The simple solution for me is to never spend money on something with the intention of relying on the company to follow through on nothing more than a promise. Advertised premiums or discounts are usually nothing more than a swindle. A good product can be sold soley on its merits of quality.
Champion's Online must not be succeeding like they would have wished for them to have to resort to swindling an entire different demographic (Star Trekkies) into propping up Cryptic's other game by purchasing lifetime subs(oh my) & 6-month subs for a game they have no interest in.
Not a valid theory here, as the offer was available before Champions even went live. So there's no chance the STO beta was offered in an attempt to "prop up" CO's "perceived failure."
Or maybe they knew CO wouldn't keep enough subscribers past the first month so they con people into purchasing 6-month, lifetime subscriptions? Makes sense to me.
I will concede if you can provide anything concrete, and I mean *anything*, in any situation, from any game ever, to support that beyond a tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist's deluded rantings. "They knew it was going to fail"...... Come on. Are you kidding me?
Hellgate: London... boasted "limited" Lifetime Memberships around $100ish bucks pre-release. People did buy them, but not in droves. Game was plagued with problems. Game lasted one year.
CO is the only other game I know of that offered lifetime subs. It is possible, to increase projected profit margin, they offered beta access as a perk just to have solid sales?. Why would that be a conspiracy? That's marketing at it's best.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
Jon Wood - what do you actually intend to do about it? You are in a unique position where you can actually do something here.
MMORPG.com is very important to many developers simply because the members and readers here make up a large part of the target market. You also have important industry contacts with people who are also in a position to do something here.
So, MMORPG.com is in a position to say "No. We will not support this. We will not run this promotion offering 'Beta Keys'. We will not run this advert encouraging people to pay for one product in order to get access to the preview of the next."
That's not to say you cannot offer promotions or run adverts - but make it clear to Developers that they need to be clear (and fair) with the end consumer. Perhaps this article does this to some extent? I hope to see this taken further.
As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.
The bottom line though is that this site doesn't exist so that the staff can use it as our own personal tool to push our own personal agendas. That's not what it's about. What the site is about is players coming together to talk about issues raised in opinion pieces like this one, any of our regular features, news of the day or by other players on our forums.
My job as a columnist is to present my opinions each week within the confines of this particular space. As a columnist, I don't drive policy for the site. As Managing Editor, my job is to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can to present you with news and information. It would be completely irresponsible of me to use that position to further my personal opinions and agendas.
This week, my opinion appears to be in the majority, at least among the folks replying in this thread. Last week though, my opinion was more in the minority. There were far more people disagreeing with my point of view than agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is why my using whatever influence I may have (and I think you may be over-estimating it a touch) in the way you suggest is probably a bad idea. While you might agree with me on this one, you might find yourself on the other side of the fence next time. Which is ok, that's how it's supposed to work.
The industry shouldn't shift on the weight that I or any other columnist, reviewer or writer on this or any other site can throw around. It should instead change based on what all of us as players, and yes consumers, of these products actually want. Whether we vote with our wallets, or we make our voices heard as you and everyone else here have done today, the result is going to be a lot more favorable if it all doesn't come down to the whims of a single individual.
Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.
Along similar lines, what about F2P games that open their cash shops while they're still in beta? One current example is Earth Eternal, which is in open beta. Not only is it's cash shop open, but Sparkplay recently offered a discount on credits in an attempt to drum up business. Why are they taking money during beta when the game isn't really ready for launch? Considering that open beta characters won't be wiped, nor will items purchased for credits be revoked when the game goes "live", it seems to me that Earth Eternal is actually in a "soft launch" phase rather than a true beta. I'm ok with that as long as they call it what it is, but it really ain't beta.... ~Ripper
Once they start taking money I would say "Open for business. Released."
This is just companies trying to have the best of both worlds by saying "It's Beta - so if it all goes wrong then you should have expected that." My guess is their next line would be "We will be unable to give refunds due to the Beta Status..."?
Well, wrong. Touching on fraud territory here.
Here, MMORPG.com, is a chance to start making a difference.
1/ Check to see if rhinok is correct (he will be I'm sure, but you have to check)
2/ Move Earth Eternal to the released games section.
If Sparkplay are not happy - put it to them that MMORPG.com will not support paid betas or F2P games conducting retail business within a 'Beta' as this is contrary to customer / gamer interest (people can get ripped off).
This is actually our current policy. I will forward this along to the proper people for verification.
Good article. But I am not sure Funcom had such "major" layoffs as you say, I know Mythic had them But Funcom still have a lot of employes left, so unless I missed something big had they just minor layoffs (and we are particulary talking devs here) . Of course that is mostly because Mythic only had WAR besides a few old DAoC player while Funcom actually is working on other games.
And of course were probably a lot of Mythics initial income pumped into EA while Funcom owns themselves and could put away the money for a rainy day. Mythic bet all on a single card and it isn't looking good. FC will be in the same problem if the secret world flops too.
But initial box sales for MMOs are only important for one company: Arenanet. They live on it and nothing more and they still seems to be doing fine, makes you wonder why WAR had to fire so many after both getting 1,5? or so million boxes and monthly fees in. Of course were GW cheaper to make and it have sold 7 million boxes or so but it still seems somewhat odd to me.
... As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this. ... Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.
Thanks for the reply.
The two hats thing - I totally get that.
In this case though I wounder where the line is?
I think many of us can see that some of the marketing practices are less than 'honest'? So at what point should a site like MMORPG.com and you (Managing Editor hat on) step up and say "This is not right?"
Maybe you should just step back and passively observe? You are not a 'sheriff' after all... but then again... the internet is still very much the wild west. These companies are marketing in many cases to minors and do you and MMORPG.com have any responsibility if you convey their message?
I don't agree with it at all. It's shady. But throwing box sales up as an indication of success works. And it IS the truth. That doesn't mean it is a whole and accurate picture however. People don't see the "2 billion served" under MCDonalds and expect to find 2 billion people in the restaurant ... But what if the wording were changed to imply? "2 billion seated?" "2 billion eating?" The box sales numbers imply a certain persistent population. We've sold 1million copies implies that we've got 1 million subscriptions, but they never say it so you can't really get them on fraud.
Selling a beta is the second worst idea in the history of gaming, right after completely changing the game (*SOE stinkeye*). Regardless of how it is sold, some people didn't buy a lifetime subscription to CO. They bought a beta key. They're going to want in. And they are expecting a $200 experience. What kind of loud mouth detractor do you create when they DESPISE the beta because it's crashing, bugged, choppy, and basically all the things a beta is? They aren't just going to hate on STO, they're going to give it to CO also. The game isn't even out yet and customers are throwing all sorts of big words around like "ethics" and "fraud".
The only way to fix this would be a public firing of the advertising director and the immediate inclusion of all lifetime purchasers ... then six month buyers. To hell with server strain .. its beta right? If you can't carry the small portion of the population interested enough to pay $200 for a key, WTF are you going to do on opening day? FAIL ... that's what.
I also haven't heard a word from Cryptic on my STO beta invite which I assumed I was going to get for purchasing the lifetime subscription. Now the game comes out in February and still no sign of an invite. Now, I don't really care for Star Trek at all and likely would have not tried the game out otherwise, but I was rather expecting that beta invite so that I could play the game and who knows, maybe they would have created a Star Trek fan and potential subscriber, but with the way it's looking now, I probably will never receive that invite.
In fact, not a single person I've played with in Champions Online has received the invite with what's very soon only going to be two months left of the beta. Considering their shifty tactics of cancelling the life-time subscription early even though they promised it to stay active until a certain date, I'm really not surprised.
Another article from Mr Wood having a go at MMO marketing. He is really not going to get that invite to the MMO PR Christmas party is he?
I think a lot of MMO’s now have their main focus on initial sales. They are being conceived and built like solo games, which only need to last a player one to two months. In the solo game market you don’t need the content to keep a player subbing. The strategy is that as long as enough initial sales are made it does not matter if the MMO is a long term success, a profit has been made already.
Jon Wood - what do you actually intend to do about it? You are in a unique position where you can actually do something here.
MMORPG.com is very important to many developers simply because the members and readers here make up a large part of the target market. You also have important industry contacts with people who are also in a position to do something here.
So, MMORPG.com is in a position to say "No. We will not support this. We will not run this promotion offering 'Beta Keys'. We will not run this advert encouraging people to pay for one product in order to get access to the preview of the next."
That's not to say you cannot offer promotions or run adverts - but make it clear to Developers that they need to be clear (and fair) with the end consumer. Perhaps this article does this to some extent? I hope to see this taken further.
As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.
The bottom line though is that this site doesn't exist so that the staff can use it as our own personal tool to push our own personal agendas. That's not what it's about. What the site is about is players coming together to talk about issues raised in opinion pieces like this one, any of our regular features, news of the day or by other players on our forums.
My job as a columnist is to present my opinions each week within the confines of this particular space. As a columnist, I don't drive policy for the site. As Managing Editor, my job is to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can to present you with news and information. It would be completely irresponsible of me to use that position to further my personal opinions and agendas.
This week, my opinion appears to be in the majority, at least among the folks replying in this thread. Last week though, my opinion was more in the minority. There were far more people disagreeing with my point of view than agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is why my using whatever influence I may have (and I think you may be over-estimating it a touch) in the way you suggest is probably a bad idea. While you might agree with me on this one, you might find yourself on the other side of the fence next time. Which is ok, that's how it's supposed to work.
The industry shouldn't shift on the weight that I or any other columnist, reviewer or writer on this or any other site can throw around. It should instead change based on what all of us as players, and yes consumers, of these products actually want. Whether we vote with our wallets, or we make our voices heard as you and everyone else here have done today, the result is going to be a lot more favorable if it all doesn't come down to the whims of a single individual.
Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.
I guess the thing that bothers me the most is alot of the FDR-esque, "New Deal" ideas and sentiments expressed on this site, looking at it's listed membership total above at over 1.1 million (and even factoring in that there are duplicate accounts to a degree), that the hot button issues and the "voice of the people" expressed in such debates isn't being heard by those companies.
Now, it may be presumptuous for me to imply that they honestly care what we think and factor that in in any significant degree. They sometimes say they do, but we've as a consumer base have experienced more times than should have happened by now of where they say one thing and then do another.
Now, I'm not saying you should be our "Knight in Shining Armour" (yes, I just put a "U" in that last word and I'm from Texas- what can I say, I like the way it looks), but the question then comes how exactly are we going to get our message into those boardrooms? Telling people not to buy games just isn't going to work as there's no effective way to communicate that message on the necessary levels.
Are gamer unions in the vein of D.C lobbyists necessary and the future? Are regulatory committees other than the ESRB needed to expand into areas such as quality of software and integrity of business practices?
Candidly interested in your thoughts.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
While not maybe the best thing to sell beta entries as part of a promotion, it's still extra money for the development process, which usually isn't that bad, maybe Stargate Worlds would be at a better point if it had sold beta access.
I did buy Aion in pre-order to get access to the beta's, but i was still as willing to help sort out the kinks. Because most of the changes happen anyways during beta than during the same amount of time after the launch, you get a say in the product that you actually purchased and i was happy to see that even things I complained about (well of course i wasn't only one) Aion did get changed to some degree
I think it's awesome you get to beta test games you pre-order, main reason being I don't buy really invest that much efford into MMORPG anymore, simple because they are pretty much repetition - but i do want something do every now and then
While not maybe the best thing to sell beta entries as part of a promotion, it's still extra money for the development process, which usually isn't that bad, maybe Stargate Worlds would be at a better point if it had sold beta access. ...
Or maybe there would simply be a lot of very bitter players out there?
I seriously doubt that the revenue they could have raised from a paid beta would have helped - I am prepared to be corrected on that - my understanding is they are millions sort of where they need to be?
Oh and nicely said Khalathwyr, and well spelt as well. ;-)
Along similar lines, what about F2P games that open their cash shops while they're still in beta? One current example is Earth Eternal, which is in open beta. Not only is it's cash shop open, but Sparkplay recently offered a discount on credits in an attempt to drum up business. Why are they taking money during beta when the game isn't really ready for launch? Considering that open beta characters won't be wiped, nor will items purchased for credits be revoked when the game goes "live", it seems to me that Earth Eternal is actually in a "soft launch" phase rather than a true beta. I'm ok with that as long as they call it what it is, but it really ain't beta.... ~Ripper
I know one of the reasons MMO's are failing as of late and it's a big ugly. This very hard to control variable is best known as... "Community" which is a thorn in any game developers side. Cause with this huge factor comes dedicated fans, asshat gankers, annoying cheaters and gold farmers. I truely think the #1 reason MMO's are dying before they even take flight is because of the community. Cause as far as I remember, back in the days of EQ, people actually took time to enjoy the game and have fun. Now, all we have are 12 year olds with nothing better to do than grind to the level cap and pursue a life of annoying chat banter on every channel or try and cyber some random female avatar in the local inn. Good luck finding a good MMO in today's world of immature players, cause those days are long gone.
From a 10+ year MMo vet, this is the exact reason I have said WoW was the worst thing to ever happen to MMO's. I would have rather had 1 good MMO released in last 5 years rather than the epic crap that has come out now.
No matter what, the attention and community aspects wow brung into the genre are simply not worth the money. At least not to the players.
I've been in a few of the betas and frankly I think its getting ridiculous how critical people are being of every detail in which the different companies handle everything. Personally I think if you dont' like their marketing plan, don't play the freaking game! Don't support a company that you dont' like, but I'll be honest, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that although cryptic offered the $199 lifetime subs, I never thought beyond the fact hat I just plain didn't want to do that. Did I think about how it might be a bad marketing plan? Heck no, I'm just there to play the dang game. We gamers ought to stick to playing the games, what we do best and stop pretending to know anything about advertising, marketing and such things unless we are the rare market professional that plays games or developer, etc.. which I'm guessing if they are out there, they are more respectful actually.
I seem to recall another article or statement somewhere that someone stated the more the game audience rants about the games, the easier it becomes to ignore them. I agree with this. Why? Because it seems to be that more and more every new game gathers more self-proclaimed critics than can be counted.
Just my 2c. I think both Aion and Champions are great games and that's what matters to me.
ThorgrimmAge of Conan CorrespondentMemberPosts: 274
Originally posted by Guillermo197
When you take a look at Cryptic, then you see a shift in tactics with MMO development. CO had less then 3 years development and STO is going to be pushed out of the door with hardly 2 years of development. It's retarded and you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the big "SCAMMY" scheme behind this.
Unless you work for a company or have a friend that works for a company, you can not say what is going on in their heads. The CO/STO Closed Beta was a raw deal; I'll admit, but they explained it as letting a few in at a time. As mentioned in the post, they should have been more clear about the timing. We still have almost three months of testing left before release, even more if it gets held up. Cryptic does not want to release a bad product at this point... especially after everyone has watched Funcom get eaten alive after the release of Age of Conan.
The 3 year vs 2 year dev cycle for STO: Here is the real catch. Cryptic has already admitted that it used the engine of Champions Online in STO, and all of the patches and enhancements since release. The real dev time is going to be in the ship vs ship fighting and spawning new planetoids with what seems to be an auto-create option. So we are looking at five years of development for STO, not two. I only hope the character appearances look better than what we have seen in the released game movies.
Lastly, if anyone has been keeping up with the STO forums and announcements, you would have read that the devs and pro testers have a vested intertest in Star Trek. Every one of them has been a fan of the franchise for years and years. Star Trek fans can be evil when it comes to their critical reviews; Cryptic knows they have a HOT hand grenade in their hands. They have already been receiving volumes of input from fans in regards to gaffs and errors on continuum; they have been making huge efforts to make changes to correct these continuity holes before release. I believe that this "personal investment" in the product may see a level of quality that we may not have seen before. If I were working for Cryptic, my family would probably be torqued at me, since I am already a workaholic. I would get lost in what I was doing to make it a really great game. Watch the video of the tour that is available; these Trekkies and Trekkers have Star Trek memorabilia all over the office and their personal cubicles.
Thank you Jon Wood for the artical, but I feel it does not go far enough in an very important area. What are the legal areas involved with all of this.
The mess of legal laws from state to state, federal laws and regulations in the US. Then the laws of other countries like China, the EU, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Each has their own laws on what can and can not be done.
One area that I can think of rigth off the top of my head is Funcon's Age of Conan where the retail box had DX10 printed on the system panel, yet it was many months after the game went live that Funcon put it in the game. Was this false advertising under the law? Many other companies say things about what is in thier games durning the PR run up to retail release, then do not put them in because of time or reasons. How do they stand on legal grounds.
Your part on Cryptic's Star Trek Online close beta access flap is one very sharp point to look at. Right or wrong, here we have an person acting as an officer for Cryptic on the Champions Online fourm board stating that those that bought lifetime and 6 month subscriptiions to Champions Oline would be the first ones into the Star Trek Online closed beta. Then it was not until three days later that someone from the Star Trek Online team said no what he said was not correct I think on twitter. Not on the main web pages or forums. As it stands right now has any laws been broken? Who can tail? Is the way they have been handling it honorable, that is another question. North Carolina has a law on the books where a person who feels that it is a matter of honor can challange another to meet them face to face on the Field of Honor in real life. Last I heard if a person kills another on the Field of Honor they will spend four years in prision but nothing else can be done to them.
There are many other strange laws that effect the players as well. Californa has a law passed in the early 90's about sending spam by the internet. This is why some games put in an timer before you can send another ingame message.
SoE was going to let rouges pick other players pockets for money till it was pointed out to them that the US had just passed a law about using the internet to steal money. One point is that the wording of the law makes no differance between real money or ingame money. Needless to say SoE very quickly dropped the idea. This law may also be needed to be used on persons who hack into game accounts and steal money from your game account, or the Eve bank account of a couple of years ago.
For those of you that like to PVP gank pepole, mid 90's South Korea passed a law making it illegal to kill the avitar of anyone under 18. How many games with pvp in them now have player from all over the world playing in them.
All of this mess can give you many articals and keep both you and MMORPGs legal department very bussy digging up out of the way laws to report on.
Jon Wood - what do you actually intend to do about it?
As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.
The bottom line though is that this site doesn't exist so that the staff can use it as our own personal tool to push our own personal agendas. That's not what it's about. What the site is about is players coming together to talk about issues raised in opinion pieces like this one, any of our regular features, news of the day or by other players on our forums.
My job as a columnist is to present my opinions each week within the confines of this particular space. As a columnist, I don't drive policy for the site. As Managing Editor, my job is to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can to present you with news and information. It would be completely irresponsible of me to use that position to further my personal opinions and agendas.
This week, my opinion appears to be in the majority, at least among the folks replying in this thread. Last week though, my opinion was more in the minority. There were far more people disagreeing with my point of view than agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is why my using whatever influence I may have (and I think you may be over-estimating it a touch) in the way you suggest is probably a bad idea. While you might agree with me on this one, you might find yourself on the other side of the fence next time. Which is ok, that's how it's supposed to work.
The industry shouldn't shift on the weight that I or any other columnist, reviewer or writer on this or any other site can throw around. It should instead change based on what all of us as players, and yes consumers, of these products actually want. Whether we vote with our wallets, or we make our voices heard as you and everyone else here have done today, the result is going to be a lot more favorable if it all doesn't come down to the whims of a single individual.
Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.
Translation: "Nothing!"
Which is a shame.
Yes, I understand that you serve a role as both a "journalist" and an "editor", and so you must stick the aspects of "fact telling" as opposed to "influencing".
But funny how those roles never seem to be in jeopardy with the GIANT ads on this site for games, beta keys, and give aways. No questions are raised in the home offices about the ability to be "objective" when you're able to be afloat this week thanks to revenue from some game? No concerns about giving an open forum, in the form of blogs, to developers under your sites banner? (developers who you have to interview at times).
Maybe that's harsh, and I certainly don't have anything against this site or Mr. Wood personally. I just think that this response is naieve.
OF COURSE THERE ARE THINGS THE REPORTERS ON THIS SITE CAN DO ABOUT CORE ISSUES IN MMO'S!
Language: How about coming up with a definition for "closed" and "open" "beta", and requiring all your reporters to stick to it. Heck, do the folks on this site even have a concensus about what a closed beta is? Define what mmorpg thinks a beta should be, from invite levels, to work being done. If a game announces a "beta" and it doesn't match your definition, then call it what it is: free trial, marketing push, revenue generator, etc. Don't let the press releases dictate that language YOU use in YOUR articles. Imagine if, from you guys and gals, we were able to generate an industry-wide concensus regarding what beta is, or isn't. Would help the gamer, wouldn't it?
Questions: How about more articles and less press releases. Yes, you need to stay on top of all the news in the mmo world, but, last time I checked, journalists were supposed to ask questions. The "news" on he front page reads like the ticker on the bottom of the cable news channels: talking points and marketing speak. What if, instead, any time a company wanted their "press release" announced on the site, they HAD to submit to detailed questioning? Would some refuse? Sure....but that would certainly hurt their marketing, right. Make the company more accountable to YOU with their "news.
Expose': While articles questioning the shady practices of game companies MONTH'S after it's too late are, I guess, "better late than never", couldn't a bit more be done? Why not get ahead of the curve, use your contacts and connections, and some good ol' fasioned (mustache and trench coat) "investigative journalism". How many shady events have occured in the mmo world in the past two years? How many times was this site AHEAD of those events, or even in the thick of it, and how many times did you report on simply the final result? How often did a "journalist" from this site get INTO the story, and how many times did they "report" the postings of "forumites" who had pieced things together. Journalists don't have to be "opinionated" to be investigative...they just have to try to dig at the truth. And is there any question here about the positive effect investigative journalism can have on an industry, or for the people?
No more ratings: Instead of posting a rating system for the game's "hype" or its "results", how about you stick to reporting what is, or isn't, going on in the game right now. Assess the current state of the game, not what it COULD be five years from now. Don't waste time with "top five" articles. Heck, how about no more "reviews", as they certainly skirt the line of "opinion", and they happen so infrequently and say so little they put NO PRESSURE on the developers, and therefore, don't HELP the audience. A year between reviews...what's the point. Stars, excitement levels, hype meters...they don't really speak to pure "journalism". So, why not lose them.
There's pleny more to. The "willy-nilly" linking to reviews/previews of other sites without knowing how much "integrity" the reporter there has. (are you linking us to a "plant" article, or someone who really is investigating the game). Roundtable discussions amongst the industry "insiders" you have here. Greater information on the development history of games (how long has it taken, what major changes did it go through, etc) to hold them accountable to a wider audience. Or just less reliance on "forum reporting" would even be a good start.
I just can't agree that this site isn't ALLOWED to influence the industry because it would mean taking things in a personal level. Reporters bring down governments without giving away what their political affiiliation is. Whistle blowers give up great jobs and friendships because of facts they find.
Is there a journalistic standard? Yes. But I'm not so sure this site is totally living up to it.
I've been screaming about it this for a very long time. With my tinfoil hat on or off the reality is that in the end they made their profit, onto the next project. MMOs are now treated like every other game out there. Release, get profit, spend a tiny amount of resources for a couple patches and move on.
It's probably proven to be a better way to make money as a business to pump them out for box sales. Gamers will buy anything if the marketing hype is good. Promise a bunch of fantastic features then take a crap in a box and sale it. Hey if it makes a lot of money and keeps the company paid why should they care about you? You'll continue to buy it anyways.
Lastly, if anyone has been keeping up with the STO forums and announcements, you would have read that the devs and pro testers have a vested intertest in Star Trek. Every one of them has been a fan of the franchise for years and years. The Mythic devs were big Warhammer fans, supposedly. Star Trek fans can be evil when it comes to their critical reviews; Cryptic knows they have a HOT hand grenade in their hands. They have already been receiving volumes of input from fans in regards to gaffs and errors on continuum; they have been making huge efforts to make changes to correct these continuity holes before release. I believe that this "personal investment" in the product may see a level of quality that we may not have seen before. If I were working for Cryptic, my family would probably be torqued at me, since I am already a workaholic. I would get lost in what I was doing to make it a really great game. Watch the video of the tour that is available; these Trekkies and Trekkers have Star Trek memorabilia all over the office and their personal cubicles.
I'm sure that's no accident. Jeebus, people are gullible.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Along similar lines, what about F2P games that open their cash shops while they're still in beta? One current example is Earth Eternal, which is in open beta. Not only is it's cash shop open, but Sparkplay recently offered a discount on credits in an attempt to drum up business. Why are they taking money during beta when the game isn't really ready for launch? Considering that open beta characters won't be wiped, nor will items purchased for credits be revoked when the game goes "live", it seems to me that Earth Eternal is actually in a "soft launch" phase rather than a true beta. I'm ok with that as long as they call it what it is, but it really ain't beta.... ~Ripper
Once they start taking money I would say "Open for business. Released."
This is just companies trying to have the best of both worlds by saying "It's Beta - so if it all goes wrong then you should have expected that." My guess is their next line would be "We will be unable to give refunds due to the Beta Status..."?
Well, wrong. Touching on fraud territory here.
Here, MMORPG.com, is a chance to start making a difference.
1/ Check to see if rhinok is correct (he will be I'm sure, but you have to check)
2/ Move Earth Eternal to the released games section.
If Sparkplay are not happy - put it to them that MMORPG.com will not support paid betas or F2P games conducting retail business within a 'Beta' as this is contrary to customer / gamer interest (people can get ripped off).
This is actually our current policy. I will forward this along to the proper people for verification.
Thanks for the tip.
Thanks for taking a look at it. FYI, you won't have to look too hard. On this page, you can buy blocks of credits ranging from 500 credits/$5 to 27,500 credits for $250 - yes, that's $250 USD. I don't know if they're actually making money from selling credits, but they're definitely selling them.
I love rants!! I guess I expect companys to market their product, buyer beware is what comes to mind. I never preorder or pay ahead of atleast trying a game. Beta testing has saved me some serious plastic over the years.
Lastly, if anyone has been keeping up with the STO forums and announcements, you would have read that the devs and pro testers have a vested intertest in Star Trek. Every one of them has been a fan of the franchise for years and years. The Mythic devs were big Warhammer fans, supposedly. Star Trek fans can be evil when it comes to their critical reviews; Cryptic knows they have a HOT hand grenade in their hands. They have already been receiving volumes of input from fans in regards to gaffs and errors on continuum; they have been making huge efforts to make changes to correct these continuity holes before release. I believe that this "personal investment" in the product may see a level of quality that we may not have seen before. If I were working for Cryptic, my family would probably be torqued at me, since I am already a workaholic. I would get lost in what I was doing to make it a really great game. Watch the video of the tour that is available; these Trekkies and Trekkers have Star Trek memorabilia all over the office and their personal cubicles.
I'm sure that's no accident. Jeebus, people are gullible.
Having worked at Games Workshop for a while at an official retail store and having been involved in the table-top wargaming hobby for over a decade...I've yet to figure out how they were fans of the Warhammer IP. Maybe in a sense of this company is going to let us used an established IP to make a game that very loosely lives up to the spirit of what the game's lore entails? I certainly don't believe the game they created is an effort by true fans of the game who have played it in any great detail for a number of years.
In fact, the unknown company that Games Workshop first engaged with making a Warhammer based MMO had a better compass on what to do with the IP in my opinion. I can't remember the name of that company, but their ideas were and visual design hit the mark when talking about conveying a dark, gritty Olde World.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Comments
Spot on article. I concur with almost everything said.
Sadly, these companies get away with it due to an old saying: a fool and their money are soon parted.
Nice article
I completely their really should be a law about this putting out an unfinished game for a quick buck shouldn't be allowed.
Not a valid theory here, as the offer was available before Champions even went live. So there's no chance the STO beta was offered in an attempt to "prop up" CO's "perceived failure."
Or maybe they knew CO wouldn't keep enough subscribers past the first month so they con people into purchasing 6-month, lifetime subscriptions? Makes sense to me.
I will concede if you can provide anything concrete, and I mean *anything*, in any situation, from any game ever, to support that beyond a tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist's deluded rantings. "They knew it was going to fail"...... Come on. Are you kidding me?
Hellgate: London... boasted "limited" Lifetime Memberships around $100ish bucks pre-release. People did buy them, but not in droves. Game was plagued with problems. Game lasted one year.
CO is the only other game I know of that offered lifetime subs. It is possible, to increase projected profit margin, they offered beta access as a perk just to have solid sales?. Why would that be a conspiracy? That's marketing at it's best.
"There is only one thing of which I am certain, and that's nothing is certain."
As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.
The bottom line though is that this site doesn't exist so that the staff can use it as our own personal tool to push our own personal agendas. That's not what it's about. What the site is about is players coming together to talk about issues raised in opinion pieces like this one, any of our regular features, news of the day or by other players on our forums.
My job as a columnist is to present my opinions each week within the confines of this particular space. As a columnist, I don't drive policy for the site. As Managing Editor, my job is to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can to present you with news and information. It would be completely irresponsible of me to use that position to further my personal opinions and agendas.
This week, my opinion appears to be in the majority, at least among the folks replying in this thread. Last week though, my opinion was more in the minority. There were far more people disagreeing with my point of view than agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is why my using whatever influence I may have (and I think you may be over-estimating it a touch) in the way you suggest is probably a bad idea. While you might agree with me on this one, you might find yourself on the other side of the fence next time. Which is ok, that's how it's supposed to work.
The industry shouldn't shift on the weight that I or any other columnist, reviewer or writer on this or any other site can throw around. It should instead change based on what all of us as players, and yes consumers, of these products actually want. Whether we vote with our wallets, or we make our voices heard as you and everyone else here have done today, the result is going to be a lot more favorable if it all doesn't come down to the whims of a single individual.
Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Once they start taking money I would say "Open for business. Released."
This is just companies trying to have the best of both worlds by saying "It's Beta - so if it all goes wrong then you should have expected that." My guess is their next line would be "We will be unable to give refunds due to the Beta Status..."?
Well, wrong. Touching on fraud territory here.
Here, MMORPG.com, is a chance to start making a difference.
1/ Check to see if rhinok is correct (he will be I'm sure, but you have to check)
2/ Move Earth Eternal to the released games section.
If Sparkplay are not happy - put it to them that MMORPG.com will not support paid betas or F2P games conducting retail business within a 'Beta' as this is contrary to customer / gamer interest (people can get ripped off).
This is actually our current policy. I will forward this along to the proper people for verification.
Thanks for the tip.
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Good article. But I am not sure Funcom had such "major" layoffs as you say, I know Mythic had them But Funcom still have a lot of employes left, so unless I missed something big had they just minor layoffs (and we are particulary talking devs here) . Of course that is mostly because Mythic only had WAR besides a few old DAoC player while Funcom actually is working on other games.
And of course were probably a lot of Mythics initial income pumped into EA while Funcom owns themselves and could put away the money for a rainy day. Mythic bet all on a single card and it isn't looking good. FC will be in the same problem if the secret world flops too.
But initial box sales for MMOs are only important for one company: Arenanet. They live on it and nothing more and they still seems to be doing fine, makes you wonder why WAR had to fire so many after both getting 1,5? or so million boxes and monthly fees in. Of course were GW cheaper to make and it have sold 7 million boxes or so but it still seems somewhat odd to me.
Thanks for the reply.
The two hats thing - I totally get that.
In this case though I wounder where the line is?
I think many of us can see that some of the marketing practices are less than 'honest'? So at what point should a site like MMORPG.com and you (Managing Editor hat on) step up and say "This is not right?"
Maybe you should just step back and passively observe? You are not a 'sheriff' after all... but then again... the internet is still very much the wild west. These companies are marketing in many cases to minors and do you and MMORPG.com have any responsibility if you convey their message?
I agree - no easy answer.
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
I don't agree with it at all. It's shady. But throwing box sales up as an indication of success works. And it IS the truth. That doesn't mean it is a whole and accurate picture however. People don't see the "2 billion served" under MCDonalds and expect to find 2 billion people in the restaurant ... But what if the wording were changed to imply? "2 billion seated?" "2 billion eating?" The box sales numbers imply a certain persistent population. We've sold 1million copies implies that we've got 1 million subscriptions, but they never say it so you can't really get them on fraud.
Selling a beta is the second worst idea in the history of gaming, right after completely changing the game (*SOE stinkeye*). Regardless of how it is sold, some people didn't buy a lifetime subscription to CO. They bought a beta key. They're going to want in. And they are expecting a $200 experience. What kind of loud mouth detractor do you create when they DESPISE the beta because it's crashing, bugged, choppy, and basically all the things a beta is? They aren't just going to hate on STO, they're going to give it to CO also. The game isn't even out yet and customers are throwing all sorts of big words around like "ethics" and "fraud".
The only way to fix this would be a public firing of the advertising director and the immediate inclusion of all lifetime purchasers ... then six month buyers. To hell with server strain .. its beta right? If you can't carry the small portion of the population interested enough to pay $200 for a key, WTF are you going to do on opening day? FAIL ... that's what.
I also haven't heard a word from Cryptic on my STO beta invite which I assumed I was going to get for purchasing the lifetime subscription. Now the game comes out in February and still no sign of an invite. Now, I don't really care for Star Trek at all and likely would have not tried the game out otherwise, but I was rather expecting that beta invite so that I could play the game and who knows, maybe they would have created a Star Trek fan and potential subscriber, but with the way it's looking now, I probably will never receive that invite.
In fact, not a single person I've played with in Champions Online has received the invite with what's very soon only going to be two months left of the beta. Considering their shifty tactics of cancelling the life-time subscription early even though they promised it to stay active until a certain date, I'm really not surprised.
Another article from Mr Wood having a go at MMO marketing. He is really not going to get that invite to the MMO PR Christmas party is he?
I think a lot of MMO’s now have their main focus on initial sales. They are being conceived and built like solo games, which only need to last a player one to two months. In the solo game market you don’t need the content to keep a player subbing. The strategy is that as long as enough initial sales are made it does not matter if the MMO is a long term success, a profit has been made already.
As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.
The bottom line though is that this site doesn't exist so that the staff can use it as our own personal tool to push our own personal agendas. That's not what it's about. What the site is about is players coming together to talk about issues raised in opinion pieces like this one, any of our regular features, news of the day or by other players on our forums.
My job as a columnist is to present my opinions each week within the confines of this particular space. As a columnist, I don't drive policy for the site. As Managing Editor, my job is to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can to present you with news and information. It would be completely irresponsible of me to use that position to further my personal opinions and agendas.
This week, my opinion appears to be in the majority, at least among the folks replying in this thread. Last week though, my opinion was more in the minority. There were far more people disagreeing with my point of view than agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is why my using whatever influence I may have (and I think you may be over-estimating it a touch) in the way you suggest is probably a bad idea. While you might agree with me on this one, you might find yourself on the other side of the fence next time. Which is ok, that's how it's supposed to work.
The industry shouldn't shift on the weight that I or any other columnist, reviewer or writer on this or any other site can throw around. It should instead change based on what all of us as players, and yes consumers, of these products actually want. Whether we vote with our wallets, or we make our voices heard as you and everyone else here have done today, the result is going to be a lot more favorable if it all doesn't come down to the whims of a single individual.
Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.
I guess the thing that bothers me the most is alot of the FDR-esque, "New Deal" ideas and sentiments expressed on this site, looking at it's listed membership total above at over 1.1 million (and even factoring in that there are duplicate accounts to a degree), that the hot button issues and the "voice of the people" expressed in such debates isn't being heard by those companies.
Now, it may be presumptuous for me to imply that they honestly care what we think and factor that in in any significant degree. They sometimes say they do, but we've as a consumer base have experienced more times than should have happened by now of where they say one thing and then do another.
Now, I'm not saying you should be our "Knight in Shining Armour" (yes, I just put a "U" in that last word and I'm from Texas- what can I say, I like the way it looks), but the question then comes how exactly are we going to get our message into those boardrooms? Telling people not to buy games just isn't going to work as there's no effective way to communicate that message on the necessary levels.
Are gamer unions in the vein of D.C lobbyists necessary and the future? Are regulatory committees other than the ESRB needed to expand into areas such as quality of software and integrity of business practices?
Candidly interested in your thoughts.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
While not maybe the best thing to sell beta entries as part of a promotion, it's still extra money for the development process, which usually isn't that bad, maybe Stargate Worlds would be at a better point if it had sold beta access.
I did buy Aion in pre-order to get access to the beta's, but i was still as willing to help sort out the kinks. Because most of the changes happen anyways during beta than during the same amount of time after the launch, you get a say in the product that you actually purchased and i was happy to see that even things I complained about (well of course i wasn't only one) Aion did get changed to some degree
I think it's awesome you get to beta test games you pre-order, main reason being I don't buy really invest that much efford into MMORPG anymore, simple because they are pretty much repetition - but i do want something do every now and then
Or maybe there would simply be a lot of very bitter players out there?
I seriously doubt that the revenue they could have raised from a paid beta would have helped - I am prepared to be corrected on that - my understanding is they are millions sort of where they need to be?
Oh and nicely said Khalathwyr, and well spelt as well. ;-)
Nothing says irony like spelling ideot wrong.
WOW... if that's true, that's disgusting...
From a 10+ year MMo vet, this is the exact reason I have said WoW was the worst thing to ever happen to MMO's. I would have rather had 1 good MMO released in last 5 years rather than the epic crap that has come out now.
No matter what, the attention and community aspects wow brung into the genre are simply not worth the money. At least not to the players.
I've been in a few of the betas and frankly I think its getting ridiculous how critical people are being of every detail in which the different companies handle everything. Personally I think if you dont' like their marketing plan, don't play the freaking game! Don't support a company that you dont' like, but I'll be honest, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that although cryptic offered the $199 lifetime subs, I never thought beyond the fact hat I just plain didn't want to do that. Did I think about how it might be a bad marketing plan? Heck no, I'm just there to play the dang game. We gamers ought to stick to playing the games, what we do best and stop pretending to know anything about advertising, marketing and such things unless we are the rare market professional that plays games or developer, etc.. which I'm guessing if they are out there, they are more respectful actually.
I seem to recall another article or statement somewhere that someone stated the more the game audience rants about the games, the easier it becomes to ignore them. I agree with this. Why? Because it seems to be that more and more every new game gathers more self-proclaimed critics than can be counted.
Just my 2c. I think both Aion and Champions are great games and that's what matters to me.
Unless you work for a company or have a friend that works for a company, you can not say what is going on in their heads. The CO/STO Closed Beta was a raw deal; I'll admit, but they explained it as letting a few in at a time. As mentioned in the post, they should have been more clear about the timing. We still have almost three months of testing left before release, even more if it gets held up. Cryptic does not want to release a bad product at this point... especially after everyone has watched Funcom get eaten alive after the release of Age of Conan.
The 3 year vs 2 year dev cycle for STO: Here is the real catch. Cryptic has already admitted that it used the engine of Champions Online in STO, and all of the patches and enhancements since release. The real dev time is going to be in the ship vs ship fighting and spawning new planetoids with what seems to be an auto-create option. So we are looking at five years of development for STO, not two. I only hope the character appearances look better than what we have seen in the released game movies.
Lastly, if anyone has been keeping up with the STO forums and announcements, you would have read that the devs and pro testers have a vested intertest in Star Trek. Every one of them has been a fan of the franchise for years and years. Star Trek fans can be evil when it comes to their critical reviews; Cryptic knows they have a HOT hand grenade in their hands. They have already been receiving volumes of input from fans in regards to gaffs and errors on continuum; they have been making huge efforts to make changes to correct these continuity holes before release. I believe that this "personal investment" in the product may see a level of quality that we may not have seen before. If I were working for Cryptic, my family would probably be torqued at me, since I am already a workaholic. I would get lost in what I was doing to make it a really great game. Watch the video of the tour that is available; these Trekkies and Trekkers have Star Trek memorabilia all over the office and their personal cubicles.
Thank you Jon Wood for the artical, but I feel it does not go far enough in an very important area. What are the legal areas involved with all of this.
The mess of legal laws from state to state, federal laws and regulations in the US. Then the laws of other countries like China, the EU, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Each has their own laws on what can and can not be done.
One area that I can think of rigth off the top of my head is Funcon's Age of Conan where the retail box had DX10 printed on the system panel, yet it was many months after the game went live that Funcon put it in the game. Was this false advertising under the law? Many other companies say things about what is in thier games durning the PR run up to retail release, then do not put them in because of time or reasons. How do they stand on legal grounds.
Your part on Cryptic's Star Trek Online close beta access flap is one very sharp point to look at. Right or wrong, here we have an person acting as an officer for Cryptic on the Champions Online fourm board stating that those that bought lifetime and 6 month subscriptiions to Champions Oline would be the first ones into the Star Trek Online closed beta. Then it was not until three days later that someone from the Star Trek Online team said no what he said was not correct I think on twitter. Not on the main web pages or forums. As it stands right now has any laws been broken? Who can tail? Is the way they have been handling it honorable, that is another question. North Carolina has a law on the books where a person who feels that it is a matter of honor can challange another to meet them face to face on the Field of Honor in real life. Last I heard if a person kills another on the Field of Honor they will spend four years in prision but nothing else can be done to them.
There are many other strange laws that effect the players as well. Californa has a law passed in the early 90's about sending spam by the internet. This is why some games put in an timer before you can send another ingame message.
SoE was going to let rouges pick other players pockets for money till it was pointed out to them that the US had just passed a law about using the internet to steal money. One point is that the wording of the law makes no differance between real money or ingame money. Needless to say SoE very quickly dropped the idea. This law may also be needed to be used on persons who hack into game accounts and steal money from your game account, or the Eve bank account of a couple of years ago.
For those of you that like to PVP gank pepole, mid 90's South Korea passed a law making it illegal to kill the avitar of anyone under 18. How many games with pvp in them now have player from all over the world playing in them.
All of this mess can give you many articals and keep both you and MMORPGs legal department very bussy digging up out of the way laws to report on.
As a columnist, I shared my opinion on this.
The bottom line though is that this site doesn't exist so that the staff can use it as our own personal tool to push our own personal agendas. That's not what it's about. What the site is about is players coming together to talk about issues raised in opinion pieces like this one, any of our regular features, news of the day or by other players on our forums.
My job as a columnist is to present my opinions each week within the confines of this particular space. As a columnist, I don't drive policy for the site. As Managing Editor, my job is to make sure that we are doing the best job that we can to present you with news and information. It would be completely irresponsible of me to use that position to further my personal opinions and agendas.
This week, my opinion appears to be in the majority, at least among the folks replying in this thread. Last week though, my opinion was more in the minority. There were far more people disagreeing with my point of view than agreeing. That, in a nutshell, is why my using whatever influence I may have (and I think you may be over-estimating it a touch) in the way you suggest is probably a bad idea. While you might agree with me on this one, you might find yourself on the other side of the fence next time. Which is ok, that's how it's supposed to work.
The industry shouldn't shift on the weight that I or any other columnist, reviewer or writer on this or any other site can throw around. It should instead change based on what all of us as players, and yes consumers, of these products actually want. Whether we vote with our wallets, or we make our voices heard as you and everyone else here have done today, the result is going to be a lot more favorable if it all doesn't come down to the whims of a single individual.
Anyway, that's a bit of a rant, but you highlighted an interesting aspect of my job and gave me the opportunity to discuss the difference between my responsibilities as a columnist (sharing my opinion and even trying to get others on board with me) and my responsibilities as Managing Editor which require me to try to keep my personal feelings out of it.
Translation: "Nothing!"
Which is a shame.
Yes, I understand that you serve a role as both a "journalist" and an "editor", and so you must stick the aspects of "fact telling" as opposed to "influencing".
But funny how those roles never seem to be in jeopardy with the GIANT ads on this site for games, beta keys, and give aways. No questions are raised in the home offices about the ability to be "objective" when you're able to be afloat this week thanks to revenue from some game? No concerns about giving an open forum, in the form of blogs, to developers under your sites banner? (developers who you have to interview at times).
Maybe that's harsh, and I certainly don't have anything against this site or Mr. Wood personally. I just think that this response is naieve.
OF COURSE THERE ARE THINGS THE REPORTERS ON THIS SITE CAN DO ABOUT CORE ISSUES IN MMO'S!
Language: How about coming up with a definition for "closed" and "open" "beta", and requiring all your reporters to stick to it. Heck, do the folks on this site even have a concensus about what a closed beta is? Define what mmorpg thinks a beta should be, from invite levels, to work being done. If a game announces a "beta" and it doesn't match your definition, then call it what it is: free trial, marketing push, revenue generator, etc. Don't let the press releases dictate that language YOU use in YOUR articles. Imagine if, from you guys and gals, we were able to generate an industry-wide concensus regarding what beta is, or isn't. Would help the gamer, wouldn't it?
Questions: How about more articles and less press releases. Yes, you need to stay on top of all the news in the mmo world, but, last time I checked, journalists were supposed to ask questions. The "news" on he front page reads like the ticker on the bottom of the cable news channels: talking points and marketing speak. What if, instead, any time a company wanted their "press release" announced on the site, they HAD to submit to detailed questioning? Would some refuse? Sure....but that would certainly hurt their marketing, right. Make the company more accountable to YOU with their "news.
Expose': While articles questioning the shady practices of game companies MONTH'S after it's too late are, I guess, "better late than never", couldn't a bit more be done? Why not get ahead of the curve, use your contacts and connections, and some good ol' fasioned (mustache and trench coat) "investigative journalism". How many shady events have occured in the mmo world in the past two years? How many times was this site AHEAD of those events, or even in the thick of it, and how many times did you report on simply the final result? How often did a "journalist" from this site get INTO the story, and how many times did they "report" the postings of "forumites" who had pieced things together. Journalists don't have to be "opinionated" to be investigative...they just have to try to dig at the truth. And is there any question here about the positive effect investigative journalism can have on an industry, or for the people?
No more ratings: Instead of posting a rating system for the game's "hype" or its "results", how about you stick to reporting what is, or isn't, going on in the game right now. Assess the current state of the game, not what it COULD be five years from now. Don't waste time with "top five" articles. Heck, how about no more "reviews", as they certainly skirt the line of "opinion", and they happen so infrequently and say so little they put NO PRESSURE on the developers, and therefore, don't HELP the audience. A year between reviews...what's the point. Stars, excitement levels, hype meters...they don't really speak to pure "journalism". So, why not lose them.
There's pleny more to. The "willy-nilly" linking to reviews/previews of other sites without knowing how much "integrity" the reporter there has. (are you linking us to a "plant" article, or someone who really is investigating the game). Roundtable discussions amongst the industry "insiders" you have here. Greater information on the development history of games (how long has it taken, what major changes did it go through, etc) to hold them accountable to a wider audience. Or just less reliance on "forum reporting" would even be a good start.
I just can't agree that this site isn't ALLOWED to influence the industry because it would mean taking things in a personal level. Reporters bring down governments without giving away what their political affiiliation is. Whistle blowers give up great jobs and friendships because of facts they find.
Is there a journalistic standard? Yes. But I'm not so sure this site is totally living up to it.
My opinion, of course.
I've been screaming about it this for a very long time. With my tinfoil hat on or off the reality is that in the end they made their profit, onto the next project. MMOs are now treated like every other game out there. Release, get profit, spend a tiny amount of resources for a couple patches and move on.
It's probably proven to be a better way to make money as a business to pump them out for box sales. Gamers will buy anything if the marketing hype is good. Promise a bunch of fantastic features then take a crap in a box and sale it. Hey if it makes a lot of money and keeps the company paid why should they care about you? You'll continue to buy it anyways.
I'm sure that's no accident. Jeebus, people are gullible.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Once they start taking money I would say "Open for business. Released."
This is just companies trying to have the best of both worlds by saying "It's Beta - so if it all goes wrong then you should have expected that." My guess is their next line would be "We will be unable to give refunds due to the Beta Status..."?
Well, wrong. Touching on fraud territory here.
Here, MMORPG.com, is a chance to start making a difference.
1/ Check to see if rhinok is correct (he will be I'm sure, but you have to check)
2/ Move Earth Eternal to the released games section.
If Sparkplay are not happy - put it to them that MMORPG.com will not support paid betas or F2P games conducting retail business within a 'Beta' as this is contrary to customer / gamer interest (people can get ripped off).
This is actually our current policy. I will forward this along to the proper people for verification.
Thanks for the tip.
Thanks for taking a look at it. FYI, you won't have to look too hard. On this page, you can buy blocks of credits ranging from 500 credits/$5 to 27,500 credits for $250 - yes, that's $250 USD. I don't know if they're actually making money from selling credits, but they're definitely selling them.
~Ripper
I love rants!! I guess I expect companys to market their product, buyer beware is what comes to mind. I never preorder or pay ahead of atleast trying a game. Beta testing has saved me some serious plastic over the years.
I'm sure that's no accident. Jeebus, people are gullible.
Having worked at Games Workshop for a while at an official retail store and having been involved in the table-top wargaming hobby for over a decade...I've yet to figure out how they were fans of the Warhammer IP. Maybe in a sense of this company is going to let us used an established IP to make a game that very loosely lives up to the spirit of what the game's lore entails? I certainly don't believe the game they created is an effort by true fans of the game who have played it in any great detail for a number of years.
In fact, the unknown company that Games Workshop first engaged with making a Warhammer based MMO had a better compass on what to do with the IP in my opinion. I can't remember the name of that company, but their ideas were and visual design hit the mark when talking about conveying a dark, gritty Olde World.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez