Originally posted by Dakeru So your point is that you are being reasonable which by definition means that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not reasonable. You got me - I am extremely envious that I am not currently playing this great game.
No, my point is baseless accusations lack weight. Without examples of where I've been unreasonable, I haven't been unreasonable. That's how reason works.
My posts here are literally a call to reason. I'm literally asking for the logic/evidence-based reasons people think this should be removed.
If you provide that reason, then my implication that you're envious becomes similarly baseless. Without the reason, envy is the most logical reason someone would complain about someone else getting something.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by Dakeru So your point is that you are being reasonable which by definition means that anyone who doesn't agree with you is not reasonable. You got me - I am extremely envious that I am not currently playing this great game.
No, my point is baseless accusations lack weight. Without examples of where I've been unreasonable, I haven't been unreasonable. That's how reason works.
My posts here are literally a call to reason. I'm literally asking for the logic/evidence-based reasons people think this should be removed.
If you provide that reason, then my implication that you're envious becomes similarly baseless. Without the reason, envy is the most logical reason someone would complain about someone else getting something.
You really dont see how disliking a game dev releasing a game with a founders pack and a monthly sub to test an unfinished game might be a model that upsets people. Not because they dont have the money, but because they think this is a morally wrong way to run a game company? You dont see how this could be made worse for some one who happens to love the IP and has had IPs he cares about run into the ground by a company that doesnt care about the people playing it as much as they do about trying to rake in money before they go belly up? Honestly Im not the OP I could care less about the IP, the game company trying this and the idea that companies are going further in this direction and not in the direction of giving people real value for money, that upsets me lol and it has nothing to do with envy, Im not sure how you could suggest envy is the first most logical conclusion. I just deleted the part I was really rude in, but your not being logical and you should read your post and consider the tone and if your really being logical and trying to bring reason or just assigning your own world views to other people and assuming what you feel is logical or something...
You can either believe what a majority of developers have done in the past, by charging players for early access to literally test the game for them, take the money and run, never finishing their game.
OR
You can believe that the developers are decent folks that are truly of the best interest in creating a tight community, and a great game built around that community.
Obviously it is hard to do this and we have seen it a lot in the past 5 years, when a developer abandons their project without notice.
It is hard to gauge who is being honest these days, and who is going to follow through with their promises - and that is the leap of faith some will take, if they share the same passion for the project that these developers do. Either that, or they are just plain stupid, and a sucker for punishment.
At the end of the day, joining an early access game whether it is free to join, or has a cost, it is still your choice. Is it worth investing your time, money, and energy into? Yes? Then go for it! No? Move on!
I remember when I was a kid and the only time I heard of new games is when my mom would drive me to Blockbuster to rent. Gamers are spoiled brats these days anyway - which is a totally separate topic.
I remember those blockbuster days. I also used to get excited going to Blockbuster and seeing what new games that i've never heard were available. My luck though, I would find a great game and someone already rented it lol.
Those were the days! Did any of you do this:
Back during the NES, SNES, N64 days the saves were saved directly onto the game cartridge. I use to use a marker to make a hash mark on the back of the case when i had to return it, then i would find that case (they use to keep them on the shelves) and pick my game right back up.
This is how I beat FF3 the first time before i got it for xmas
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.)
No, you're not being reasonable. You're being disingenuous.
Instead of discussing the topic, posting your own thoughts on the merits of the idea - of why charging subs for an unfinished game, or not just calling it what it is, is or isn't okay - you're making it about the individuals. You're taking the focus off the argument, and instead trying to make it about the people making the argument.
You're not being reasonable at all. You're being disruptive, and disrespectful.
But even at that... you've been given some very clearly written and well-argued reasons why people don't like this deal. How do you respond to them? Do you thank them for giving you a thought out response? No. You respond by dismissing what they said, and replacing it with an ad hominem. You are specifically told "it's not about the price", and you turn around and say (to paraphrase), "No, it's just that people want something for free".
So, even when you get a serious, good faith response to your (unnecessary) challenge, you're dishonest about it.
Why are you being so particularly obnoxious in this thread? Who knows. Maybe you have a personal interest in seeing developers start to charge subs for unfinished products. I have no idea what your problem is. But it does raise a red flag that you're so eager to avoid discussing the topic directly, and are so quick to dismiss valid replies, and replace them with BS.
In the end, this problem will right itself. They will live or die by their decision. While I don't agree with the choice they made and think it may hurt them in the end, its still their right to make it and people need to remember that. The game offers a 2 week trial, so no one is subbing blindly here.
The only problem I have with this whole situation is that people seem to think they must somehow holler loudly like an injustice has been committed and its somehow wrong for people to sell a game before its technically finished. At this point in time, its obviously necessary for some indie companies to call on their fans to keep their games in development, because investors are not interested in backing MMOs until they (with the help of players) prove that there is enough interest to warrant further investment.
Lets not go and make a bigger issue out of this than it needs to be, or it could be a game you like next time that is seeking money prior to launch and people may try and use this as an excuse to squelch it.
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
No, you didn't read my response if that's your only take-away from it.
That part is still true though (if you start a game late, your skill development will be faster as a result of being surrounded by more experienced players.)
If competition doesn't matter much to you, then you'll value your money and a finished product more than you value competition. You won't participate in early enrollment and you won't care.
If competition matters more in that comparison, you'll spend basically the same amount of money you're going to spend eventually, and have early access to that territory rush. Yes it'll involve playing a game with fewer features and more bugs, but in what game with ongoing live support has that ever not been the case? WOW at launch had tons of bugs and server crashes and didn't even have a queue system to handle the load properly. Except they didn't even call it "early access", they used an even cleverer marketing name, "World of Warcraft game launch."
In an unrealistic, unreasonable sense, if you join EVE online today it's like some other players bought a $1800+ 10-year XP pack that you don't have access to. Except it's not like that at all, and those players were simply early adopters of the game. Their advantages are the result of starting early, when the game was in a much buggier and feature-deprived state.
Earlier MMORPGs called this phase "launch", so in that respect PF calling it early enrollment (and warning about the exact state of the game) is actually far less marketing-speak than those earlier game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I cant help but think of MWO. I paid for my founders pack and found the game to be in a much better state then I expected. I then got to sit through update and update and update and update that brought no actual content to the game and just more items for the cash shop. I get that a company needs to make money, and I am okay with supporting a game that I believe in if the game doesnt have enough money to get published or created or whatever. I am not okay with a game company focusing more on making money and the cash shop then the actual game. I honestly think MWO is much less healthy then it could be because PGI decided to make the cash shop a priority over new maps and better game modes/match maker. I have friends who wont play the game and eventually I stopped playing it.
Just because a game company is setting up a founders program does not mean it is an indie company, just because they are asking for money doesnt mean they dont already have investors and the money to finish the game. A company that is already trying to make money before finishing a game is likely to piss of most of its community before it ever becomes a game. This model of making money before you make your game is making good games bad, and I think makes the company less money in the long run, assuming they ever planned to actually launch the game that is.
Not saying every case is this, like I said I paid for my founders pack and tried to stick it out with the game for a long time, I wanted to believe in the game and the company but the reality is that most companies that do the founders pack and set up a cash shop in closed beta/alpha are not trying to get money to finish the game but to make the investors happy lol customers should come before investors, especially when your asking customers to invest. I always knew it was a gamble, I just think most of us are tired of seeing our gamble never pay off, and are tired of wale hunting mmorpg companies at this point...
I feel the same way about Pathfinder as I felt about Trial of Ascension, the same as Xsyon, Pantheon, and ... it just goes down the line, pretty much. It's a bunch of shady business practices.
"The fastest way for bad people to succeed is for good people to say nothing."~ paraphrased
It's ok to say something if you don't like what you see happening.
Does it affect us? Sure. Why? I guess in the end, all things being equal, the most simple answer is, "because it does". I could lash out and insinuate the people trying to silence whistlep-blowers have their own nefarious ends, but that's not necessary. Maybe you just have trouble feeling.
The buck stops...where?
But also, where are we discussing this? Mmorpg.com doesn't care, they make money off page hits, advertisement revenue based on our participation. Bill Murphy laments being overly critical because he drinks beers with these guys. (Not digging for citation.) Sick people take curious people for rides and this place earns income from the footage of the train wrecks.
I could paste more links from this forum, I could type 20 paragraphs, and I almost did, but beating the idea into the ground isn't going to fix it. It's a mix of grandeur-delusional artistry and grey-area legality.
Great artists were great because of what people thought of their finished products, not because they charged people money per hour to watch them work. I see very little "great" around here lately.
I feel the same way about Pathfinder as I felt about Trial of Ascension, the same as Xsyon, Pantheon, and ... it just goes down the line, pretty much. It's a bunch of shady business practices.
"The fastest way for bad people to succeed is for good people to say nothing."~ paraphrased
It's ok to say something if you don't like what you see happening.
Does it affect us? Sure. Why? I guess in the end, all things being equal, the most simple answer is, "because it does". I could lash out and insinuate the people trying to silence whistlep-blowers have their own nefarious ends, but that's not necessary. Maybe you just have trouble feeling.
The buck stops...where?
But also, where are we discussing this? Mmorpg.com doesn't care, they make money off page hits, advertisement revenue based on our participation. Bill Murphy laments being overly critical because he drinks beers with these guys. (Not digging for citation.) Sick people take curious people for rides and this place earns income from the footage of the train wrecks.
I could paste more links from this forum, I could type 20 paragraphs, and I almost did, but beating the idea into the ground isn't going to fix it. It's a mix of grandeur-delusional artistry and grey-area legality.
Great artists were great because of what people thought of their finished products, not because they charged people money per hour to watch them work. I see very little "great" around here lately.
Absolutely true.
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
They're not morally wrong for charging. There is no moral dilemma here. They are up front about what they offer and that the game isn't complete.
The arguments all boil down to: we're upset that we have to pay, not because we can't, but because we don't want to. We want it for free. I've seen no other argument against this practice yet that doesn't boil down to that very point.
More like: we don't mind paying for a complete game. But when game companies put out half a game, while insisting it is a complete game, and then charging box+sub+cash shop, and THEN the CEO sends out their fanbois to tell people how great it is, that deserves a response.
If only to discourage the same behavior in the future.
They're not morally wrong for charging. There is no moral dilemma here. They are up front about what they offer and that the game isn't complete.
The arguments all boil down to: we're upset that we have to pay, not because we can't, but because we don't want to. We want it for free. I've seen no other argument against this practice yet that doesn't boil down to that very point.
I think my point was that I think that it is a negative practice for the most part, and while exceptions to every rule exist, most companies that are doing this type of thing are more or less running a scam that will never see the light of day. PFO creeps me out and I disapprove, and it has nothing to do with me not wanting to pay. I prefer the subscription model and I think I mentioned that before, I dislike a game trying to make a profit and keep its investors happy before it is even out of alpha. Honestly not having a wipe so people keep all the things they get in buggy alpha bothers me. This is not how companies should do things. It is likely dooming the game before it ever has a chance. No one is going to play an open world pvp type game when it goes live if everyone they are going up against has a few years of gear and an established base and stuff and making the "joke" that he could sell exp bundles... thats disgusting... I dont know much about the game but I cant believe this is the right thing for it to do, it should bother people that like games and want to see a return to making quality games and not churning out another scam or f2p wale hunting cash shop with a graphic based chat room they call a game...
Originally posted by Torval Then don't participate. Let others partake in their entertainment without your judgmental faux moralism. It's not a scam. Stop using that word. They are clear about what they offer and deliver. You not liking doesn't amount to immoral or fraudulent practices. The vendetta people have to prevent others from making their own choices amounts to fascism.
The vendetta people have to prevent others from making their own choices amounts to fascism? Really? How are we preventing others from making a choice? Wouldnt you say it is more fair to say we are sharing our opinion about the choice the game company is making. I never said it was wrong for people to spend money with these guys, rather that I think it is wrong for these guys to ask for money, and as a result they have put me off and I wont play. How is that wrong? Did you even take the time to consider how much of a hypocrite you are? After all you clearly have a vendetta to stop other people from making the choice to speak out against things they dont morally approve of, which is the same thing you accuse others of doing you silly silly person...
Let me help you understand what moral means... According to merriam-webster
: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
: based on what you think is right and good
: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior
I think most people would agree, asking people to pay for an unfinished product is iffy, but offering people the reward of having an unreasonable advantage over people who did not pay for an unfinished product, escalates it to unethical... You think the majority of players like and approve of P2W games? Most players at the moment dont think it is right to ask for a monthly sub, let alone a sub for an unfinished game... I really think it is okay for people to say they are morally bothered by this company, I think it is okay for you to say your not, but not to say we are wrong for saying we are... Seriously wtf man... You seem like you should be smarter then the things your saying... Are you just a really good troll? Are you getting me right now and im just to dumb to get it?
The company was good enough to give me an early access key to try it out. I appreciate they took the time to do so. Personally, the game was not my cup of tea. The camera angles were very awkward and I found the graphics very sub par. Was not feeling this game at all. Felt like a very cheap game and I can't see why this game has any hype at all. Maybe it's just me but I would not recommend this game at all to anyone.
More like: we don't mind paying for a complete game. But when game companies put out half a game, while insisting it is a complete game, and then charging box+sub+cash shop, and THEN the CEO sends out their fanbois to tell people how great it is, that deserves a response.
If only to discourage the same behavior in the future.
Well now you're either lying or your being willfully ignorant. Right on their website they state the game is incomplete and rough. That is immoral.
I agree it's not worth the money. I won't pay it. I don't think the game is that good. I also find the advertising push distasteful, but it's not immoral. People need to make that distinction, between their own preferences and what is actually right and wrong.
The agenda to determine what others can and should do with amoral entertainment, like I said in the post above, amounts to fascism.
HI! Here is the statement from the PFO CEO:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
So before you accuse others of lying or being willfully ignorant you should ASK people why they say it's a complete game and not in testing...
Again... to me the worst part is not allowing people to pay a box price, plus sub plus cash shop (some guy in the other thread talking about his $230 Small holding...) but it's the combination of that with NOT WIPING at open release. I did support the concept of the game... I paid something like $270 for multiple kickstarter accounts. I then realized that what they were in fact peddling was a system where you just paid money to give your character a year + edge in a time based XP system in an open world territory control PvP game. THAT is not something I support and have no problem saying so. I'd also never stop someone from coming to say they love the game and like the fact that they get to buy themselves a big character development edge. That's their call and I actually encourage them to come say so... because that's what makes the popcorn pop on forums like this. If we didn't have "WHY MY VIDEO GAME MATTERS" posts, it would be a very boring world.
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
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.
+1 Couldn't of said it better myself. Thanks for posting this.
I could understand it if you got 1 month Credit for every month you pay during alpha/beta. so if you pay for 6 months. you get 6 months Free when the game goes live.
so you'd essentially be prepaying for when it goes live. but paying a full sub for alpha? thats a bit naughty.
You can either believe what a majority of developers have done in the past, by charging players for early access to literally test the game for them, take the money and run, never finishing their game.
OR
You can believe that the developers are decent folks that are truly of the best interest in creating a tight community, and a great game built around that community.
Obviously it is hard to do this and we have seen it a lot in the past 5 years, when a developer abandons their project without notice.
It is hard to gauge who is being honest these days, and who is going to follow through with their promises - and that is the leap of faith some will take, if they share the same passion for the project that these developers do. Either that, or they are just plain stupid, and a sucker for punishment.
At the end of the day, joining an early access game whether it is free to join, or has a cost, it is still your choice. Is it worth investing your time, money, and energy into? Yes? Then go for it! No? Move on!
I remember when I was a kid and the only time I heard of new games is when my mom would drive me to Blockbuster to rent. Gamers are spoiled brats these days anyway - which is a totally separate topic.
I remember those blockbuster days. I also used to get excited going to Blockbuster and seeing what new games that i've never heard were available. My luck though, I would find a great game and someone already rented it lol.
Those were the days! Did any of you do this:
Back during the NES, SNES, N64 days the saves were saved directly onto the game cartridge. I use to use a marker to make a hash mark on the back of the case when i had to return it, then i would find that case (they use to keep them on the shelves) and pick my game right back up.
This is how I beat FF3 the first time before i got it for xmas
Good times, good times
That is actually a great idea and I'm sorry I didn't think of it as a kid lol. I guess it doesn't matter now, since blockbuster is only a fossil now.
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.)
No, you're not being reasonable. You're being disingenuous.
Instead of discussing the topic, posting your own thoughts on the merits of the idea - of why charging subs for an unfinished game, or not just calling it what it is, is or isn't okay - you're making it about the individuals. You're taking the focus off the argument, and instead trying to make it about the people making the argument.
You're not being reasonable at all. You're being disruptive, and disrespectful.
But even at that... you've been given some very clearly written and well-argued reasons why people don't like this deal. How do you respond to them? Do you thank them for giving you a thought out response? No. You respond by dismissing what they said, and replacing it with an ad hominem. You are specifically told "it's not about the price", and you turn around and say (to paraphrase), "No, it's just that people want something for free".
So, even when you get a serious, good faith response to your (unnecessary) challenge, you're dishonest about it.
Why are you being so particularly obnoxious in this thread? Who knows. Maybe you have a personal interest in seeing developers start to charge subs for unfinished products. I have no idea what your problem is. But it does raise a red flag that you're so eager to avoid discussing the topic directly, and are so quick to dismiss valid replies, and replace them with BS.
This is a very good response and basically how I'm feeling the longer I read this thread. He just doesn't seem to want to discuss anything. Just make use think that he is right and no one else has any credible points. Sounds like a real strong case of Dunning-kruger effect going on here.
More like: we don't mind paying for a complete game. But when game companies put out half a game, while insisting it is a complete game, and then charging box+sub+cash shop, and THEN the CEO sends out their fanbois to tell people how great it is, that deserves a response.
If only to discourage the same behavior in the future.
Well now you're either lying or your being willfully ignorant. Right on their website they state the game is incomplete and rough. That is immoral.
I agree it's not worth the money. I won't pay it. I don't think the game is that good. I also find the advertising push distasteful, but it's not immoral. People need to make that distinction, between their own preferences and what is actually right and wrong.
The agenda to determine what others can and should do with amoral entertainment, like I said in the post above, amounts to fascism.
HI! Here is the statement from the PFO CEO:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
So before you accuse others of lying or being willfully ignorant you should ASK people why they say it's a complete game and not in testing...
Again... to me the worst part is not allowing people to pay a box price, plus sub plus cash shop (some guy in the other thread talking about his $230 Small holding...) but it's the combination of that with NOT WIPING at open release. I did support the concept of the game... I paid something like $270 for multiple kickstarter accounts. I then realized that what they were in fact peddling was a system where you just paid money to give your character a year + edge in a time based XP system in an open world territory control PvP game. THAT is not something I support and have no problem saying so. I'd also never stop someone from coming to say they love the game and like the fact that they get to buy themselves a big character development edge. That's their call and I actually encourage them to come say so... because that's what makes the popcorn pop on forums like this. If we didn't have "WHY MY VIDEO GAME MATTERS" posts, it would be a very boring world.
How dare you show him facts you fascist! Lol, I honestly don't think he understands that word. It's almost like he heard it on fox news and it's the new buzz word on the forums ;-).
Maybe you shouldn't engage in Kickstarter and should read the risk assessment on the page before you throw away so much money with an expectation that a game is developed to your vision.
Funny. I have backed 10 Kickstarters that were funded and two underway (Starfighter Inc and Bard's Tale 4). Pretty sure I understand how they work. You can go find whatever other quotes you want. The point is if the CEO says:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
Then you can't call someone a liar for saying the same thing.
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
Comments
No, my point is baseless accusations lack weight. Without examples of where I've been unreasonable, I haven't been unreasonable. That's how reason works.
My posts here are literally a call to reason. I'm literally asking for the logic/evidence-based reasons people think this should be removed.
If you provide that reason, then my implication that you're envious becomes similarly baseless. Without the reason, envy is the most logical reason someone would complain about someone else getting something.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You really dont see how disliking a game dev releasing a game with a founders pack and a monthly sub to test an unfinished game might be a model that upsets people. Not because they dont have the money, but because they think this is a morally wrong way to run a game company? You dont see how this could be made worse for some one who happens to love the IP and has had IPs he cares about run into the ground by a company that doesnt care about the people playing it as much as they do about trying to rake in money before they go belly up? Honestly Im not the OP I could care less about the IP, the game company trying this and the idea that companies are going further in this direction and not in the direction of giving people real value for money, that upsets me lol and it has nothing to do with envy, Im not sure how you could suggest envy is the first most logical conclusion. I just deleted the part I was really rude in, but your not being logical and you should read your post and consider the tone and if your really being logical and trying to bring reason or just assigning your own world views to other people and assuming what you feel is logical or something...
Those were the days! Did any of you do this:
Back during the NES, SNES, N64 days the saves were saved directly onto the game cartridge. I use to use a marker to make a hash mark on the back of the case when i had to return it, then i would find that case (they use to keep them on the shelves) and pick my game right back up.
This is how I beat FF3 the first time before i got it for xmas
Good times, good times
No, you're not being reasonable. You're being disingenuous.
Instead of discussing the topic, posting your own thoughts on the merits of the idea - of why charging subs for an unfinished game, or not just calling it what it is, is or isn't okay - you're making it about the individuals. You're taking the focus off the argument, and instead trying to make it about the people making the argument.
You're not being reasonable at all. You're being disruptive, and disrespectful.
But even at that... you've been given some very clearly written and well-argued reasons why people don't like this deal. How do you respond to them? Do you thank them for giving you a thought out response? No. You respond by dismissing what they said, and replacing it with an ad hominem. You are specifically told "it's not about the price", and you turn around and say (to paraphrase), "No, it's just that people want something for free".
So, even when you get a serious, good faith response to your (unnecessary) challenge, you're dishonest about it.
Why are you being so particularly obnoxious in this thread? Who knows. Maybe you have a personal interest in seeing developers start to charge subs for unfinished products. I have no idea what your problem is. But it does raise a red flag that you're so eager to avoid discussing the topic directly, and are so quick to dismiss valid replies, and replace them with BS.
In the end, this problem will right itself. They will live or die by their decision. While I don't agree with the choice they made and think it may hurt them in the end, its still their right to make it and people need to remember that. The game offers a 2 week trial, so no one is subbing blindly here.
The only problem I have with this whole situation is that people seem to think they must somehow holler loudly like an injustice has been committed and its somehow wrong for people to sell a game before its technically finished. At this point in time, its obviously necessary for some indie companies to call on their fans to keep their games in development, because investors are not interested in backing MMOs until they (with the help of players) prove that there is enough interest to warrant further investment.
Lets not go and make a bigger issue out of this than it needs to be, or it could be a game you like next time that is seeking money prior to launch and people may try and use this as an excuse to squelch it.
No, you didn't read my response if that's your only take-away from it.
That part is still true though (if you start a game late, your skill development will be faster as a result of being surrounded by more experienced players.)
If competition doesn't matter much to you, then you'll value your money and a finished product more than you value competition. You won't participate in early enrollment and you won't care.
If competition matters more in that comparison, you'll spend basically the same amount of money you're going to spend eventually, and have early access to that territory rush. Yes it'll involve playing a game with fewer features and more bugs, but in what game with ongoing live support has that ever not been the case? WOW at launch had tons of bugs and server crashes and didn't even have a queue system to handle the load properly. Except they didn't even call it "early access", they used an even cleverer marketing name, "World of Warcraft game launch."
In an unrealistic, unreasonable sense, if you join EVE online today it's like some other players bought a $1800+ 10-year XP pack that you don't have access to. Except it's not like that at all, and those players were simply early adopters of the game. Their advantages are the result of starting early, when the game was in a much buggier and feature-deprived state.
Earlier MMORPGs called this phase "launch", so in that respect PF calling it early enrollment (and warning about the exact state of the game) is actually far less marketing-speak than those earlier game.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I cant help but think of MWO. I paid for my founders pack and found the game to be in a much better state then I expected. I then got to sit through update and update and update and update that brought no actual content to the game and just more items for the cash shop. I get that a company needs to make money, and I am okay with supporting a game that I believe in if the game doesnt have enough money to get published or created or whatever. I am not okay with a game company focusing more on making money and the cash shop then the actual game. I honestly think MWO is much less healthy then it could be because PGI decided to make the cash shop a priority over new maps and better game modes/match maker. I have friends who wont play the game and eventually I stopped playing it.
Just because a game company is setting up a founders program does not mean it is an indie company, just because they are asking for money doesnt mean they dont already have investors and the money to finish the game. A company that is already trying to make money before finishing a game is likely to piss of most of its community before it ever becomes a game. This model of making money before you make your game is making good games bad, and I think makes the company less money in the long run, assuming they ever planned to actually launch the game that is.
Not saying every case is this, like I said I paid for my founders pack and tried to stick it out with the game for a long time, I wanted to believe in the game and the company but the reality is that most companies that do the founders pack and set up a cash shop in closed beta/alpha are not trying to get money to finish the game but to make the investors happy lol customers should come before investors, especially when your asking customers to invest. I always knew it was a gamble, I just think most of us are tired of seeing our gamble never pay off, and are tired of wale hunting mmorpg companies at this point...
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/427965/page/1
I feel the same way about Pathfinder as I felt about Trial of Ascension, the same as Xsyon, Pantheon, and ... it just goes down the line, pretty much. It's a bunch of shady business practices.
"The fastest way for bad people to succeed is for good people to say nothing."~ paraphrased
It's ok to say something if you don't like what you see happening.
Does it affect us? Sure. Why? I guess in the end, all things being equal, the most simple answer is, "because it does". I could lash out and insinuate the people trying to silence whistlep-blowers have their own nefarious ends, but that's not necessary. Maybe you just have trouble feeling.
The buck stops...where?
But also, where are we discussing this? Mmorpg.com doesn't care, they make money off page hits, advertisement revenue based on our participation. Bill Murphy laments being overly critical because he drinks beers with these guys. (Not digging for citation.) Sick people take curious people for rides and this place earns income from the footage of the train wrecks.
I could paste more links from this forum, I could type 20 paragraphs, and I almost did, but beating the idea into the ground isn't going to fix it. It's a mix of grandeur-delusional artistry and grey-area legality.
Great artists were great because of what people thought of their finished products, not because they charged people money per hour to watch them work. I see very little "great" around here lately.
Or instead we could complain about it, and blast it, and not participate in it, and you could get over it?
Absolutely true.
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
More like: we don't mind paying for a complete game. But when game companies put out half a game, while insisting it is a complete game, and then charging box+sub+cash shop, and THEN the CEO sends out their fanbois to tell people how great it is, that deserves a response.
If only to discourage the same behavior in the future.
I think my point was that I think that it is a negative practice for the most part, and while exceptions to every rule exist, most companies that are doing this type of thing are more or less running a scam that will never see the light of day. PFO creeps me out and I disapprove, and it has nothing to do with me not wanting to pay. I prefer the subscription model and I think I mentioned that before, I dislike a game trying to make a profit and keep its investors happy before it is even out of alpha. Honestly not having a wipe so people keep all the things they get in buggy alpha bothers me. This is not how companies should do things. It is likely dooming the game before it ever has a chance. No one is going to play an open world pvp type game when it goes live if everyone they are going up against has a few years of gear and an established base and stuff and making the "joke" that he could sell exp bundles... thats disgusting... I dont know much about the game but I cant believe this is the right thing for it to do, it should bother people that like games and want to see a return to making quality games and not churning out another scam or f2p wale hunting cash shop with a graphic based chat room they call a game...
The vendetta people have to prevent others from making their own choices amounts to fascism? Really? How are we preventing others from making a choice? Wouldnt you say it is more fair to say we are sharing our opinion about the choice the game company is making. I never said it was wrong for people to spend money with these guys, rather that I think it is wrong for these guys to ask for money, and as a result they have put me off and I wont play. How is that wrong? Did you even take the time to consider how much of a hypocrite you are? After all you clearly have a vendetta to stop other people from making the choice to speak out against things they dont morally approve of, which is the same thing you accuse others of doing you silly silly person...
Let me help you understand what moral means... According to merriam-webster
: concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
: based on what you think is right and good
: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior
I think most people would agree, asking people to pay for an unfinished product is iffy, but offering people the reward of having an unreasonable advantage over people who did not pay for an unfinished product, escalates it to unethical... You think the majority of players like and approve of P2W games? Most players at the moment dont think it is right to ask for a monthly sub, let alone a sub for an unfinished game... I really think it is okay for people to say they are morally bothered by this company, I think it is okay for you to say your not, but not to say we are wrong for saying we are... Seriously wtf man... You seem like you should be smarter then the things your saying... Are you just a really good troll? Are you getting me right now and im just to dumb to get it?
HI! Here is the statement from the PFO CEO:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
So before you accuse others of lying or being willfully ignorant you should ASK people why they say it's a complete game and not in testing...
Again... to me the worst part is not allowing people to pay a box price, plus sub plus cash shop (some guy in the other thread talking about his $230 Small holding...) but it's the combination of that with NOT WIPING at open release. I did support the concept of the game... I paid something like $270 for multiple kickstarter accounts. I then realized that what they were in fact peddling was a system where you just paid money to give your character a year + edge in a time based XP system in an open world territory control PvP game. THAT is not something I support and have no problem saying so. I'd also never stop someone from coming to say they love the game and like the fact that they get to buy themselves a big character development edge. That's their call and I actually encourage them to come say so... because that's what makes the popcorn pop on forums like this. If we didn't have "WHY MY VIDEO GAME MATTERS" posts, it would be a very boring world.
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
+1 Couldn't of said it better myself. Thanks for posting this.
I could understand it if you got 1 month Credit for every month you pay during alpha/beta. so if you pay for 6 months. you get 6 months Free when the game goes live.
so you'd essentially be prepaying for when it goes live. but paying a full sub for alpha? thats a bit naughty.
That is actually a great idea and I'm sorry I didn't think of it as a kid lol. I guess it doesn't matter now, since blockbuster is only a fossil now.
This is a very good response and basically how I'm feeling the longer I read this thread. He just doesn't seem to want to discuss anything. Just make use think that he is right and no one else has any credible points. Sounds like a real strong case of Dunning-kruger effect going on here.
How dare you show him facts you fascist! Lol, I honestly don't think he understands that word. It's almost like he heard it on fox news and it's the new buzz word on the forums ;-).
Funny. I have backed 10 Kickstarters that were funded and two underway (Starfighter Inc and Bard's Tale 4). Pretty sure I understand how they work. You can go find whatever other quotes you want. The point is if the CEO says:
This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
Then you can't call someone a liar for saying the same thing.
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