With games you have to buy, you get pre-orders and SEs where they give you beta access so anyone saying this is wrong is being biased.
What Landmark is doing is working with the game community in making their game, same with Shroud of the Avatar and I would take what they are doing over anything being done or what has been done by anyone else.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
The more important question is: Should GAMERS buy into Early Access schemes ?
There I'd say NO. It is a very bad trend at most. There'll be developers that sell endless alpha stages. They can get away with it since there are no guarantees of any kind.
This road to hell started with exclusive beta access sales.
In addition, I think it has hurt game's longevity when too many betas are allowed. If people have already played the game for a month, they've already written guides to post, theorycrafted builds and items, have no need to explore and nothing feels new.
You ever see this happen on consoles? Nope because the culture of people would laugh at something like this. The pc culture sees things another way and even though the pc is the best platform, the culture stinks. It's full of hardcore losers that don't have a job and soak up content in 1 day that should take one year to devour. So the masses cry for more content and development or they get bored and leave. Remedy? Charge for alpha and buy yourself some time and generate some cash too, plus keep the masses busy, it's not like they have anything else to do.
Agreeing with both of you. I think I just need to suck it up that times have changed.
With the advent of F2P, companies will look for ways to monetize. Players are always on the prowl for access to games in development so there's a win/win in that situation. I expect though, that companies will continue to adjust the bar for a while before they are ready to allow access to anyone who can pay; not all is rosy in the alphas I'm testing and what has been rolled out to players varies widely by company.
Originally posted by Rockniss You ever see this happen on consoles? Nope because the culture of people would laugh at something like this. The pc culture sees things another way and even though the pc is the best platform, the culture stinks. It's full of hardcore losers that don't have a job and soak up content in 1 day that should take one year to devour. So the masses cry for more content and development or they get bored and leave. Remedy? Charge for alpha and buy yourself some time and generate some cash too, plus keep the masses busy, it's not like they have anything else to do.
Umm, you do know that consoles are flooded with games that basically last less than a week so its actually what they expect to get in a game so they say nothing. The difference is that they are not expected to pay $50 for a game and then also be charged another $15 a month to keep playing it, which they wouldn't, because they played all the content already and have no reason to.
MMOs have changed, UO/AC1/EQ1 took months to play it all. AC1 got monthly updates, many of them massive in size. EQ1 averaged an Xpac every 4-5 months so there was always something new to do. That came to an end yet many game companies expected players to keep on playing. Worse yet, more and more MMOs are being released with far less depth than those before them. And yes, I am talking AAA titles as well.
So, I said it before and I will say it again. B2P and Sub based games sell pre-orders and CE editions with beta access as well as early access and no one has a problem with that but for some reason, its wrong for F2P games to do it and that's just plain biased.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Even though I can see and acknowledge all of the counter arguments, I have to agree overwhelmingly players prefer to be able to buy into testing (Alpha or Beta).
Haxus Council Member 21 year MMO veteran PvP Raid Leader Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by Rockniss You ever see this happen on consoles? Nope because the culture of people would laugh at something like this. The pc culture sees things another way and even though the pc is the best platform, the culture stinks. It's full of hardcore losers that don't have a job and soak up content in 1 day that should take one year to devour. So the masses cry for more content and development or they get bored and leave. Remedy? Charge for alpha and buy yourself some time and generate some cash too, plus keep the masses busy, it's not like they have anything else to do.
Umm, you do know that consoles are flooded with games that basically last less than a week so its actually what they expect to get in a game so they say nothing. The difference is that they are not expected to pay $50 for a game and then also be charged another $15 a month to keep playing it, which they wouldn't, because they played all the content already and have no reason to.
Eso will be a good test for this and I wonder how FFARR is still doing on the ps3. Console players expect buy to play and yes they will commonly play for a week and then go back to thier favorite multiplayer. My point is that the console culture would not buy into alphas.
MMOs have changed, UO/AC1/EQ1 took months to play it all. AC1 got monthly updates, many of them massive in size. EQ1 averaged an Xpac every 4-5 months so there was always something new to do. That came to an end yet many game companies expected players to keep on playing. Worse yet, more and more MMOs are being released with far less depth than those before them. And yes, I am talking AAA titles as well.
Agreed - probably because of the uprising of the casual culture in the pc gaming world.
So, I said it before and I will say it again. B2P and Sub based games sell pre-orders and CE editions with beta access as well as early access and no one has a problem with that but for some reason, its wrong for F2P games to do it and that's just plain biased.
If you buy an alpha for a f2p game, then it's no longer a f2p game, you just bought the game. If you buy early access to a f2p game, then in some ways that can be considered pay to win and it just alters the overall culture of the game right out of the gate. Which is fine as long as you don't care, I know I would be turned off by it. So the loss the game would be losing me as a player and the potential income that I would bring to the game.
How does one figure in those indirect losses a game has versus the gains it achieves by having a paid for early access? Personally, I think it's best practice to tie as much "popularity" to your game as possible and let revenues flourish by virtue of the "popularity" of your game. Your going to get some fringe benefits such as increased free publicity, and your going to have a larger pool of players to extract data, revenue, and ideas from.
I absolutely don't believe that Early Access for example: SOE's Everquest: Next Landmark should not be sold as early access. These games are in the testing stages of a product's life. There are actual jobs where people are paid to test these systems and respond with issues and fixes. Instead we're not providing a free service we're being charged for it.
If you want to give 'early access' to a product that's under heavy testing. It should be done for free on the behalf of the person(s) testing the product for the company.
"Pay for early access. Pay for the box. Pay for..."
Hmm. When you pay for early access don't you get the game (such as it is) at that point? Who makes you pay another time for the release version of the game?
NOTICE EVERYONE SKIPPED OVER YOUR POST BUTEOREGALIS?
I MEAN HOW DO YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT MAKES A WORLD OF COMMON SENSE.
Early access - does that mean you bought the game too? - I believe it does
Alpha - that does not mean you bought the game, rather you bought a chance to play the alpha
-Congratulations when the alpha is over you should recieve your commemorative keychain in less than 6 weeks. P.S. thank you for your $100 contribution.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
Originally posted by DamonVile They can so they should....I guess.I don't think gamers have ever been a positive part of making a game good and the beta testing process to me is a joke. The valuable feedback most often gives is, it's too hard, it takes too long and the class that killed me is OP.The only real testing I ever see going on in a beta is ...get enough people looking in the hey stack and you'll eventually find all the needles.
I somewhat disagree. If they can they should, I can agree with that.
I have been involved with BETA tests that actually did accomplish testing. These were closed tests, with set parameters and it worked.
Selling early access to BETA test I think is a horrible idea. Letting people play early on a server that has system running that have already been through testing, is ok.
The over arching issue is what you said. When you let anyone but their way in they feel like they can do whatever they want and they are correct in my opinion as they paid for the right to play or test or whatever.
I believe there is value in an honest Alpha/beta phase with un-paid players that are testing systems and doing what is asked of them. Although I have not seen anything like this recently I has worked in the past.
But yeah if a company wants to let people preview their game and suckers (I count myself among them, Rust alpha, I fail) want to buy an alpha product, then have at it.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Beta testing used to actually involve testing the game, looking for bugs and reporting them. These days it seems to be an excuse for early access to be sold, unless you're lucky to get into the "closed beta" as it's now called.
The fact is these devs can't afford to release a game that hasn't been beta tested. Beta testers are providing a valuable service by testing games and finding bugs that devs just don't have the time or manpower to do themselves. If anyone should be getting paid it's the testers, but we're happy to do it for free when it's a game we think is going to be good.
Personally I think they've got a bloody cheek asking for cash from testers and it's something that I won't ever condone or pay for. Unfortunately there are enough fools out there who are easily parted from their money and the suits are only too happy to take it from them. Such is the world we live in.
My point is that the console culture would not buy into alphas.
If you buy an alpha for a f2p game, then it's no longer a f2p game, you just bought the game. If you buy early access to a f2p game, then in some ways that can be considered pay to win and it just alters the overall culture of the game right out of the gate.
The point is moot because console players CANT buy into an alpha, its PC only and its something PC players have been doing for a long time, early access in pre-orders have been common for a long time.
1. F2P only means the base game is free. Not that there is nothing to be bought inside the game.
2. if buying early access = P2W, then TESO is P2W because guess what? You get early access with your pre-orders.
You are really stretching the meaning of things to fit your narrative.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Beta testing used to actually involve testing the game, looking for bugs and reporting them. These days it seems to be an excuse for early access to be sold, unless you're lucky to get into the "closed beta" as it's now called.
100% biased BS.
Getting into beta has been a "demo" for many people for along time which is why companies started doing OPEN BETAs in the first place. Merdian 59, UO, EQ1, AC1 did not have open beta's. DaoC is the first MMO I remember having an open beta and it was a way to get the word out about the game.
Also, any long time MMORPG player that does not make it a point to beta test a game to see if its any good is a player that really LOVES to drop money on bad games. The genre has been flooded with mediocre crap games for such a long time that everyone should be "testing" before buying.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Players will still buy into it, but is it a clear case of companies out to save on testers or just wanting MMOers to test it (and make cash on the side)?
Would you trust the guys and gals that test platform games to now test your MMO?
Right or wrongly; we are daft enough to pay, then we're going to get milked! /moo
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
Another advantage of paid early access that I haven't seen mentioned. Games with paid early access are much less likely to be rushed to release with an unfinished product. Especially a "fat cat" game like Everquest Next (It is definitely not Everquest 3.) who dropped their NDA 20 hours after opening the servers.
SOE seems to be jumping on the "Honest and Transparent" bandwagon, which I think is excellent.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
This argument is silly. People pay into early access and alpha because they are impatient. The VAST majority are certainly NOT doing it to 'provide the service of playtesting' to the developer (at least not as their primary incentive). People want to play the game now, and are willing to pay money for that privilege. This makes the access valuable and thus, marketable. Any game should make money in any non-underhanded (lying) or non-illegal way they can manage. If the negative effects of this monitization outweigh the positives of the game experience (like in the case of exploitative cash shops) players will simply choose to not play / participate in their game anymore.
Originally posted by Mtibbs1989 I absolutely believe that 'Early Access' for example: SOE's Everquest: Next Landmark should not be sold. These games are in the testing stages of a product's life. There are actual jobs where people are paid to test these products and respond with issues. Instead we're not providing a paid/free service we're being charged for it.
If you want to give 'Early Access' to a product that's under heavy testing. It should be done by a paid employee or for free on the behalf of the person(s) testing the product for the company.
I wouldlnt say that Landmark is "under heavy testing". the developers already have a roadmap they are following. just because they don't come out and tell us what it is does not mean it isn't there.
the core of the game works. it has already been tested internally. they are just iterating on it now.
Comments
Should they? Only for F2P games and kickstarters.
With games you have to buy, you get pre-orders and SEs where they give you beta access so anyone saying this is wrong is being biased.
What Landmark is doing is working with the game community in making their game, same with Shroud of the Avatar and I would take what they are doing over anything being done or what has been done by anyone else.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Early access sure, exclusive invites to Alpha/Beta testing no.
In addition, I think it has hurt game's longevity when too many betas are allowed. If people have already played the game for a month, they've already written guides to post, theorycrafted builds and items, have no need to explore and nothing feels new.
Agreeing with both of you. I think I just need to suck it up that times have changed.
With the advent of F2P, companies will look for ways to monetize. Players are always on the prowl for access to games in development so there's a win/win in that situation. I expect though, that companies will continue to adjust the bar for a while before they are ready to allow access to anyone who can pay; not all is rosy in the alphas I'm testing and what has been rolled out to players varies widely by company.
Umm, you do know that consoles are flooded with games that basically last less than a week so its actually what they expect to get in a game so they say nothing. The difference is that they are not expected to pay $50 for a game and then also be charged another $15 a month to keep playing it, which they wouldn't, because they played all the content already and have no reason to.
MMOs have changed, UO/AC1/EQ1 took months to play it all. AC1 got monthly updates, many of them massive in size. EQ1 averaged an Xpac every 4-5 months so there was always something new to do. That came to an end yet many game companies expected players to keep on playing. Worse yet, more and more MMOs are being released with far less depth than those before them. And yes, I am talking AAA titles as well.
So, I said it before and I will say it again. B2P and Sub based games sell pre-orders and CE editions with beta access as well as early access and no one has a problem with that but for some reason, its wrong for F2P games to do it and that's just plain biased.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
easy answer, yes they should
its proven many times now that its what enough players want
21 year MMO veteran
PvP Raid Leader
Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
+1
NOTICE EVERYONE SKIPPED OVER YOUR POST BUTEOREGALIS?
I MEAN HOW DO YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT MAKES A WORLD OF COMMON SENSE.
Early access - does that mean you bought the game too? - I believe it does
Alpha - that does not mean you bought the game, rather you bought a chance to play the alpha
-Congratulations when the alpha is over you should recieve your commemorative keychain in less than 6 weeks. P.S. thank you for your $100 contribution.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
I somewhat disagree. If they can they should, I can agree with that.
I have been involved with BETA tests that actually did accomplish testing. These were closed tests, with set parameters and it worked.
Selling early access to BETA test I think is a horrible idea. Letting people play early on a server that has system running that have already been through testing, is ok.
The over arching issue is what you said. When you let anyone but their way in they feel like they can do whatever they want and they are correct in my opinion as they paid for the right to play or test or whatever.
I believe there is value in an honest Alpha/beta phase with un-paid players that are testing systems and doing what is asked of them. Although I have not seen anything like this recently I has worked in the past.
But yeah if a company wants to let people preview their game and suckers (I count myself among them, Rust alpha, I fail) want to buy an alpha product, then have at it.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Beta testing used to actually involve testing the game, looking for bugs and reporting them. These days it seems to be an excuse for early access to be sold, unless you're lucky to get into the "closed beta" as it's now called.
The fact is these devs can't afford to release a game that hasn't been beta tested. Beta testers are providing a valuable service by testing games and finding bugs that devs just don't have the time or manpower to do themselves. If anyone should be getting paid it's the testers, but we're happy to do it for free when it's a game we think is going to be good.
Personally I think they've got a bloody cheek asking for cash from testers and it's something that I won't ever condone or pay for. Unfortunately there are enough fools out there who are easily parted from their money and the suits are only too happy to take it from them. Such is the world we live in.
"Greed is good" - Gordon Gekko.
The point is moot because console players CANT buy into an alpha, its PC only and its something PC players have been doing for a long time, early access in pre-orders have been common for a long time.
1. F2P only means the base game is free. Not that there is nothing to be bought inside the game.
2. if buying early access = P2W, then TESO is P2W because guess what? You get early access with your pre-orders.
You are really stretching the meaning of things to fit your narrative.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
100% biased BS.
Getting into beta has been a "demo" for many people for along time which is why companies started doing OPEN BETAs in the first place. Merdian 59, UO, EQ1, AC1 did not have open beta's. DaoC is the first MMO I remember having an open beta and it was a way to get the word out about the game.
Also, any long time MMORPG player that does not make it a point to beta test a game to see if its any good is a player that really LOVES to drop money on bad games. The genre has been flooded with mediocre crap games for such a long time that everyone should be "testing" before buying.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Fools and their money.. etc. etc..
Players will still buy into it, but is it a clear case of companies out to save on testers or just wanting MMOers to test it (and make cash on the side)?
Would you trust the guys and gals that test platform games to now test your MMO?
Right or wrongly; we are daft enough to pay, then we're going to get milked! /moo
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
...10% Benevolence, 90% Arrogance in my case!
Another advantage of paid early access that I haven't seen mentioned. Games with paid early access are much less likely to be rushed to release with an unfinished product. Especially a "fat cat" game like Everquest Next (It is definitely not Everquest 3.) who dropped their NDA 20 hours after opening the servers.
SOE seems to be jumping on the "Honest and Transparent" bandwagon, which I think is excellent.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
This argument is silly. People pay into early access and alpha because they are impatient. The VAST majority are certainly NOT doing it to 'provide the service of playtesting' to the developer (at least not as their primary incentive). People want to play the game now, and are willing to pay money for that privilege. This makes the access valuable and thus, marketable. Any game should make money in any non-underhanded (lying) or non-illegal way they can manage. If the negative effects of this monitization outweigh the positives of the game experience (like in the case of exploitative cash shops) players will simply choose to not play / participate in their game anymore.
Why not...
You can sell someone a bag of crap if you want..... literally.
It's up to them if they buy it.
Why did i even choose to reply to this thing? oh yea! free enterprise!!! deal with it!!!
Edit: to be clear, I am agreeing with the post I quoted.
I wouldlnt say that Landmark is "under heavy testing". the developers already have a roadmap they are following. just because they don't come out and tell us what it is does not mean it isn't there.
the core of the game works. it has already been tested internally. they are just iterating on it now.