From a business point of view, I dont understand why they are trying to market the game in its current condition. The only reason I can come up with is they dont have enough money to finish the game using their current resources. Marketing a poor quality build to players now is not only useless, it drives away potential customers. Many people will try it now, hate it and never give it another look, even two years down the road assuming it does get released in a quality state by then. Why drive those customers away now? Why keep sending people to game forums to give out keys?
Well if you go to their own Kickstarter they claim that EVEN WITHOUT Kickstarter they would have the game out (finished) in 4 years. They said the Kickstarter would just allow them a much faster, much larger plan. I'm pretty sure that they are now talking about being in year 2 of a 5 year plan so I'm not sure how that math works... To me, much FASTER would mean that the time should go down, not up.
No. Most of the budget is being provided by our initial investors, but the money we're raising on Kickstarter is the difference between a 4 year development plan and a much faster, much larger plan.
Barring unforeseeable future complications we do not expect to have to raise additional funds or do additional Kickstarter projects after the successful completion of this project.
----------
As an earlier posted stated though, the real problem in my opinion is that fact that they said they will not wipe. So you either pay (box fee + sub + cash shop) to play in this "Early Enrollment" or you are a year (or more) behind the curve at Open Enrollment. Note that some people who currently play claim that the difference between their characters and new characters at open enrollment will be minor, but these same people also unequivocally said on their forum that they would immediately quit en mass if their XP was wiped. We all know why
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The only person I see being unreasonable is you, good sir. We're talking about video games, and you're playing psychologist. If you want to discuss "clear strong negative impact on society", I'm sure there are more engaging forums out there that may be reasonable enough for you to hold a wonderful discussion. MMORPG.com isn't that place.
To accuse someone of being unreasonable, presumably you have an example of where I've been unreasonable.
My posts have been reasonable -- and are quite literally demanding reason from others. (I'm asking for the reason that a product shouldn't be sold.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How does it affect me negatively? Maybe I would like to try out a game in an alpha or beta state but wont be able to in another few years as this practice catches on in the industry. Maybe it makes me angry that we used to have up-front pricing and you knew what it was going to cost to play a game but now the game industry wants a box fee, a monthly sub just to test the game and a cash shop. I dont know how much to budget for gaming anymore as the costs to play continue to rise. Maybe it makes me angry when game developers try and lie by placing a new name on something old. A short alpha followed by an "Early Access Release" is the same thing as paying for beta or alpha access. The company does not want to admit this hence the new name.
You said "There are products I don't care to buy, but I don't actively campaign to remove those products from the market." But that is not the same thing that is happening here. If we just didnt like the product then yes, you would have a point but its the fact that the CEO is using marketing speak to justify charging people to test his game. This trend is growing in the gaming industry, Sergi Titov tried it in War-Z calling it a "foundation release" to justify releasing his game full of bugs.
Its not the product, its the business model and it does have a negative impact on society. What if this practice catches on and the next time you buy a new car they add in an extra $1000 to the price for "testing fee"? What if you order a hamburger and they serve it to you rare and when you try and return it, they say they are in a testing phase and you should just keep it and pay for the privilege of being allowed to test it. You might say these examples are silly but the whole point in your argument is we should not protest anything unless it has a "clear strong negative impact for society". How can anything on this forum fit that bill? You could go to any forum on this site and whatever they are discussing would not have a "clear strong negative impact for society".
Personally, if the CEO just came out and said, we plan to charge a sub fee while we test the game since we dont have enough money to finish the game otherwise, I would be happy. Its the lie, the calling a square peg "round" that bothers me. Dont we have enough dishonestly in marketing/advertising without allowing a new level to be added?
Your first bit is just complaining that you don't get a free handout.
The old up-front pricing method burned me on far more games than the modern F2P model has. I've never spent a single dollar on a F2P game I didn't like. I've spent thousands on B2P games I haven't liked over the years.
The costs for gaming continue to fall. Boxed games were $60 in the late 90s when I started buying tons of them. Basically all of them (except those trashy edu-games on the $10-15 shelf.) I had expected to search for titles like COD Advanced Warfare, DA:Inquisition, and Bloodborne and tell you that typical AAA games are still $60 nowadays, but turns out those games are $39.99, $40.69, and $42.73 respectively. This was after I realized this list of recent games wasn't going to give me the AAA games I was searching for, because so many games nowadays are indie titles (sub-$20 range) and F2P. So let's stick with facts and reality please, and realize gaming is cheaper than ever. If you don't want to spend money you can play quite a lot of fun games for just the price of the platform (PC, mobile, etc) and an internet connection. (Both of which are also cheaper than ever.)
There is a demand for early-access games as a product. The demand dramatically exceeds the need for testers. A logical way to select testers is to capitalize on the strong demand for that product by selling access. There is little "marketing speak" about it, it's mainly just a way to get down to the correct number of players (the more you charge, the fewer will play until eventually you have a price that generates a desirable number of testers.) If you don't like that concept, you'll never pay for early access and won't ever be harmed by it. If many others feel the same way, the price for early access will fall. If early access games are consistently too bugyg, then demand will fall or at least it'll generate bad word of mouth which will harm the game's potential somewhat.
A product is "anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need." So yes, early access is a product.
An appropriate car analogy would be that you pay an extra $1000 to buy a 2016 model car before the regular release. That business model could certainly work.
An appropriate hambuger analogy would be paying a buck extra to try out a new type of burger that isn't usually on the menu. That business model probably wouldn't be adopted since usually in the food industry you do an early-run at a few restaurants to judge the demand for the product (which includes the price you'd expect to charge for it after release.) But you're still going to get a cooked burger, it's just that you get to try it before anyone else and before the recipe is perfected.
You asked me how the forum can prove early-access is harmful. That's not how this works. Here's how things work:
People demand change.
Those same people provide the reason justifying the change.
So it's not on me to find the reason. It's the responsibility of anyone who wants this change to happen.
But unless there's a strong justification for the demand (which isn't "give me something free" or "I'm envious!") then you may want to consider the possibility that you're part of an emotional angry internet mob demanding something without evidence.
Don't be that guy. Be this guy instead!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you don't like that concept, you'll never pay for early access and won't ever be harmed by it.
Unless you decide to play a game at Open Enrollment (such as this game) and find that all those characters around you have 1 year+ advantage in skills and development. In this specific instance, it is the ultimate combination of Early Enrollment + Box fee + sub + Cash Shop + NO WIPE at normal launch...
So the people being harmed are the ones that look at the game, like the idea, but do not want to pay $200+ (box plus a years sub) for an under cooked game to be competitive. So nobody is being physically harmed and the company can obviously create and implement whatever pricing scheme they want, but folks DO have the right to object and voice that objection.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Well to me once you start paying a sub the game is live not in development but developing new content for the base game. This sure sounds and looks like a scam to me. Everyone of you guys that paid money upfront should be able to play without paying a sub because it sure is clear there is no finished product here.
Also has anyone else thought the people that post nothing but good things about game and how you should be happy paying the sub to support the game (in my day that meant support a finished product) could be some how connected to the game.
So, when a company charges somewhere along the lines of 150 dollars for a founder's pack...... You accept that with open arms. When they charge you 15 bucks a month for the same kinda deal you shake your head. I'm confused
I see people saying that this game has promise, but they forget one important thing, promise and completion are two different things. A quote from Jim Sterling puts it accurately (forgive me if its not direct) "Game designers are not in the business of selling faith, so leave it to priests."
Originally posted by LordZeik So, when a company charges somewhere along the lines of 150 dollars for a founder's pack...... You accept that with open arms. When they charge you 15 bucks a month for the same kinda deal you shake your head. I'm confused
Once you charge monthly that is a released game. No one that pays 100 for a pack should have to also pay a sub for a game clearly that is in early alpha.
Originally posted by LordZeik So, when a company charges somewhere along the lines of 150 dollars for a founder's pack...... You accept that with open arms. When they charge you 15 bucks a month for the same kinda deal you shake your head. I'm confused
Are there any $150 Founders Packs for OpenWorld PvP, territory control games that included not having your character wiped at normal release (Open Enrollment here)? That would be the true comparison. Maybe there are, but the best i can thin of is something like a 3 day "Headstart" which sucks, but FAR less than a year headstart...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Sure maybe they'll use all that money to make a really great game.
Then again, I look around at all the moneygrabs and have little faith in anyone that asks for money before the games even in beta. I feel like there are going to be a few Porsches in someones future, and it ain't gonna be mine...
Your first bit is just complaining that you don't get a free handout.
Your opinion
The old up-front pricing method burned me on far more games than the modern F2P model has. I've never spent a single dollar on a F2P game I didn't like. I've spent thousands on B2P games I haven't liked over the years.
The costs for gaming continue to fall. Boxed games were $60 in the late 90s when I started buying tons of them. Basically all of them (except those trashy edu-games on the $10-15 shelf.) I had expected to search for titles like COD Advanced Warfare, DA:Inquisition, and Bloodborne and tell you that typical AAA games are still $60 nowadays, but turns out those games are $39.99, $40.69, and $42.73 respectively. This was after I realized this list of recent games wasn't going to give me the AAA games I was searching for, because so many games nowadays are indie titles (sub-$20 range) and F2P. So let's stick with facts and reality please, and realize gaming is cheaper than ever. If you don't want to spend money you can play quite a lot of fun games for just the price of the platform (PC, mobile, etc) and an internet connection. (Both of which are also cheaper than ever.)
What does the price of games have to do with what is being discussed? The point being discussed is charging people to test but refusing to call it paid testing. I could make a point here that a tomato can be considered a fruit and part of the berry family but like your point that game prices have come down, it serves no purpose to the debate as the price being charged is not in question.
There is a demand for early-access games as a product. The demand dramatically exceeds the need for testers. A logical way to select testers is to capitalize on the strong demand for that product by selling access. There is little "marketing speak" about it, it's mainly just a way to get down to the correct number of players (the more you charge, the fewer will play until eventually you have a price that generates a desirable number of testers.) If you don't like that concept, you'll never pay for early access and won't ever be harmed by it. If many others feel the same way, the price for early access will fall. If early access games are consistently too bugyg, then demand will fall or at least it'll generate bad word of mouth which will harm the game's potential somewhat.
A product is "anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need." So yes, early access is a product.
An appropriate car analogy would be that you pay an extra $1000 to buy a 2016 model car before the regular release. That business model could certainly work.
You are being misleading here, how about you pay an extra $1000 for the fourth tire of that car but we call it a "ride smoother". Other cars come with 4 tires included in the cost but your car requires an extra $1000 for that last tire.
An appropriate hambuger analogy would be paying a buck extra to try out a new type of burger that isn't usually on the menu. That business model probably wouldn't be adopted since usually in the food industry you do an early-run at a few restaurants to judge the demand for the product (which includes the price you'd expect to charge for it after release.) But you're still going to get a cooked burger, it's just that you get to try it before anyone else and before the recipe is perfected.
You asked me how the forum can prove early-access is harmful. That's not how this works. Here's how things work:
People demand change.
Those same people provide the reason justifying the change.
So it's not on me to find the reason. It's the responsibility of anyone who wants this change to happen.
But unless there's a strong justification for the demand (which isn't "give me something free" or "I'm envious!") then you may want to consider the possibility that you're part of an emotional angry internet mob demanding something without evidence.
Don't be that guy. Be this guy instead!
To address the rest of your post, I'm not asking you for a reason, you asked us and we gave it to you. We dont like when a game developer charges to be a tester while calling it another name. If they just said, we have a game in testing and if you want in to help you have to pay a monthly fee I would be ok with it and THEN your points would be valid. I have a problem when the CEO of the company says they are not in any testing phase and not missing anything that would add to the game when clearly that is not the case.
I also find it odd that you want to debate this deliberate wordplay when earlier today you posted in another topic that "Yellow means yellow, and blue means blue. If someone starts calling yellow things "blue" recently, then there's no way you can call it miscommunication for someone to point out that's the wrong use of the word."http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6668127#6668127
Is that not what is happening here? We have a CEO saying the game is NOT in any form of testing and is not missing anything that would add to gameplay and calling it "early enrollment" when if you have read anything about the game you would see they are indeed testing and the game is about a year away from release. How is that any different from you debating the misuse of the term MMO in your thread?
You say "gamers shouldn't support making "MMO" a useless term that doesn't provide information" and then come here and argue when other gamers are against calling the testing phase early enrollment and pretending like testing should no longer be used to describe a part of the game creation cycle. How is your point any more valid than the one we are making? Testing is testing and massively is massively, you are on different sides of the same argument in different threads.
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Sad day in gaming where these dishonest developers are ruining the way games are being made. I would say 90% of these developers are nothing but scam artists. Top one being smed.
Unless you decide to play a game at Open Enrollment (such as this game) and find that all those characters around you have 1 year+ advantage in skills and development. In this specific instance, it is the ultimate combination of Early Enrollment + Box fee + sub + Cash Shop + NO WIPE at normal launch...
So the people being harmed are the ones that look at the game, like the idea, but do not want to pay $200+ (box plus a years sub) for an under cooked game to be competitive. So nobody is being physically harmed and the company can obviously create and implement whatever pricing scheme they want, but folks DO have the right to object and voice that objection.
In PVE that skill/development advantage simply doesn't matter. When soloing it won't matter at all. When grouping you'll be around mostly other Launch players. Eventually you'll reach endgame and the experience of those veterans will only benefit you, and eventually you'll be attempting cutting edge content (and from your perspective this will happen faster than it would've if you'd started at the very beginning -- mature servers have a lot more access to resources and experience.)
In PVP either the game won't have vertical progression and you'll catch up in skill eventually, learning from their harsh example, OR the game will have vertical progression (and therefore was expected to have PVP devoid of skill or fairness anyway.)
The Venn diagram sliver you're describing is going to be disappointed, but is an utterly tiny slice. Most competitive players aren't seeking competition from MMORPGs (they're getting it from competitive games like MOBAs, RTSes, FPSes...) Of the handful who do, many will be fine paying since competition is their goal and they're only paying about as much as they'd normally pay to access a competitive game. Of the tiny remaining sliver, yes you're right it sucks for that tiny sliver.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
To address the rest of your post, I'm not asking you for a reason, you asked us and we gave it to you. We dont like when a game developer charges to be a tester while calling it another name. If they just said, we have a game in testing and if you want in to help you have to pay a monthly fee I would be ok with it and THEN your points would be valid. I have a problem when the CEO of the company says they are not in any testing phase and not missing anything that would add to the game when clearly that is not the case.
I also find it odd that you want to debate this deliberate wordplay when earlier today you posted in another topic that "Yellow means yellow, and blue means blue. If someone starts calling yellow things "blue" recently, then there's no way you can call it miscommunication for someone to point out that's the wrong use of the word."http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6668127#6668127
Is that not what is happening here? We have a CEO saying the game is NOT in any form of testing and is not missing anything that would add to gameplay and calling it "early enrollment" when if you have read anything about the game you would see they are indeed testing and the game is about a year away from release. How is that any different from you debating the misuse of the term MMO in your thread?
You say "gamers shouldn't support making "MMO" a useless term that doesn't provide information" and then come here and argue when other gamers are against calling the testing phase early enrollment and pretending like testing should no longer be used to describe a part of the game creation cycle. How is your point any more valid than the one we are making? Testing is testing and massively is massively, you are on different sides of the same argument in different threads.
Let's be honest: the name isn't what's at stake here, players just want a free game.
If we're honest we'd admit that calling it a "$39.99 Testers' Package" would provoke far more complaints than "early enrollment".
If we're honest we'd link to whatever genuinely badly-worded stuff that CEO said. Otherwise I'll end up visiting the website and reading, "During Early Enrollment many key game features will not be implemented or will be implemented in a very basic state." and " The objective is not to find and fix bugs - although that will be a part of what happens during Early Enrollment."
Then, if we're honest, we'll realize that holy crap this is the FAQ on the website and obviously going to be what most players read if they're at all apprehensive about open enrollment, and it spells out the exact state of the game in no uncertain terms. So even if the CEO's post was genuinely a PR blunder, it wouldn't even matter. The most obvious player-facing communication would still be saying exactly what early enrollment entails.
Also the part about game costs was in response to, "I dont know how much to budget for gaming anymore as the costs to play continue to rise." So I described how costs to play have fallen.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I have zero issue with them charging whatever they want for it. I think that what they are charging for it at this point is ridiculous and they are extremely stupid for doing it when considering their long term future, but that is their prerogative. Don't pay for it just like almost everybody else has decided to do.
Monthly sub for early access is bull, Not saying the company is not "allowed" to do it or has not warned players exactly what they are paying for. Just saying that a company that thinks it should get money for selling time for an unfinished game is gonna have a customer service policy I wont tolerate, they obviously are greedy and want the money and that doesnt make me feel confident they will ever produce the game.... It is in my opinion a really bad move and likely to push many possible players away from the game... I wish we had more games that offered monthly subs options other then WoW and Final Fantasy or whatever, this is not the move towards subs that I wanted though lol...
Unless you decide to play a game at Open Enrollment (such as this game) and find that all those characters around you have 1 year+ advantage in skills and development. In this specific instance, it is the ultimate combination of Early Enrollment + Box fee + sub + Cash Shop + NO WIPE at normal launch...
So the people being harmed are the ones that look at the game, like the idea, but do not want to pay $200+ (box plus a years sub) for an under cooked game to be competitive. So nobody is being physically harmed and the company can obviously create and implement whatever pricing scheme they want, but folks DO have the right to object and voice that objection.
In PVE that skill/development advantage simply doesn't matter. When soloing it won't matter at all. When grouping you'll be around mostly other Launch players. Eventually you'll reach endgame and the experience of those veterans will only benefit you, and eventually you'll be attempting cutting edge content (and from your perspective this will happen faster than it would've if you'd started at the very beginning -- mature servers have a lot more access to resources and experience.)
In PVP either the game won't have vertical progression and you'll catch up in skill eventually, learning from their harsh example, OR the game will have vertical progression (and therefore was expected to have PVP devoid of skill or fairness anyway.)
The Venn diagram sliver you're describing is going to be disappointed, but is an utterly tiny slice. Most competitive players aren't seeking competition from MMORPGs (they're getting it from competitive games like MOBAs, RTSes, FPSes...) Of the handful who do, many will be fine paying since competition is their goal and they're only paying about as much as they'd normally pay to access a competitive game. Of the tiny remaining sliver, yes you're right it sucks for that tiny sliver.
Wow... your response to a pay for Alpha/beta/Early Enrollment with no wipe in a territory control PvP game (with looting) is : The new guys will benefit from the other characters having a 1 year edge in character development.
I do not even know what to say to that so I will just leave it at... WOW.
In essence this is no different than a company selling characters with 1 year XP (in a time based XP system where you can never catch up) for $200+ at launch/Open Enrollment. As a matter of fact the CEO recently "threw it out as a joke" to allow new players to PAY for backdated XP to catch up... LOL
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
that living thing is not you or anything you will ever know/meet.
so again, why do you care?
Because our minds are capable of predicting outcomes. We can imagine what the world would be like with or without empathy, and can predict that we're better off with more empathy.
With animals the line is blurred a bit, since our empathy tends to be pretty selective (we're quite empathetic to things similar to use, but have almost none for things alien to us.) Which is why plenty of people dislike seeing dogs (a common pet and one of the animals most similar to us on the planet) harmed, yet comparatively few care if insects are harmed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Comments
Well if you go to their own Kickstarter they claim that EVEN WITHOUT Kickstarter they would have the game out (finished) in 4 years. They said the Kickstarter would just allow them a much faster, much larger plan. I'm pretty sure that they are now talking about being in year 2 of a 5 year plan so I'm not sure how that math works... To me, much FASTER would mean that the time should go down, not up.
------------
Is the whole budget coming from this Kickstarter?
No. Most of the budget is being provided by our initial investors, but the money we're raising on Kickstarter is the difference between a 4 year development plan and a much faster, much larger plan.
Barring unforeseeable future complications we do not expect to have to raise additional funds or do additional Kickstarter projects after the successful completion of this project.
----------
As an earlier posted stated though, the real problem in my opinion is that fact that they said they will not wipe. So you either pay (box fee + sub + cash shop) to play in this "Early Enrollment" or you are a year (or more) behind the curve at Open Enrollment. Note that some people who currently play claim that the difference between their characters and new characters at open enrollment will be minor, but these same people also unequivocally said on their forum that they would immediately quit en mass if their XP was wiped. We all know why
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
To accuse someone of being unreasonable, presumably you have an example of where I've been unreasonable.
My posts have been reasonable -- and are quite literally demanding reason from others. (I'm asking for the reason that a product shouldn't be sold.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But animal abuse hurts a living thing, so at least there's a reason there.
"That guy is playing a videogame before me" isn't about empathy. It's envy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Sadly that's not the only horrible thing in looks and function......
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Your first bit is just complaining that you don't get a free handout.
The old up-front pricing method burned me on far more games than the modern F2P model has. I've never spent a single dollar on a F2P game I didn't like. I've spent thousands on B2P games I haven't liked over the years.
The costs for gaming continue to fall. Boxed games were $60 in the late 90s when I started buying tons of them. Basically all of them (except those trashy edu-games on the $10-15 shelf.) I had expected to search for titles like COD Advanced Warfare, DA:Inquisition, and Bloodborne and tell you that typical AAA games are still $60 nowadays, but turns out those games are $39.99, $40.69, and $42.73 respectively. This was after I realized this list of recent games wasn't going to give me the AAA games I was searching for, because so many games nowadays are indie titles (sub-$20 range) and F2P. So let's stick with facts and reality please, and realize gaming is cheaper than ever. If you don't want to spend money you can play quite a lot of fun games for just the price of the platform (PC, mobile, etc) and an internet connection. (Both of which are also cheaper than ever.)
There is a demand for early-access games as a product. The demand dramatically exceeds the need for testers. A logical way to select testers is to capitalize on the strong demand for that product by selling access. There is little "marketing speak" about it, it's mainly just a way to get down to the correct number of players (the more you charge, the fewer will play until eventually you have a price that generates a desirable number of testers.) If you don't like that concept, you'll never pay for early access and won't ever be harmed by it. If many others feel the same way, the price for early access will fall. If early access games are consistently too bugyg, then demand will fall or at least it'll generate bad word of mouth which will harm the game's potential somewhat.
A product is "anything that can be offered to a market that might satisfy a want or need." So yes, early access is a product.
An appropriate car analogy would be that you pay an extra $1000 to buy a 2016 model car before the regular release. That business model could certainly work.
An appropriate hambuger analogy would be paying a buck extra to try out a new type of burger that isn't usually on the menu. That business model probably wouldn't be adopted since usually in the food industry you do an early-run at a few restaurants to judge the demand for the product (which includes the price you'd expect to charge for it after release.) But you're still going to get a cooked burger, it's just that you get to try it before anyone else and before the recipe is perfected.
You asked me how the forum can prove early-access is harmful. That's not how this works. Here's how things work:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Unless you decide to play a game at Open Enrollment (such as this game) and find that all those characters around you have 1 year+ advantage in skills and development. In this specific instance, it is the ultimate combination of Early Enrollment + Box fee + sub + Cash Shop + NO WIPE at normal launch...
So the people being harmed are the ones that look at the game, like the idea, but do not want to pay $200+ (box plus a years sub) for an under cooked game to be competitive. So nobody is being physically harmed and the company can obviously create and implement whatever pricing scheme they want, but folks DO have the right to object and voice that objection.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Well to me once you start paying a sub the game is live not in development but developing new content for the base game. This sure sounds and looks like a scam to me. Everyone of you guys that paid money upfront should be able to play without paying a sub because it sure is clear there is no finished product here.
Also has anyone else thought the people that post nothing but good things about game and how you should be happy paying the sub to support the game (in my day that meant support a finished product) could be some how connected to the game.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
Once you charge monthly that is a released game. No one that pays 100 for a pack should have to also pay a sub for a game clearly that is in early alpha.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
Are there any $150 Founders Packs for OpenWorld PvP, territory control games that included not having your character wiped at normal release (Open Enrollment here)? That would be the true comparison. Maybe there are, but the best i can thin of is something like a 3 day "Headstart" which sucks, but FAR less than a year headstart...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Seriously? If you are a fan of MMO's and see this becoming a trend you disagree with it absolutely affects us negatively.
Sure maybe they'll use all that money to make a really great game.
Then again, I look around at all the moneygrabs and have little faith in anyone that asks for money before the games even in beta. I feel like there are going to be a few Porsches in someones future, and it ain't gonna be mine...
To address the rest of your post, I'm not asking you for a reason, you asked us and we gave it to you. We dont like when a game developer charges to be a tester while calling it another name. If they just said, we have a game in testing and if you want in to help you have to pay a monthly fee I would be ok with it and THEN your points would be valid. I have a problem when the CEO of the company says they are not in any testing phase and not missing anything that would add to the game when clearly that is not the case.
I also find it odd that you want to debate this deliberate wordplay when earlier today you posted in another topic that "Yellow means yellow, and blue means blue. If someone starts calling yellow things "blue" recently, then there's no way you can call it miscommunication for someone to point out that's the wrong use of the word." http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/6668127#6668127
Is that not what is happening here? We have a CEO saying the game is NOT in any form of testing and is not missing anything that would add to gameplay and calling it "early enrollment" when if you have read anything about the game you would see they are indeed testing and the game is about a year away from release. How is that any different from you debating the misuse of the term MMO in your thread?
You say "gamers shouldn't support making "MMO" a useless term that doesn't provide information" and then come here and argue when other gamers are against calling the testing phase early enrollment and pretending like testing should no longer be used to describe a part of the game creation cycle. How is your point any more valid than the one we are making? Testing is testing and massively is massively, you are on different sides of the same argument in different threads.
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
In PVE that skill/development advantage simply doesn't matter. When soloing it won't matter at all. When grouping you'll be around mostly other Launch players. Eventually you'll reach endgame and the experience of those veterans will only benefit you, and eventually you'll be attempting cutting edge content (and from your perspective this will happen faster than it would've if you'd started at the very beginning -- mature servers have a lot more access to resources and experience.)
In PVP either the game won't have vertical progression and you'll catch up in skill eventually, learning from their harsh example, OR the game will have vertical progression (and therefore was expected to have PVP devoid of skill or fairness anyway.)
The Venn diagram sliver you're describing is going to be disappointed, but is an utterly tiny slice. Most competitive players aren't seeking competition from MMORPGs (they're getting it from competitive games like MOBAs, RTSes, FPSes...) Of the handful who do, many will be fine paying since competition is their goal and they're only paying about as much as they'd normally pay to access a competitive game. Of the tiny remaining sliver, yes you're right it sucks for that tiny sliver.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Let's be honest: the name isn't what's at stake here, players just want a free game.
If we're honest we'd admit that calling it a "$39.99 Testers' Package" would provoke far more complaints than "early enrollment".
If we're honest we'd link to whatever genuinely badly-worded stuff that CEO said. Otherwise I'll end up visiting the website and reading, "During Early Enrollment many key game features will not be implemented or will be implemented in a very basic state." and " The objective is not to find and fix bugs - although that will be a part of what happens during Early Enrollment."
Then, if we're honest, we'll realize that holy crap this is the FAQ on the website and obviously going to be what most players read if they're at all apprehensive about open enrollment, and it spells out the exact state of the game in no uncertain terms. So even if the CEO's post was genuinely a PR blunder, it wouldn't even matter. The most obvious player-facing communication would still be saying exactly what early enrollment entails.
Also the part about game costs was in response to, "I dont know how much to budget for gaming anymore as the costs to play continue to rise." So I described how costs to play have fallen.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Wow... your response to a pay for Alpha/beta/Early Enrollment with no wipe in a territory control PvP game (with looting) is : The new guys will benefit from the other characters having a 1 year edge in character development.
I do not even know what to say to that so I will just leave it at... WOW.
In essence this is no different than a company selling characters with 1 year XP (in a time based XP system where you can never catch up) for $200+ at launch/Open Enrollment. As a matter of fact the CEO recently "threw it out as a joke" to allow new players to PAY for backdated XP to catch up... LOL
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Because our minds are capable of predicting outcomes. We can imagine what the world would be like with or without empathy, and can predict that we're better off with more empathy.
With animals the line is blurred a bit, since our empathy tends to be pretty selective (we're quite empathetic to things similar to use, but have almost none for things alien to us.) Which is why plenty of people dislike seeing dogs (a common pet and one of the animals most similar to us on the planet) harmed, yet comparatively few care if insects are harmed.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver