Pantheon/news?

Dullahan

Slapshot1188 said:

Heck I even pledged to Panthon on their Kickstarter at a level that would get me Alpha access.  My ability or desire to test a game has ZERO to do with my ability to pay large sums of money.

You're trying to invalidate the intention of others based on your own personal opinion.

The likelihood that someone will be more interested in helping is still, in fact, greater if they're invested. Just because it isn't for you doesn't change the way the rest of the world thinks.

The only better incentive you could give someone is to actually pay them to test, but I'm sure you will site a lazy person who doesn't actually do their job to overthrow that logic.

Slapshot1188

Dullahan said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Heck I even pledged to Panthon on their Kickstarter at a level that would get me Alpha access.  My ability or desire to test a game has ZERO to do with my ability to pay large sums of money.

You're trying to invalidate the intention of others based on your own personal opinion.

The likelihood that someone will be more interested in helping is still, in fact, greater if they're invested. Just because it isn't for you doesn't change the way the rest of the world thinks.

The only better incentive you could give someone is to actually pay them to test, but I'm sure you will site a lazy person who doesn't actually do their job to overthrow that logic.

No, actually I am doing no such thing.  It's actually YOU who are invalidating the intentions of others based on YOUR own personal opinion.   Someone who pays $100 to a game could certainly be a GREAT tester. So could someone that never paid a cent.  The ability to pay money is in no way related to the quality of testing they produce.  Since you feel that "in fact"  more money means better testing ability, please share those facts with me.  If someone can actually demonstrate a correlation I would love to see it.

wormed

Slapshot1188 said:

wormed said:

There is absolutely no correlation between people who don't pledge and quality testing/testers, either. Your argument is nonsense and simply contradicts itself. There's no correlation between pledging and testing ability, period.

Umm... exactly.  Thanks for making my point.  It was Aradune who stated that a reason they charge for testing is "To make sure you're serious about it"

Again.  I'm glad that you agree that there is no correlation between paying $100 for a game sight unseen and your testing capability.  Also, perhaps lost in your defensive overdrive was the clear statement that he could of course gate his game and test any way he wanted.  It's his game after all. heck he can and HAS gated pre-alpha at $1000.  I simply disagree with the assertion that paying or not paying to be a tester has any correlation to how good you would be.  Glad you agree with me.

Edit to add-  IMHO it would be better to just stick with his stated reason #2: "To help fund the game".  Just be honest about it.  Say, we think this is a commodity people are willing to pay for and as a start up we just need the money so it's a perk we throw in that our higher pledges get access to Pre-Alpha, Alpha and possibly beta based on their pledge amount.

I might not like that concept but it's a legit reason and totally understandable.  You will NEVER convince me that your testing ability is in any way shape or form tied to the amount of money you pledge or don't pledge.

He never really said that paying players make better testers. He simply said that at least people are serious enough to pay for alpha rather than some shmuck who isn't. Will he be a good tester? Maybe. Maybe not. However, it's still a better "gate" than not having it at all. 

Tamanous

The people who pledge are the target audience for the genre. They accepted the pitch and pledged to a specific type of game. Random testers throwing ideas at the devs from all different backgrounds is what you call a "f'ing bad idea".

The devs want their testers aligned with the concept. This is why backer beta testing exists.

Dullahan

Slapshot1188 said:

Dullahan said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Heck I even pledged to Panthon on their Kickstarter at a level that would get me Alpha access.  My ability or desire to test a game has ZERO to do with my ability to pay large sums of money.

You're trying to invalidate the intention of others based on your own personal opinion.

The likelihood that someone will be more interested in helping is still, in fact, greater if they're invested. Just because it isn't for you doesn't change the way the rest of the world thinks.

The only better incentive you could give someone is to actually pay them to test, but I'm sure you will site a lazy person who doesn't actually do their job to overthrow that logic.

No, actually I am doing no such thing.  It's actually YOU who are invalidating the intentions of others based on YOUR own personal opinion.   Someone who pays $100 to a game could certainly be a GREAT tester. So could someone that never paid a cent.  The ability to pay money is in no way related to the quality of testing they produce.  Since you feel that "in fact"  more money means better testing ability, please share those facts with me.  If someone can actually demonstrate a correlation I would love to see it.

Its not that complicated. Someone who pays has a vested interest in the success of the game. Common sense.

Amathe

Aradune said:  In fact, in the 'old' days, you really didn't announce much about your game until, say, a year or so before launch (you'd wait for the E3 before launch, line up a bunch of articles in the game media, etc.).  Before that you kept things internal.  

The best job of getting people interested early and building momentum from there was, in my opinion, done by Warhammer Online. I was totally convinced Warhammer would be the best game ever made.  My eventual disappointed expectations aside, I would track down whoever masterminded that campaign and hire him or her. 

Sinist

Amathe said:

Aradune said:  In fact, in the 'old' days, you really didn't announce much about your game until, say, a year or so before launch (you'd wait for the E3 before launch, line up a bunch of articles in the game media, etc.).  Before that you kept things internal.  

The best job of getting people interested early and building momentum from there was, in my opinion, done by Warhammer Online. I was totally convinced Warhammer would be the best game ever made.  My eventual disappointed expectations aside, I would track down whoever masterminded that campaign and hire him or her. 

I think VR is best suited to staying well away from mainstream tactics. I mean, how is warhammer doing right now? Oh wait.. it was cancelled.

Amathe

Sinist said:

Amathe said:

Aradune said:  In fact, in the 'old' days, you really didn't announce much about your game until, say, a year or so before launch (you'd wait for the E3 before launch, line up a bunch of articles in the game media, etc.).  Before that you kept things internal.  

The best job of getting people interested early and building momentum from there was, in my opinion, done by Warhammer Online. I was totally convinced Warhammer would be the best game ever made.  My eventual disappointed expectations aside, I would track down whoever masterminded that campaign and hire him or her. 

I think VR is best suited to staying well away from mainstream tactics. I mean, how is warhammer doing right now? Oh wait.. it was cancelled.

Because marketing and ultimate game success are the same thing?  Because two very different games can't benefit from similar marketing ideas? Or draw inspiration from them? Thanks also for pointing out that Warhammer was cancelled. I mean, who knew? 

Sinist

Amathe said:

Sinist said:

Amathe said:

Aradune said:  In fact, in the 'old' days, you really didn't announce much about your game until, say, a year or so before launch (you'd wait for the E3 before launch, line up a bunch of articles in the game media, etc.).  Before that you kept things internal.  

The best job of getting people interested early and building momentum from there was, in my opinion, done by Warhammer Online. I was totally convinced Warhammer would be the best game ever made.  My eventual disappointed expectations aside, I would track down whoever masterminded that campaign and hire him or her. 

I think VR is best suited to staying well away from mainstream tactics. I mean, how is warhammer doing right now? Oh wait.. it was cancelled.

Because marketing and ultimate game success are the same thing?  Because two very different games can't benefit from similar marketing ideas? Or draw inspiration from them? Thanks also for pointing out that Warhammer was cancelled. I mean, who knew? 

Is this a mainstream game? No? So why apply cheap mainstream marketing tactics to a crowd that can see it coming a mile away. By the way, all the hype with Paul and Warhamer, it had mine and my friends "BS" meters go on high. So, I don't think the crowd that style of marketing works for is what VR calls their "niche" crowd.