Don't think we're at the point of SC having no wipes in the future. It does meet the other two criteria, so if they announce no wipes, it's as good as gold per the aforementioned article/comments by Bill regarding assessing the quality of these products.
This is all utter BS.
A launched product is when the devs claim "what you are buying is what it IS", not "what you are buying is what it WILL be".
When what you are buying is what the product WILL be and is not at the moment you buy it, there is no launched product.
This is why early access games on steam are a launched product: because it disclaimed.
Don't think we're at the point of SC having no wipes in the future. It does meet the other two criteria, so if they announce no wipes, it's as good as gold per the aforementioned article/comments by Bill regarding assessing the quality of these products.
This is all utter BS.
A launched product is when the devs claim "what you are buying is what it IS", not "what you are buying is what it WILL be".
When what you are buying is what the product WILL be and is not at the moment you buy it, there is no launched product.
This is why early access games on steam are a launched product: because it disclaimed.
Again, that was the point of the conversation. If they aren't wiping player progression, the game is persistently available to play, and requires purchase to do so, it doesn't really matter what the developers call it. They're benefitting at the same rate as a released product, no wipes means that players are progressing through the content in the same manner as any other "gold" title.
On the contrary to your post, the entire point of the criteria was to avoid developers hiding behind the "it's not released yet!" shtick when they're profiting the same as if it were.
Again, that was the point of the conversation. If they aren't wiping player progression, the game is persistently available to play, and requires purchase to do so, it doesn't really matter what the developers call it. They're benefitting at the same rate as a released product, no wipes means that players are progressing through the content in the same manner as any other "gold" title.
On the contrary to your post, the entire point of the criteria was to avoid developers hiding behind the "it's not released yet!" shtick when they're profiting the same as if it were.
I find that nothing but a point entitled gamers are using to corner game developers.
You can't ignore the stage of development of a game of not being finished, polished and optimized that is being disclaimed because you feel it's one excuse.
That's literally the same silly reality we see in steam early access "let me buy this alpha then go submit negative reviews saying it lacks content and it lags and crashes". < For me, gamer entitlement ignoring what is disclaimed or implied.
I think the Alpha/Beta/etc terminology can't be ignored when it's being fairly applied.
On the contrary to your post, the entire point of the criteria was to avoid developers hiding behind the "it's not released yet!" shtick when they're profiting the same as if it were.
His "buddy" Richard Garriott uses the same smokescreen.
I wonder if they compare notes on the best methods for scamming people.
Again, that was the point of the conversation. If they aren't wiping player progression, the game is persistently available to play, and requires purchase to do so, it doesn't really matter what the developers call it. They're benefitting at the same rate as a released product, no wipes means that players are progressing through the content in the same manner as any other "gold" title.
On the contrary to your post, the entire point of the criteria was to avoid developers hiding behind the "it's not released yet!" shtick when they're profiting the same as if it were.
I find that nothing but a point entitled gamers are using to corner game developers.
You can't ignore the stage of development of a game of not being finished, polished and optimized that is being disclaimed because you feel it's one excuse.
That's literally the same silly reality we see in steam early access "let me buy this alpha then go submit negative reviews saying it lacks content and it lags and crashes". < For me, gamer entitlement ignoring what is disclaimed or implied.
Yet you're completely okay with devs attempting to hide behind the label to about objective criticism of a project they're offering just as if it were released. Look at ARK for a perfect example of how much bullshit that really is.
If they want to offer it in the manner of a released product, they can weather the criticism in the same manner. If they're choosing to accept money for the project and offer it persistently as-is, it can be judged as-is.
Your post translates to "this stinks of gamer entitlement, when it's the DEVS who should receive such entitlement!". No, no they shouldn't. Disclaimers mean diddly squat when they're marketing and offering the game in the same manner as a released product.
MadFrenchie said: Yet you're completely okay with devs attempting to hide behind the label to about objective criticism of a project they're offering just as if it were released. Look at ARK for a perfect example of how much bullshit that really is.
If they want to offer it in the manner of a released product, they can weather the criticism in the same manner. If they're choosing to accept money for the project and offer it persistently as is, it can be judged as is.
I'm not completely okay with that, neither I am with entitled gamers manipulating that to attack developers with.
When the terminology is fairly used, you can't ignore it to stand delusional expectations and then complain about it like it was never disclaimed. That's on you, not the devs.
It's like going to a shop buying a second-hand joystick that has a note saying one of the button jams, buy it, then go mad at the shop because of the button jams.
MadFrenchie said: Yet you're completely okay with devs attempting to hide behind the label to about objective criticism of a project they're offering just as if it were released. Look at ARK for a perfect example of how much bullshit that really is.
If they want to offer it in the manner of a released product, they can weather the criticism in the same manner. If they're choosing to accept money for the project and offer it persistently as is, it can be judged as is.
I'm not completely okay with that, neither I am with entitled gamers manipulating that to attack developers with.
When the terminology is fairly used, you can't ignore it to stand delusional expectations and then complain about it like it was never disclaimed. That's on you, not the devs.
It's like going to a shop buying a second-hand joystick that has a note saying one of the button jams, buy it, then go mad at the shop because of the button jams.
No, it isn't. They're choice to offer the incomplete product in the same manner as a released one. You're just placing all the responsibility for shitty marketing and development techniques on the gamers. It's silly.
Devs don't like the criticism? Don't offer a half-finished product up for purchase like it's a finished one. Easy peasy.
No, it isn't. They're choice to offer the incomplete product in the same manner as a released one. You're just placing all the responsibility for shitty marketing and development techniques on the gamers. It's silly.
And YOU have chosen to buy the incomplete product. Is SC as one Alpha game being advertised as not being one Alpha yet a released game?!
It's on the freaking defenition of the word!
How you can you buy one Alpha and then complain the alpha game you bought is incomplete and has the issues the defenition IMPLIES?!
No, it isn't. They're choice to offer the incomplete product in the same manner as a released one. You're just placing all the responsibility for shitty marketing and development techniques on the gamers. It's silly.
And YOU have chosen to buy the incomplete product. Is SC as one Alpha game being advertised as not being one Alpha yet a released game?!
It's on the freaking defenition of the word!
How you can you buy one Alpha and then complain the alpha game you bought has the issues the defenition IMPLIES?!
It isn't about it being an alpha, it's about them monetizing it and marketing it like it isn't.
They don't like it? Don't do it. Nobody needs their product. The industry sure doesn't, noted by the publishers' incredibly persistent lack of interest. If they want to hide behind that title while simultaneously asking for funds just the same as if it were completed, then they can be called on it.
As for your definition argument, it rings hollow. Games truly in alphas or betas don't release paid DLC, for example.
It isn't about it being an alpha, it's about them monetizing it and marketing it like it isn't.
They don't like it? Don't do it. Nobody needs their product. The industry sure doesn't, noted by the publishers incredibly persistent lack of interest. If they want to hide behind that title while simultaneously asking for funds just the same as if it were completed, then they can be called on it.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Buying what it is yet expecting something else, then complain about it.
The fact one Alpha is monetized is to me, irrelevant to the fact one Alpha is still one Alpha, and what is implied with it can't be ignored so you get to complain one unfinished game... is unfinished.
No, it isn't. They're choice to offer the incomplete product in the same manner as a released one. You're just placing all the responsibility for shitty marketing and development techniques on the gamers. It's silly.
And YOU have chosen to buy the incomplete product. Is SC as one Alpha game being advertised as not being one Alpha yet a released game?!
It's on the freaking defenition of the word!
How you can you buy one Alpha and then complain the alpha game you bought is incomplete and has the issues the defenition IMPLIES?!
Devs don't like the criticism? Don't offer a half-finished product up for purchase like it's a finished one. Easy peasy.
Unless the product is being sold as it is finished, if you don't want to play one half-finished product, don't buy it. Easy peasy.
Lol then why ever give anything a negative review? Every review should be glowing and just include a line at the end that says "but if you don't like it, don't buy it."
No, they're monetizing the product in a way that screams released product, despite any semantics attempted to make it seem less that way. They get assessed accordingly. Fair's fair.
Lol then why ever give anything a negative review? Every review should be glowing and just include a line at the end that says "but if you don't like it, don't buy it."
No, they're monetizing the product in a way that screams released product, despite any semantics attempted to make it seem less that way. They get assessed accordingly. Fair's fair.
Let's just see Ark Survival, they released incomplete DLC over one incomplete main game, but does that change the fact they still label both as incomplete and that you are buying the half-baked product and its half-baked DLC? I don't think it does.
The fact you might find what Ark did immoral and manipulative, sure we can say that, but that because of it you stand the right to have the expectation what you will play is a finished title, then that I won't agree with.
Do you know who fairly needs backlash for manipulating terminology?
Games that release as fully released games, yet they are broken, un-optimized and lack content just like what one would expect from one Alpha.
It isn't about it being an alpha, it's about them monetizing it and marketing it like it isn't.
They don't like it? Don't do it. Nobody needs their product. The industry sure doesn't, noted by the publishers incredibly persistent lack of interest. If they want to hide behind that title while simultaneously asking for funds just the same as if it were completed, then they can be called on it.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Buying what it is yet expecting something else, then complain about it.
The fact one Alpha is monetized is to me, irrelevant to the fact one Alpha is still one Alpha, and what is implied with it can't be ignored so you get to complain one unfinished game... is unfinished.
Sure. The point is, you're going off the words of the devs, the idea I'm describing goes off their actions. Namely, their actions in attempting to entice players into purchasing the product and hiding behind the label of testing for any criticism of the game. You don't want criticism? Don't let average Joe buy their way in before it's ready. The only folks thinking unrealistically here are the devs who think the average gamer gives a shit or is even knowledgeable enough to gauge a project in development. That's why, traditionally, companies don't take money from gamers for an incomplete product.
MadFrenchie said: Sure. The point is, you're going off the words of the devs, the idea I'm describing goes off their actions. Namely, their actions in attempting to entice players into purchasing the product and hiding behind the label of testing for any criticism of the game. You don't want criticism? Don't let average Joe buy their way in before it's ready. The only folks thinking unrealistically here are the devs who think the average gamer gives a shit or is even knowledgeable enough to gauge a project in development. That's why, traditionally, companies don't take money from gamers for an incomplete product.
To me the important point is that it is disclaimed and you are aware either what you are buying is said as a finished stable product or not.
Traditionally early access wasn't a thing, now even console gaming is doing it.
MadFrenchie said: Sure. The point is, you're going off the words of the devs, the idea I'm describing goes off their actions. Namely, their actions in attempting to entice players into purchasing the product and hiding behind the label of testing for any criticism of the game. You don't want criticism? Don't let average Joe buy their way in before it's ready. The only folks thinking unrealistically here are the devs who think the average gamer gives a shit or is even knowledgeable enough to gauge a project in development. That's why, traditionally, companies don't take money from gamers for an incomplete product.
To me the important point is that it is disclaimed and you are aware either what you are buying is said as a finished stable product or not.
Traditionally early access wasn't a thing, not even console gaming is doing it.
It's traditionally not a thing because companies don't want the masses playing the game before it's ready for this very reason. When companies start asking for cash as if the product were finished, offer the servers as if it were finished, and don't plan on wiping player progress, it's released to the public for consumption in all but name.
It's traditionally not a thing because companies don't want the masses playing the game before it's ready for this very reason. When companies start asking for cash as if the product were finished, offer the servers as if it were finished, and don't plan on wiping players progress, it's released to the public for consumption in all but name.
But if it is all put as what you are buying is not what the game is at that moment, then you are not buying a product that launched, that has to be accounted for.
When I go to Steam and buy one early access game, I know very well that unfinished game is the product, even if they are wiping progress and all that, it's really part of what is disclaimed as what is the product.
I think it is more about people actually NOT forgetting that the Company asked for donations promising a game released in 2014 in return.
and at the same time making sure to forget that they asked the community if they should dramatically increase the scope with all the unexpected funding.....
I guess it is to be expected to find a few remaining folks shaking their sticks in the air 'never forget 2014 release!'.
"A few remaining folks shaking their sticks in the air..."
As I mentioned earlier, you are a toxic poster.
Funny that CIG representative finds your post "insightful".
Just by posting I am a toxic poster this automatically makes you a toxic poster regardless of my position and to think this is your second offence makes you quite the troll. Have a little think about that
The reason bunny marks it insightful is because it is insightful and adds information to your post that you carefully left out. Carry on waving your stick, it won't change the facts surrounding your comments.
It's traditionally not a thing because companies don't want the masses playing the game before it's ready for this very reason. When companies start asking for cash as if the product were finished, offer the servers as if it were finished, and don't plan on wiping players progress, it's released to the public for consumption in all but name.
But if it is all put as what you are buying is not what the game is at that moment, then you are not buying a product that launched, that has to be accounted for.
When I go to Steam and buy one early access game, I know very well that unfinished game is the product, even if they are wiping progress and all that, it's really part of what is disclaimed as what is the product.
The point is, if they're not wiping progress, they're selling it, and the servers are open, it's in the same state as a released product as far as monetization, player progression, and availability is concerned. Sorry, but developers can be held to the same standard as other industry devs if they choose to present their product to the public in the same manner. Doesn't really matter what they call it.
If they don't want 'ignorant' gamers criticizing it before it's done, don't present it for sale to 'ignorant' gamers as if it's a finished product. Nobody cares about the disclaimer if they're taking the same cash and presenting the servers for permanent progression to those who have purchased the product.
The point is, if they're not wiping progress, they're selling it, and the servers are open, it's in the same state as a released product as far as monetization, player progression, and availability is concerned. Sorry, but developers can be held to the same standard as other industry devs if they choose to present their product to the public in the same manner. Doesn't really matter what they call it.
If they don't want 'ignorant' gamers criticizing it before it's done, don't present it for sale to 'ignorant' gamers as if it's a finished product. Nobody cares about the disclaimer if they're taking the same cash and presenting the servers for permanent progression to those who have purchased the product.
A product but not the finished product, if what you bought wasn't the product as it was on that moment, yet you are buying the finished to-be product, then you haven't got the product you paid for, hence it can't be considered released, that would imply you got what bought.
So no, that disclaimer is very important and I guess we'll have to disagree to oblivion about it.
The point is, if they're not wiping progress, they're selling it, and the servers are open, it's in the same state as a released product as far as monetization, player progression, and availability is concerned. Sorry, but developers can be held to the same standard as other industry devs if they choose to present their product to the public in the same manner. Doesn't really matter what they call it.
If they don't want 'ignorant' gamers criticizing it before it's done, don't present it for sale to 'ignorant' gamers as if it's a finished product. Nobody cares about the disclaimer if they're taking the same cash and presenting the servers for permanent progression to those who have purchased the product.
A product but not the finished product, if what you bought wasn't the product as it was on that moment, yet you are buying the finished to-be product, then you haven't got the product you paid for, hence it can't be considered released, that would imply you got what bought.
So no, that disclaimer is very important and I guess we'll have to disagree to oblivion about it.
Nope, there's no legal guarantee that the "to-be" product will ever exist, and you yourself are adamant that nobody should be disappointed if it doesn't. As such, the only thing guaranteed is the game in the state it's in when the purchase is made. Erego, it will be judged as such.
Nope, there's no legal guarantee that the "to-be" product will ever exist, and you yourself are adamant that nobody should be disappointed if it doesn't. As such, the only thing guaranteed is the game in the state it's in when the purchase is made. Erego, it will be judged as such.
Yes there is. When you buy something that doesn't exist yet, you are buying as to-be, even if there is an earlier playable version yet you are buying the final version stated to have X, Y and Z features that are not available at that moment, the product that exists, is not the product that you bought, it's not released.
Nope, there's no legal guarantee that the "to-be" product will ever exist, and you yourself are adamant that nobody should be disappointed if it doesn't. As such, the only thing guaranteed is the game in the state it's in when the purchase is made. Erego, it will be judged as such.
Yes there is. When you buy something that doesn't exist yet, you are buying as to-be, even if there is an earlier playable version yet you are buying the final version stated to have X, Y and Z features that are not available at that moment, the product that exists, is not the product that you bought, it's not released.
Then there would be legal repercussions for failing to finish. There isn't. And folks insist there shouldn't be. As such, if the game is being presented in a manner consistent with a released product, it can and should be judged as such.
Then, if the developer does get around to finishing it like they said, consumers can reassess.
Then there would be legal repercussions for failing to finish. There isn't. And folks insist there shouldn't be. As such, if the game is being presented in a manner consistent with a released product, it can and should be judged as such.
Then, if the developer does get around to finishing it like they said, consumers can reassess.
There is a liability when there is not a disclaimer that you are buying as it is (just as steam early access), it can never be released if what you are selling is not available.
Comments
A launched product is when the devs claim "what you are buying is what it IS", not "what you are buying is what it WILL be".
When what you are buying is what the product WILL be and is not at the moment you buy it, there is no launched product.
This is why early access games on steam are a launched product: because it disclaimed.
Oh right, sorry. I only know it by its working title, "The Chris Roberts Wealth Managment Fund"
~~ postlarval ~~
On the contrary to your post, the entire point of the criteria was to avoid developers hiding behind the "it's not released yet!" shtick when they're profiting the same as if it were.
You can't ignore the stage of development of a game of not being finished, polished and optimized that is being disclaimed because you feel it's one excuse.
That's literally the same silly reality we see in steam early access "let me buy this alpha then go submit negative reviews saying it lacks content and it lags and crashes". < For me, gamer entitlement ignoring what is disclaimed or implied.
I think the Alpha/Beta/etc terminology can't be ignored when it's being fairly applied.
I wonder if they compare notes on the best methods for scamming people.
~~ postlarval ~~
If they want to offer it in the manner of a released product, they can weather the criticism in the same manner. If they're choosing to accept money for the project and offer it persistently as-is, it can be judged as-is.
Your post translates to "this stinks of gamer entitlement, when it's the DEVS who should receive such entitlement!". No, no they shouldn't. Disclaimers mean diddly squat when they're marketing and offering the game in the same manner as a released product.
Way to late in the game to hide behind the alpha excuses.
When the terminology is fairly used, you can't ignore it to stand delusional expectations and then complain about it like it was never disclaimed. That's on you, not the devs.
It's like going to a shop buying a second-hand joystick that has a note saying one of the button jams, buy it, then go mad at the shop because of the button jams.
That's entitlement, not reason.
Devs don't like the criticism? Don't offer a half-finished product up for purchase like it's a finished one. Easy peasy.
It's on the freaking defenition of the word!
How you can you buy one Alpha and then complain the alpha game you bought is incomplete and has the issues the defenition IMPLIES?!
Unless the product is being sold as it is finished, if you don't want to play one half-finished product, don't buy it. Easy peasy.
They don't like it? Don't do it. Nobody needs their product. The industry sure doesn't, noted by the publishers' incredibly persistent lack of interest. If they want to hide behind that title while simultaneously asking for funds just the same as if it were completed, then they can be called on it.
As for your definition argument, it rings hollow. Games truly in alphas or betas don't release paid DLC, for example.
Buying what it is yet expecting something else, then complain about it.
The fact one Alpha is monetized is to me, irrelevant to the fact one Alpha is still one Alpha, and what is implied with it can't be ignored so you get to complain one unfinished game... is unfinished.
No, they're monetizing the product in a way that screams released product, despite any semantics attempted to make it seem less that way. They get assessed accordingly. Fair's fair.
The fact you might find what Ark did immoral and manipulative, sure we can say that, but that because of it you stand the right to have the expectation what you will play is a finished title, then that I won't agree with.
Do you know who fairly needs backlash for manipulating terminology?
Games that release as fully released games, yet they are broken, un-optimized and lack content just like what one would expect from one Alpha.
Traditionally early access wasn't a thing, now even console gaming is doing it.
When I go to Steam and buy one early access game, I know very well that unfinished game is the product, even if they are wiping progress and all that, it's really part of what is disclaimed as what is the product.
The reason bunny marks it insightful is because it is insightful and adds information to your post that you carefully left out. Carry on waving your stick, it won't change the facts surrounding your comments.
If they don't want 'ignorant' gamers criticizing it before it's done, don't present it for sale to 'ignorant' gamers as if it's a finished product. Nobody cares about the disclaimer if they're taking the same cash and presenting the servers for permanent progression to those who have purchased the product.
So no, that disclaimer is very important and I guess we'll have to disagree to oblivion about it.
Then, if the developer does get around to finishing it like they said, consumers can reassess.
There's a product, not the product.