increase drastically the closer we are in the actual release date. Anyone has any idea on how many testers should the farms accommodate if the initial subscription numbers were 500k? Not 500k for sure. Maybe 1/5 this number (wild guess).
I think they are going to wait until close to release to announce that the game is going to be delayed around 2 weeks or something like that; and then announce the end of NDA to apease gamers.
And I think an open beta or NDA lift before launch is very important in MMORPGS for the simple reason that most MMORPGs launch with lots of bugs and without a lot of the promised features. So I think buyers get scammed because they are promised one thing and buy another.
This might or might not be the case with AoC, but this stigma over MMORPGs touches all games belonging to that genre imo
Well, Funcom has full right not to lift NDA and potential customers also have a full right to be suspicious.
During the past couple of years there was a number of overhyped titles (Vanguard, TR, POTBS) that proved to be mediocre or worse. All of those have dedicated fanbois and spin machine working for them. Therefore I prefer to hear argumented naysayers (argumented being crucial) to fanbois/propaganda/advertisement/spin.
AoC is certainly overhyped and it is highly unlikely it will deliver to the expectations although it will most likely prove a great financial success due to sales. How much of a success it will prove as enjoyable gaming experience remains to be seen.
The fact of the matter is that AoC will maybe get tweaked in the following month or so before the release but its basic mechanism will not change. No product is perfect but we do know for certain that the world is zoned, has significant amount of solo/linear play, crafting is iffy and number of race(s)/classes rather limited. Personally, and after reading all the info I could get my hands on including beta leaks, I am under impression dev's creativity expired with looped off heads, pixel bewbs and pissing NPC's.
It can still prove to be a good game but due to overhyped failures of the past it is prudent to be cautious. In short let the game prove itself before cheering its greatness. No product is perefect and naysayers for me offer a welcomed balance to fanbois and advertisement.
History lesson: In 2001, Funcom was on the cusp of releasing Anarchy Online. However, in the beta phase it was running right before the planned release, there were several promised features that were either missing or broken completely. The majority of the game at that time was based around a revolutionary dynamic instanced mission system.... a system that only rarely functioned properly. Most instances were bugged so they couldnt be completed, or have unintentional invisible walls that blocked movement through rooms. There were severe lag and server slowdowns, especially with more than a handful of people on screen at once. The beta testers knew well the issues and said it wasnt ready and there were still major problems to resolve before it was release ready. Funcom went ahead and released it anyway, while maintaining an image with the non-beta customers that such features were in and functioning. They were allowed to do this thanks to their nda, which they maintained long enough to keep the game hyped for sales to come in. Release came, and it was one of the worst releases in the history of mmos. But thanks to the nda, they accomplished enough initial sales to earn the money and keep the game afloat, and over a period of 6+ months, slowly started whittling away at all the issues until it was more release worthy. And when they had got most of the biggest issues taken care of, they started doing expansions and growing the game past its initial feature set. Fast forward 7 years, AoC release is on the horizon. I see the same nda being held until near release. I see the same kinds of posts about the state of things. And I wonder if the same old tactics are being used here as they were back then. I think a lot of people that so faithfully defend the decision to keep the nda in place for so long were not around back in 2001. Everyone can argue until they are blue in the face about what the future might or might not hold for AoC. But I think history has a lot to tell about why someone would think the NDA should be dropped before release. They are basing their position on proof from the past, and I can't say that I blame them.
well written, you might want to add that lot of the broken stuff is still in AO. they never really bothered to fix stuff that was not gamebreaking, but fc was bold enough to keep useless stuff/broken content and features in the game (and gamedb). AoC will be the next TR - huge marketing hype & showoff to cover their lies for a half working game and 50% of the promised content. and then thats it, this is the game you bought and it wont change in the next few years except minor fixes like AO had it until maybe notum wars.
and looking back, notum wars was like their start. lagwars - buggy, unfinished - half ready. theres still unused content of that non-free "expansion" in the game. shadowlands was the same, bugged, unfinished not tested (well beta players told them ofc). i left AO after alieninvasion, same content in different color with more lag - a totally legal 50$ rippoff with again, half the marketing lies (about promised stuff) not ingame.
Comments
Im glad your in beta and have seen the game is a success, I havent had a good game to play since DAOC launch... so you will forgive me if Im a bit skeptical about a new game.
I desperately want it to be a success but I also dont want another horrible game.
Tabula Rasa was made by Richard Garriot, the same man who made UO, a game I loved. Sadly TR was horrible. Thankfully I was able to get into the beta and see that it was awful.
With AOC, keeping a NDA up till launch is a bad idea in my opinion, folks have been burned many times, and spending 50 bucks on a product (especially with a company thats had issues in the past) is more risk than many are willing to take.
I have my games pre-ordered, signed up for beta and the pvp weekend, we will see if I can get into any of em.
I still believe the only reason to keep an NDA in tact till launch day is if you have little if any confidence in your game. I wasnt comparing WOW to this game, I was comparing their launch, I also compared TR's release.
I hate wow, but they obviously had a lot of confidence in their game, Funcom seems to not have as much. IMO.
Of course, it's their business decisions in terms of how to disseminate information about their game just like any other marketing decision is theirs to make. In the end, I'll wait for the game to be released, wait for reviews to come out, speak to friends about the game, and wait for the inevitable patches or updates.
If the NDA is going to be up through launch, it just means I won't be interested in the game for now, which I don't see as being a bad thing.
A: The Beta is for the developer, not for you. Just because developers have been using them as a marketing tool of late doesn't mean that it is a good or bad way of doing things, it's just a way.
B: Any assumption about a companies motives behind their NDA policy is just an assumption. Actually based on everything I've read on these boards about this issue, personally I think the best stratagy would be to set a corporate policy that your NEVER going to have a Open Beta, and NEVER going to lift NDA. Then there's no question. But as many of you I'm sure will point out, I don't work for Funcom. So who knows? Really who knows? Not me... but not you either.
C: Even if they do lift NDA... it doesn't matter. There is one thing that every computer game released since the dawn of internet, good bad or otherwise has had in common: Stupid people write stupid things about it on the internet. You know why my post count is so low? Because I can't stand gushers OR bashers, or Fanbois or Flamers, or whatever terminology you kids use to describe your average forum lurker.
Conan might suck, it might rock, it might be ok. Who knows? None of this Open Beta, NDA, etc. whatever proves one way or the other, it might mean they have no confidence in their product, or it might just be the way they decided to handle things.
You have three choices: Preorder, Wait for release and reviews, write AoC off entirely. No choice is wrong, no choice is right. You don't know anything, I don't know anything. We're all stupid and I have a headache.
Active: WoW
Semi-retired: STO
Fully retired: UO, EQ, AC, SWG, FFXI, DDO:EU, PoTBS, AoC, EvE
Tried: EQ2, Tabula Rasa, Auto-Assault, Isteria, LotRO, Wizard 101
Looking forward to: Star Citizen
Ok this was some funny stuff - especially the headache bit
I just wan to point out that some people posting here actually are in either technical beta or the closed beta. Most of these people wont say much other than the politically correct - "this game has great potential" or "it will change a lot before the release" without breaking the NDA.
I test online applications for living - I am going to wait to buy the game in the store.
FUNCOM - putting the FUN in disFUNctional !
I can't believe someone hasn't said this yet, but Funcom doesn't release its NDAs. The one for Anarchy online is still in effect.
Funcom isn't hiding behind anything. It's just their company policy that's been in effect long before Age of Conan.
What would lifting the NDA do for Funcom anyway? It would only allow beta testers to comment on a build of an MMO that might not reflect the final game version, thus biasing people one way or another.
Refer to my post above. Releasing the NDA does nothing for Funcom but a disservice.
I swear, people look for any excuse to put down a game and its developer before launch.
Funcom did not release the NDA for Anarchy Online, and it turned out to be very incomplete and incredibly buggy at release. Some might say they did not release the NDA specifically because of this. Its a shame so many people think this is a good direction for the genre to go and refuse to learn from the past. Can't wait to see SoE and EA adopting this same policy once they see it works for Funcom, so the release state of everything ever released from now on becomes completely hidden until we've paid for it. Thanks for helping the cause, Daedalus.
I swear, some people get so caught up in their personal flavor of the month desires they just can't see the big picture.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
Frankly, that "waiting for Darkfall" comment just says it all. How can you criticise Funcom for not releasing information but be content to "wait" for a game that's never coming out? *sigh*
Why would Funcom release the NDA of a game that is still being tested and completed? The only result would be to give people an incomplete picture and contradictory reports from various beta testers who should be spending time helping to remove the remaining bugs than reporting to the community about their impressions of the game.
The fact of the matter is, we've known that the NDA would never be released. I don't understand why only now this is an issue.
Speculating on the status of the game based on an NDA policy that had been in effect for almost 9 years now just doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, speculating that other companies will adopt the same policy is useless as well. Funcom has had this policy for 9 years or more and it doesn't seem to be catching on.
If you want to deny yourself the next big MMO, an MMO that at least tries to do something unique, that's your call, and you can vote with your wallet.
Frankly, that "waiting for Darkfall" comment just says it all. How can you criticise Funcom for not releasing information but be content to "wait" for a game that's never coming out? *sigh*
Why would Funcom release the NDA of a game that is still being tested and completed? The only result would be to give people an incomplete picture and contradictory reports from various beta testers who should be spending time helping to remove the remaining bugs than reporting to the community about their impressions of the game.
The fact of the matter is, we've known that the NDA would never be released. I don't understand why only now this is an issue.
Speculating on the status of the game based on an NDA policy that had been in effect for almost 9 years now just doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, speculating that other companies will adopt the same policy is useless as well. Funcom has had this policy for 9 years or more and it doesn't seem to be catching on.
If you want to deny yourself the next big MMO, an MMO that at least tries to do something unique, that's your call, and you can vote with your wallet.
Well... thats the conflict. The game could be cool and unique but no one but the testers know this. Releasing the NDA would allow testers to talk about the good and the bad. Hopefully there is more good than bad.AO for example was HORRIBLE. It was the Darth Vader of launches. To me was the worst launch... so obviously for some of us old timers we are a bit worried. Funcom did good by AO after release, but sadly it was a bit to little to late.
Most of us didnt know until this thread that funcom had never dropped an NDA, so it becoming an issue now makes sense.
Funcom is welcome to hold onto the NDA however they please, however, people will speculate on why they do things differently than any other company in the genre. That doesnt really mean they are right or wrong to do so, just different.
However, if AOC releases and its as buggy as AO was... then people like me wont trust them in the future, specifically cause they wont tell us before launch about the state of the game we are getting into.
Frankly, that "waiting for Darkfall" comment just says it all. How can you criticise Funcom for not releasing information but be content to "wait" for a game that's never coming out? *sigh*
I really should take that out of there, since every AoC fantroll seems to make some childish comment about it, no matter what the thread topic is. What does Darkfall have anything to do with Funcom's NDA, or the topic? I don't even consider myself a fan of Darkfall, I just find the idea behind the systems its proposing as intriguing. But I hardly ever even post on the board.
Why would Funcom release the NDA of a game that is still being tested and completed? The only result would be to give people an incomplete picture and contradictory reports from various beta testers who should be spending time helping to remove the remaining bugs than reporting to the community about their impressions of the game.
While its true that the hardcore fans that believe funcom can do no wrong will no doubt try to spin any negative info as incomplete or invalid, I don't particularly care. I only want to know the real state of the game at any given moment in time. Both the state of the game during development, and at release time. Mostly because I want to see if it matches up with the information that is being 'fed' to the community. Releasing the NDA will provide that. I don't mind if it doesn't meet your personal approval, I can live with that.
The fact of the matter is, we've known that the NDA would never be released. I don't understand why only now this is an issue.
Hint: Its in the thread title.
Speculating on the status of the game based on an NDA policy that had been in effect for almost 9 years now just doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, speculating that other companies will adopt the same policy is useless as well. Funcom has had this policy for 9 years or more and it doesn't seem to be catching on.
1 game in 9 years could be a fluke. 2 games, and other companies start paying attention. I don't see any reason why the community should give them an excuse to ruin the genre further.
If you want to deny yourself the next big MMO, an MMO that at least tries to do something unique, that's your call, and you can vote with your wallet.
To claim this is the next big MMO before its even released and before an NDA has lifted tells me your arguments and motivations for your position are based on fandom. You are of course entitled to this, however I'm not particularly interested in drinking that kool-aid myself. I prefer proof to faith. I guess thats the scientist in me.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
But isn't that how it is in every game? You don't ever really know how a game will play until it gets released. This whole idea of knowing what the game is like before it's even finished is very new to me.
I don't know much about AO, but that was a long time ago. Besides, you have a lot of beta leaked information floating around on the internet and youtube. If you really want the information, you should be able to find it without much trouble.
Even if they lifted the NDA, I don't see what that would change other than you having to wade through countless posts with contradictory information and opinions. Funcom is very much aware that they owe people a stable game for the AO launch. The company's future rests of AoC. If it fails, Funcom is probably done as a company.
Considering that you added the Darkfall comment after your initial post in an edit, it looked more like a jab to me than just something passive. I really don't consider myself an AoC fanboy or whatever, but I am anti-Darkfall.
There's no "state of the game" for you to know because the game is in beta. That's the "state of the game". It sounds like you just are hungry for information, but clamoring for it will not change the simple fact that the NDA will not be lifted... ever.
The thread title just repeats a few informational blurbs and makes baseless speculation.
No one is giving anyone a pass just because it's "Funcom". Everyone I see is critical and worrisome. This website just seems more than anything else, a place for people to come and complain about anything and everything.
Wow, you prefer "proof to faith" and you are waiting for Darkfall? That's just a little contradictory, but I digress.
The fact of the matter is, I do have proof, but a certain NDA prevents it from being shared. Take that how you wish, but fandom is just not how I roll.
Refer to my post above. Releasing the NDA does nothing for Funcom but a disservice.
I swear, people look for any excuse to put down a game and its developer before launch.
You may be imagining that I have some sort of bias against either AOC or Funcom, though I do not. I certainly did not "put down" the game or the developer in my post. I simply pointed out that hearing that having testers under a NDA through launch makes me hesitant. Unless I'm able to 1) play the game myself through an open beta, trial, or demo, or 2) hear from people who have played the game during development, I defer judgment as to whether it may or may not be a game I would be interested or enthusiastic about purchasing. I hope it is a successful game and one that I will enjoy playing, but as of right now I don't have much of an interest.As to whether releasing an NDA could do *nothing* for Funcom but a disservice, I would disagree. Hypothetically (depending on the state of the game), word of mouth from testers could generate buzz and pre-sales, and allowing game journalists to preview and report on the feature set could mean extra publicity if it did not mean violating a NDA. Keeping a NDA through launch and running an open beta could generate negative speculation on things such as the feature set or stability of the game as it nears launch.
I'm neutral, Funcom can do what they choose to, and I'll act like an interested but unbiased consumer.
I've never trusted beta testers to give me an accurate view of a game though. And besides, word of mouth has already spread all across the internet in a lot of beta leaks.
Recently, it seems to me as though people want to believe that they are forced to buy a game.
Let me elaborate on this. In so many threads now, people complain about the apparent idea that FunCom might not be dropping the NDA (I am not saying they will, or won't, because I don#t know, but for now, I "think" they will). Complaining about that in many different ways. Some say it is to hide a crappy product. That is their right, if they want to believe that. I can't change that, and I wouldn't want to. After all, everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is good people think for themselves.
Some go on to say that keeping the NDA up until launch means scamming people out of their money. Now -that- is a point I frankly do not understand. How are they -scamming- you out of your money? Do they somehow force you to pre-order the game? Isn't it simple fact that you, as a cautious consumer have the possibility to simply wait until release and then see for yourself what the game is like, hear it from every major gaming magazine, watch friends play it, most likely get Free Trials eventually or Buddy-Passes from others? If you do not want to give FunCom your money before you see the game is actually good, then you don't have to!
Seriously, so many people seem to believe that pre-ordering is a -must- these days and standard procedure for everyone. Well here's the thing. Making a pre-order on a game that is not released yet, you -always- take a risk. If you follow through that is. Because even if you pre-ordered, you have the right to -cancel- that pre-order any time you want if you feel FC is not open enough and you'd rather hesitate.
So seriously, everyone who's telling me FC is -scamming- or -cheating- people should really stop and think about things. No one is forcing you to pre-order the game or even buy it on release day. The only one who -can- force you to do that is yourself. And to everyone who says "But I want to be there from day-one, otherwise I can't compete"...well, we all have our quirks and if you can't stand the idea of someone else reaching 80 before you...then I guess you will have to take a wild shot. But if that means so much to you, I suppose taking the risk of pre-ordering isn't too far off, is it?
All right, sorry for the wall of text, but that had to get off my chest.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
When it comes to a new game, only you should decide if you like that game or not. That negates the NDA. We are part of a genre that has thousands of people playing online together. Surely you will have a friend that will buy the game if you dont want to spend money on the box. Plus Open Beta annoucement is imminent.
So most of the people who moan about NDA not being lifted (if it will or will not is still not clear) also moan that they can't trust anyone else to make that decision for them. Very contradictory indeed.
What might happen is that the Open Beta will have a different terms and conditions to the Closed Beta agreement.
Lets all chill out. just over a month till launch. And an Open Beta announcement coming V soon.
Yup you heard correct. Took me about 2 days to dl and it took another 4-5 hours to patch.
WoW is a disease that will infect your brain and your computer.
I'm just a little worried about the Open Beta registration. We all know you will have to fill out a registration form, but will they do another 'we pick 20k random people' or does everyone get into the Open Beta?
I very much doubt you'll see a totally open registration process in a game rated M+.
As for numbers, I don't think that any MMO developed is paying for server farms unless they are really close to release. My guess is that the open beta numbers will increase drastically the closer we are in the actual release date. Anyone has any idea on how many testers should the farms accommodate if the initial subscription numbers were 500k? Not 500k for sure. Maybe 1/5 this number (wild guess).
I think they are going to wait until close to release to announce that the game is going to be delayed around 2 weeks or something like that; and then announce the end of NDA to apease gamers.
And I think an open beta or NDA lift before launch is very important in MMORPGS for the simple reason that most MMORPGs launch with lots of bugs and without a lot of the promised features. So I think buyers get scammed because they are promised one thing and buy another.
This might or might not be the case with AoC, but this stigma over MMORPGs touches all games belonging to that genre imo
Immortals [EU] - Darkfall Clan: http://immortals-online.eu/
Read my "funny" DF1 blog: http://casualdarkfall.blogspot.com
Well, Funcom has full right not to lift NDA and potential customers also have a full right to be suspicious.
During the past couple of years there was a number of overhyped titles (Vanguard, TR, POTBS) that proved to be mediocre or worse. All of those have dedicated fanbois and spin machine working for them. Therefore I prefer to hear argumented naysayers (argumented being crucial) to fanbois/propaganda/advertisement/spin.
AoC is certainly overhyped and it is highly unlikely it will deliver to the expectations although it will most likely prove a great financial success due to sales. How much of a success it will prove as enjoyable gaming experience remains to be seen.
The fact of the matter is that AoC will maybe get tweaked in the following month or so before the release but its basic mechanism will not change. No product is perfect but we do know for certain that the world is zoned, has significant amount of solo/linear play, crafting is iffy and number of race(s)/classes rather limited. Personally, and after reading all the info I could get my hands on including beta leaks, I am under impression dev's creativity expired with looped off heads, pixel bewbs and pissing NPC's.
It can still prove to be a good game but due to overhyped failures of the past it is prudent to be cautious. In short let the game prove itself before cheering its greatness. No product is perefect and naysayers for me offer a welcomed balance to fanbois and advertisement.
My personal opinion, flame on if you will:)
well written, you might want to add that lot of the broken stuff is still in AO. they never really bothered to fix stuff that was not gamebreaking, but fc was bold enough to keep useless stuff/broken content and features in the game (and gamedb). AoC will be the next TR - huge marketing hype & showoff to cover their lies for a half working game and 50% of the promised content. and then thats it, this is the game you bought and it wont change in the next few years except minor fixes like AO had it until maybe notum wars.
and looking back, notum wars was like their start. lagwars - buggy, unfinished - half ready. theres still unused content of that non-free "expansion" in the game. shadowlands was the same, bugged, unfinished not tested (well beta players told them ofc). i left AO after alieninvasion, same content in different color with more lag - a totally legal 50$ rippoff with again, half the marketing lies (about promised stuff) not ingame.
no thx , not again. not playing with FUNCON