Alpha One Explained in the Latest Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen Producer's Letter | MMORPG.com

System

Alpha One Explained in the Latest Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen Producer's Letter | MMORPG.com

What does Alpha One mean when it comes to Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen? In the latest Producer's Letter, Ben Dean, Project Producer, addresses exactly that.

Read the full story here

Slapshot1188

DROP THE NDA.
Honestly, once the Alpha starts just drop it and let people see what exists and follow along as you make progress.

saker

justmemyselfandi said:

Mars_OMG said:

Don't get peered pressure into doing things not ready for doing. Pantheon is no long just a game, it's a legacy from a great visionary.

More like a has-beens last fevered dream, but okay.

Wow, now that was just stone-cold cruel right there

goldwheat

So, no Alpha in 2021. Same as 2020. Same as 2019. Same as 2018. Same as 2017. Same as 2016. Same as 2015. And a failed Kickstarter in 2014.

That list of things they need to get completed for "Alpha 1" ? They won't be done that this year, not with the team they have. Oh well, maybe someone will take Valheim and turn it into an MMO. It runs on pretty much everything. :-D

bcbully

The first time i heard "alpha 1", Renfail said it...

ILLISET

Star Citizen will end up fully releasing before this. Luls

Kyleran

They don't really need to drop the NDA, it's many years away from release but it would be a good idea "reward" all levels of backers by letting them join in on the testing like CU has done.

Also it would likely get more folks to pledge if they knew it would give them access to try it out, especially the lower tier packages.

Slapshot1188

Kyleran said:

They don't really need to drop the NDA, it's many years away from release but it would be a good idea "reward" all levels of backers by letting them join in on the testing like CU has done.

Also it would likely get more folks to pledge if they knew it would give them access to try it out, especially the lower tier packages.

They certainly do not NEED to do anything except for what they promised.  But need and should are very different things.

IF they are making real progress then dropping the NDA can only help them.  The goodwill generated from seeing actual progress would be far greater than : Do you think we should cater to casual players?  Kind of threads.

Aenghas

I was on the Pantheon hype train early but now I don't actively seek out any news about it. I swore off of playing early builds of games after playing Crowfall a few years ago. I'm not about to ruin any good will I have towards this by pursuing it when it is half baked.

I thought Pantheon were doing a reasonable job showing new things in streams every few months. While feedback is necessary I think opening the floodgates for complete scrutiny can do more harm than good and can create a sense of entitlement amongst communities. Although it seems that can only be minimised or delayed, never entirely avoided.

Slapshot1188

Aenghas said:

I was on the Pantheon hype train early but now I don't actively seek out any news about it. I swore off of playing early builds of games after playing Crowfall a few years ago. I'm not about to ruin any good will I have towards this by pursuing it when it is half baked.



I thought Pantheon were doing a reasonable job showing new things in streams every few months. While feedback is necessary I think opening the floodgates for complete scrutiny can do more harm than good and can create a sense of entitlement amongst communities. Although it seems that can only be minimized or delayed, never entirely avoided.

Let me explain what happens. The game goes into Alpha and everyone who bought access now gets in. No matter what is stated in an NDA, those people go back to their friends and discuss and share info/screenshots, sometimes even accounts. Those friends tell their friends, etc...

Now things start to trickle out. In some cases accurate, and in other cases, like a game of telephone, what ends up in public has morphed from what it really is, or at least its presented in a hyper-dramatic kind of way (pro or con).

Reality is that once you get beyond a handful of people with access, any NDA does more harm than good.

Kumapon

What shocks me the most is that they want to implement "quality of life" changes when the "life" doesn't even exist... Who needs things like onboarding systems or skill loadouts when the essential part of the game isn't even tested. Albion added loadouts like 3 weeks ago is it... 3 or more years after release?

I understand that some work is a must to make this Alpha defend itself but I'm afraid they are focusing on incorrect areas and unnecessary delaying this very delayed project.

Finvega

I think the folks who hoping for this game to be what they want are going to be let down. I hope I am wrong, but the "feel" of the dev's development cycle and everything I have read about it spell trouble. Nothing I can put my finger on, just years of watching games get promoted and released.

Mendel

Rhoklaw said:

I've said it a million times before and I'll say it a million times again, I'm sure, but developers need to STOP making presentation videos with fancy graphics and animations simply to sell a barebones shell of a project.

As someone else already stated, look what Valheim accomplished in less than 3 years with less than 5 people the entire development. Is Valheim showing cutting edge graphics? Hell no, but the gameplay was pretty much spot on and THAT is what matters.

So tired of stupid development schemes and idiots who think showing gorgeous environments or visually stunning animations is going to convince people to buy their crap.

MAKE THE DAMN GAME and worry about looking pretty when you are actually close to LAUNCHING THE DAMN GAME.

Stop with the pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha videos.  Stop pandering to the streamers.  That's just another way of trying to sell the game before you make it.  Every man-hour of showing a streamer around what you have is one less man-hour you could be using to actually build the completed, functional game.   (And most of the streamer's videos *seem* to have 1 streamer and 4-5 developers.  A mere 10-15 man-hours may not seem like a lot, but it adds up, pretty quickly).

Kyleran

No way to be sure but I suspect the streamer videos help bring in additional funding which if so it makes sense why they put time into them.

Still better than SotAs beg a thon sessions for sure.

Theocritus

Kyleran said:

No way to be sure but I suspect the streamer videos help bring in additional funding which if so it makes sense why they put time into them.

Still better than SotAs beg a thon sessions for sure.

With these companies, in the end it always comes down to money.

Sovrath

Torval said:

Mendel said:

Rhoklaw said:

I've said it a million times before and I'll say it a million times again, I'm sure, but developers need to STOP making presentation videos with fancy graphics and animations simply to sell a barebones shell of a project.

As someone else already stated, look what Valheim accomplished in less than 3 years with less than 5 people the entire development. Is Valheim showing cutting edge graphics? Hell no, but the gameplay was pretty much spot on and THAT is what matters.

So tired of stupid development schemes and idiots who think showing gorgeous environments or visually stunning animations is going to convince people to buy their crap.

MAKE THE DAMN GAME and worry about looking pretty when you are actually close to LAUNCHING THE DAMN GAME.

Stop with the pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha videos.  Stop pandering to the streamers.  That's just another way of trying to sell the game before you make it.  Every man-hour of showing a streamer around what you have is one less man-hour you could be using to actually build the completed, functional game.   (And most of the streamer's videos *seem* to have 1 streamer and 4-5 developers.  A mere 10-15 man-hours may not seem like a lot, but it adds up, pretty quickly).

Ashes of Creation does a very similar thing in their live streams too and it drives me crazy. It's all carefully curated and presented. I wish these projects would stop the smoke and mirrors demo stuff and just open their test phase up to the people who purchased it. They're all years late ffs.

But why should they? It's marketing.

Get people excited about the project and then ask for money to finish it.

Opening up the project to people when there's very little to do in the project will just make people disinterested. Especially if there is a long way to go.

The whole crowdfunding model is predicated on the idea of making things seem exciting and convincing people to help make it a possibility.

Sovrath

Torval said:

Sovrath said:

Torval said:

Mendel said:

Rhoklaw said:

I've said it a million times before and I'll say it a million times again, I'm sure, but developers need to STOP making presentation videos with fancy graphics and animations simply to sell a barebones shell of a project.

As someone else already stated, look what Valheim accomplished in less than 3 years with less than 5 people the entire development. Is Valheim showing cutting edge graphics? Hell no, but the gameplay was pretty much spot on and THAT is what matters.

So tired of stupid development schemes and idiots who think showing gorgeous environments or visually stunning animations is going to convince people to buy their crap.

MAKE THE DAMN GAME and worry about looking pretty when you are actually close to LAUNCHING THE DAMN GAME.

Stop with the pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha videos.  Stop pandering to the streamers.  That's just another way of trying to sell the game before you make it.  Every man-hour of showing a streamer around what you have is one less man-hour you could be using to actually build the completed, functional game.   (And most of the streamer's videos *seem* to have 1 streamer and 4-5 developers.  A mere 10-15 man-hours may not seem like a lot, but it adds up, pretty quickly).

Ashes of Creation does a very similar thing in their live streams too and it drives me crazy. It's all carefully curated and presented. I wish these projects would stop the smoke and mirrors demo stuff and just open their test phase up to the people who purchased it. They're all years late ffs.

But why should they? It's marketing.

Get people excited about the project and then ask for money to finish it.

Opening up the project to people when there's very little to do in the project will just make people disinterested. Especially if there is a long way to go.

The whole crowdfunding model is predicated on the idea of making things seem exciting and convincing people to help make it a possibility.

They should open up the project to the people who paid for access already because they're years late on the promise. That is what I'm saying. They can still keep selling access, but stop with the whale gated tiers. They're not living up to their end of the timeline and bargain so I think the request is reasonable and the pressure to put up is justified.

Ah, I'm talking in general. Not particularly this project.

I would agree with you at this point it would be a good gesture to open it up. However ...

then you get the people who gave the initial larger amounts of money for that particular access so what do you do with them when they start complaining?

"Why did I give you 1K" for access when all I had to do was wait and get access for less money" and that sort of stuff.

Slapshot1188

Torval said:

Sovrath said:

Torval said:

Mendel said:

Rhoklaw said:

I've said it a million times before and I'll say it a million times again, I'm sure, but developers need to STOP making presentation videos with fancy graphics and animations simply to sell a barebones shell of a project.

As someone else already stated, look what Valheim accomplished in less than 3 years with less than 5 people the entire development. Is Valheim showing cutting edge graphics? Hell no, but the gameplay was pretty much spot on and THAT is what matters.

So tired of stupid development schemes and idiots who think showing gorgeous environments or visually stunning animations is going to convince people to buy their crap.

MAKE THE DAMN GAME and worry about looking pretty when you are actually close to LAUNCHING THE DAMN GAME.

Stop with the pre-pre-pre-pre-alpha videos.  Stop pandering to the streamers.  That's just another way of trying to sell the game before you make it.  Every man-hour of showing a streamer around what you have is one less man-hour you could be using to actually build the completed, functional game.   (And most of the streamer's videos *seem* to have 1 streamer and 4-5 developers.  A mere 10-15 man-hours may not seem like a lot, but it adds up, pretty quickly).

Ashes of Creation does a very similar thing in their live streams too and it drives me crazy. It's all carefully curated and presented. I wish these projects would stop the smoke and mirrors demo stuff and just open their test phase up to the people who purchased it. They're all years late ffs.

But why should they? It's marketing.

Get people excited about the project and then ask for money to finish it.

Opening up the project to people when there's very little to do in the project will just make people disinterested. Especially if there is a long way to go.

The whole crowdfunding model is predicated on the idea of making things seem exciting and convincing people to help make it a possibility.

They should open up the project to the people who paid for access already because they're years late on the promise. That is what I'm saying. They can still keep selling access, but stop with the whale gated tiers. They're not living up to their end of the timeline and bargain so I think the request is reasonable and the pressure to put up is justified.

I suspect they don’t for two reasons:

1. More people in = more bandwidth and costs (plus maybe it is so UN optimized it would be unplayable with more)
2. This would make the whales unhappy as they would be less special.

Iselin

Sovrath said:

But why should they? It's marketing.

Get people excited about the project and then ask for money to finish it.

But they already did that and and got the money. The tiers of donations were crafted with the idea that a certain level would get you into alpha.

What they do when they start playing games with names and pulling the pre-alpha category out their asses is simply delay that date where they need to let those higher tier backers in.

I'm not about to give them a pass 'cause it's good marketing to delay that date when backers finally get their hands on it indefinitely simply because it's more excitement and more donations.

Foreplay is only a good thing for a limited amount of time. There are other names for it after that.

TwistedSister77

Sometimes progress can not just be determined by what you see on screen or in a alpha release.  Work in progress type stuff.  Not defending this specific game,  and I know I'll get a lot of "feedback" for this post.

So I can understand NDA, because it doesn't represent nearly close to the final game.  Plus features might OMG, get stripped out.  We've seen plenty of rage about that before.

I stand by my personal policy to not KS fund or pay for alpha/beta access.  

MadCoderOne

VIP pledges start at 1000 dollars.....

lahnmir

Iselin said:

Sovrath said:

But why should they? It's marketing.

Get people excited about the project and then ask for money to finish it.

But they already did that and and got the money. The tiers of donations were crafted with the idea that a certain level would get you into alpha.

What they do when they start playing games with names and pulling the pre-alpha category out their asses is simply delay that date where they need to let those higher tier backers in.

I'm not about to give them a pass 'cause it's good marketing to delay that date when backers finally get their hands on it indefinitely simply because it's more excitement and more donations.

Foreplay is only a good thing for a limited amount of time. There are other names for it after that.

A bloody mess?

/Cheers,
Lahnmir